Clark v. Gilstrap
The statute of limitations for a personal injury claim under ORS 12.110(1) is subject to the “discovery rule,” such that the statute of limitations does not begin until a plaintiff knows or reasonably should have known that they were injured and that the defendant caused the injury.
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
Majhor and Majhor
“When both parties’ testimony suggests that a party considered an asset to be separate property, and the trial court specifically addressed whether that party had rebutted the presumption of equal contribution, that argument has been sufficiently preserved”. Davis and Davis, 268 Or App 679, 685 n 4 (2025). “On its own, the length of a marriage ‘is not an equitable consideration’ on which to award separate property to the other spouse in the ‘just and proper’ property division”. Brush and Brush, 319 Or App 1, 11 (2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. B. I. Z. V.
Under ORS 163.165(1)(e), a person commits third-degree assault when the person “while being aided by another person actually present, intentionally or knowingly causes physical injury to another.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Orvis
“To that end, "inquiring into the prospective jurors' potential interest or bias in a case is a legitimate way of selecting fair-minded individuals to serve on the jury." That means that jury selection necessarily "entails an inherent risk that the panel of prospective jurors will be exposed to information revealed by individual prospective jurors who are excused from the panel for cause." State v. Evans, 344 Ore. 358 (2008).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Quebrado
“When a motion for mistrial is not made immediately following the objectionable act, such a motion may nevertheless be timely and preserved if ‘no significant lapse of time, no additional testimony, no recess, and no discussion of another issue’ took place.” State v. Larson, 325 Or 15, 22 (1997).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Skotland
To preserve an issue on appeal, the defendant must have adequately explained the basis of their objection at the lower court.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Roberts and Roberts
“In determining whether to terminate spousal support, the court must consider the purpose of the support award and whether it has been satisfied.” Rubey and Rubey, 165 OR App 616, 621 (2000).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. A. E. A.
ORS 419C.450(1)(a) requires the juvenile court to award restitution for “injury, loss or damage” caused by the adjudicated youth and suffered by the victim. The juvenile court must award restitution when there is sufficient evidence of criminal activity, economic damages, and a causal relationship between the criminal activity and the economic damages. State v. C. A. M.-D., 312 Or App 4.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Martin-Thanislaus
A conspiracy to commit a crime requires proof that, with the requisite intent, two or more people agreed to commit a crime punishable as a felony. ORS 161.450(1). A conspiracy to tamper with a witness requires proof that a person agreed (and intended) to seek to induce a witness either to offer false sworn testimony in an official proceeding or to unlawfully withhold sworn testimony in such a proceeding. ORS 162.285
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Walker
ORS 162.285(1)(a) provides that a person commits the crime of witness tampering if the person “knowingly induces or attempts to induce a witness or a person the person believes may be called as a witness to offer false testimony or unlawfully withhold any testimony.” Read in context, “unlawfully” modifies the phrase “withhold any testimony,” indicating that the legislature intended to exempt behavior such as advising a witness to exert a lawful privilege. State v. Bailey, 346 Or 551 (2009).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Sutherland v. Fhuere
“To succeed on a claim of inadequate assistance of counsel under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution, petitioner must show by a preponderance of the evidence facts demonstrating that (1) counsel failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment,” and (2) counsel’s failure prejudiced petitioner, meaning “counsel’s failure had a tendency to affect the result of [the] trial,” commonly referred to as the deficiency and prejudice prongs. Bacon v. Cain, 327 Or App 673 (2023).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Barrett v. Board of Parole
ORS 144.079 and ORS 144.783 provide that the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision can sum and unsum consecutive prison terms only if none of the crimes involved is aggravated murder.
Area(s) of Law:- Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
Central Oregon Landwatch v. Jefferson County
he criteria under OAR 660-004-0020(4) do not apply where a proposal does not seek to have land added to a designated unincorporated rural community.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Kharma and Aljundi
Any action, suit, or proceeding may be prosecuted or defended by a party in person, or by attorney, unless otherwise specifically provided by law. ORS 9.320. Thus, in a dissolution trial, a party can forego appearing in person and may be represented by an attorney instead.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
McGeehan v. Cunningham
“To show that circumstances detrimental to the child exist if relief is denied, the nonparent must demonstrate that the circumstances of living with the legal parent post a serious present risk of psychological, emotional, or physical harm to the child”. G.J.L. v. A.K.L., 244 Or App 523, 532.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Petix v. Gillingham
The remedies under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act only apply to claims against transferees or debtors.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
State v. Atwood
“A person commits the offense of driving a motor vehicle while using a mobile electronic device if the person, while driving a motor vehicle on a highway or premises open to the public: (a) Holds a mobile electronic device in the person’s hand; or (b) uses a mobile electronic device for any purpose.” ORS 811.507(2).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Besson
There is little likelihood that an error affects the trial court’s verdict when the jury would understand that the appellant’s failure to be aware that the property stolen was at least $100 was a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise under those circumstances.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Butterfield
“For defendant to have lawfully used deadly force against the victims in self-defense, he must have reasonably believed that the person harmed was committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened the use of physical force against him, ORS 161.219(1), and that the degree of force that defendant used was necessary to defend himself, ORS 161.209”. State v. Cox, 329 Or App 228, 234.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. M.M.-B.
"The court shall also advise the person of the right to subpoena witnesses and to suitable legal counsel possessing skills and experience commensurate with the nature of the allegations and complexity of the case during the proceedings…” ORS 427.265(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. M.M.-B.
“The court shall also advise the person of the right to subpoena witnesses and to suitable legal counsel possessing skills and experience commensurate with the nature of the allegations and complexity of the case during the proceedings…” ORS 427.265(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
Brown v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC.
A hospital may be a "seller" that is "engaged in the business of selling" if it administers a dangerous, defective drug while providing healthcare services, and thus subject to strict products liability under the terms of ORS 30.920(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
Dept. of Human Services v. M.A.Z.
Under ORS 419B.476(2)(a), a court may change a child’s permanency plan from reunification to guardianship if DHS makes reasonable efforts toward reunification and the parent's progress remains insufficient.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Perkins v. Fhuere
Counsel’s failure to object to the trial court’s enhanced sentences based on “judicially-found facts, instead of jury-found facts as required under Appendi v. New Jersey * * * entitle[s] [petitioner] to a new sentencing proceeding pertaining to those counts.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law