Dept. of Human Services v. J.M.-A.
Terminating child's relationship with Father was not in the child's best interest where “[t]he record does not suggest that father had meaningful opportunities to coordinate directly with providers… [and does] not reflect any attempt to coordinate with or accommodate father’s working schedule or other obligations and place the burden entirely on father to appear as directed.”
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Harrison v. Mazza
A court-appointed custody evaluator that is directed to investigate and evaluate the custody situation, and inform the court of the best interests of the child, is under the authority of the court and thus receives judicial immunity.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
In re Marriage of Daniel-Elliot and Daniel
“When a trial court determines that a property provision of a dissolution judgment is ambiguous, it is permitted to explain the meaning or the intent of that existing ambiguous provision, but it is not permitted to make substantive changes to the original terms of the judgment.”
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Lehman v. Board of Parole
Except as provided in ORS 137.635 [concerning repeat offenders], each inmate sentenced to the custody of the department for felonies committed on or after November 1, 1989, shall be eligible for a reduction in the term of incarceration for appropriate institutional behavior, as defined by rule of the Department of Corrections.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. E.S.
ORS 419.478(1) requires written findings to create a nexus between the youth’s issues and the benefits they would receive by being placed with OYA instead of remaining with their family.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Mendell
“[A] license plate is illegally altered for purposes of ORS 803.550 if it is altered, modified, covered or obscured in any manner, including but not limited to the placement of any material or covering over or in front of the plate that alters the appearance of the plate.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Nolan
In circumstances where a police interview is conducted at the accused’s home, the interview lasts just over an hour, the officers apply minimal pressure to the accused, and where the accused is still free to terminate the interview, there are no compelling circumstances under State v. Roble-Baker.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Wilson
Under ORS 137.123(5)(b), a sentencing court has discretion to impose consecutive sentences for separate convictions arising out of a continuous and uninterrupted course of conduct only if it finds that the criminal offense for which a consecutive sentence is contemplated "caused or created a risk of causing greater or qualitatively different loss, injury or harm to the victim or caused or created a risk of causing loss, injury or harm to a different victim than was caused or threatened by the other offense or offenses committed during a continuous and uninterrupted course of conduct."
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Central Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes Cty.
“ORS 197.015(10)(e)(B) provides that the term land use decision ‘does not include any local decision or action taken on an application subject to ORS 215.427 or 227.178 after a petition for a writ of mandamus has been filed under ORS 215.429 or 227.179”. ORS 197.015(10)(e)(B).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Nava v. SAIF
"An insurer 'unreasonably delays' payment of compensation for purposes of ORS 656.262(11) if, at the time compensation is due, the insurer had no legitimate doubt regarding its liability for the compensation." Snyder v. SAIF, 287 Ore. App. 361.
Polonsky v. Washington County
"The reasonable time for challenging the decision of the Secretary of State—including her failure to decide—whether a proposed initiative violates the 'one subject only' rule of Oregon Constitution, Article IV, section 1(2)(d), expires on the 60th day following final approval of the ballot title." Ellis v. Roberts, 302 Or 6.
Area(s) of Law:- Election Law
State v. Graham
In the specific context of prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument, for an error to be “plain,” it must be “beyond dispute that the prosecutor’s comments were so prejudicial as to have denied defendant a fair trial.” State v. Chitwood, 370 Or 305.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. North
ORS 161.215(1) bars self-defense claims where the defendant either provoked the victim to act or was the initial aggressor.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Schay-Vivero
“We remanded for resentencing because … the trial court ‘did not address per diem fees at the sentencing hearing’. In doing so in Barr, we rejected arguments by the state that any error in the imposition of per diem fees was harmless or moot.” State v. Barr, 331 Or App 242, 244 (2024).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Washington v. Kelly
Post-conviction relief is warranted when there has been a "substantial denial" of a petitioner's "rights under the Constitution of the United States, or under the Constitution of the State of Oregon, or both, and which denial rendered the conviction void." ORS 138.530(1)(a).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. C. T.
If the person is being involuntarily detained before a hearing on the issue of commitment, the right under paragraph (a) of this subsection to contact an attorney or under paragraph (b) of this subsection to have an attorney appointment may be exercised as soon as reasonably possible. ORS 426.100(3)(e)
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
State v. Fasasi
To avoid merger, repeated violations of the same statutory provision against the same victim must be separated from other such violations by a sufficient pause in the defendant's criminal conduct to afford the defendant an opportunity to renounce the criminal intent. ORS 161.067(3)
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
In the Marriage of Boyd and Boyd
“An award of child support is intended to benefit the child… By contrast, a discretionary award of attorney fees, such as the one at issue here, is for the benefit of the other party.” ORS 25.275(2)(a); ORS 197.135(8).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Lockner v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Oregon
“Under Oregon law, the purpose of an exclusion in an insurance policy is to eliminate coverage that, were it not for the exclusion, would otherwise exist.” ZRZ Realty v. Beneficial Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 222 Ore. App. 473
Area(s) of Law:- Insurance Law
Schultz v. Scott
“[T]he legislature intended courts applying ORS 90.427(5)(c) to focus on how the landlord intends to occupy the space in order to determine whether the landlord intends to occupy ‘the dwelling unit as a primary residence.’”
Area(s) of Law:- Landlord Tenant
State v. Soto-Sarabia
“Probable cause exists when the facts, as set forth in the affidavit, along with any reasonable inferences, could ‘permit a neutral and detached magistrate to determine that seizable evidence probably would be found at the place to be searched”. State v. Castilleja, 345 Or 255, 269 (2008).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. W. B.
“Under the current version of [ORS 45.400]… the court’s decision whether to allow remote location testimony remains a matter of discretion, even when a witness’s testimony may be outcome-determinative.”
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
State v. Willis
A person with a qualifying marijuana conviction may apply to the court in which the judgment of conviction was entered for entry of an order setting aside the conviction as provided in this section. “Qualifying marijuana conviction” means a conviction for a marijuana offense: For which the person has completed and fully complied with or performed the sentence of the court. ORS 475C.397(7)(b).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. Wolcott
“[The Court has] discretion to correct an unpreserved error only if it is an error of law, the legal point is obvious and not reasonably in dispute, and it appears on the face of the record.” ORAP 5.45(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure