State v. Fernandez
A sentencing court errs in “ranking the crime seriousness classification of the current crime… when it misapplies the rules of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission regarding the crime seriousness scale that are part of the felony sentencing guidelines.”
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Rose
A warrant must be specific enough to allow an officer to identify with reasonable effort the place to be searched and the items to be seized. Under the Johnson framework, "the defendant has the initial burden to establish a minimal factual nexus between the illegality and the challenged evidence."
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Smith
The “Chitwood analysis [requires] prosecutorial misconduct so severe that the only permissible remedy was for the trial court to grant a mistrial.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Whitelock
“To be objectively reasonable, ‘the officer’s safety concerns must be based on facts specific to the particular person searched, not on intuition or a generalized fear that the person may pose a threat to the officer’s safety’”. State v. Davis, 282 Or App 660, 667 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Yocom
Former ORS § 802.093 (2021) did not make the 2020 traffic stop invalid for lack of probable cause because ORS 810.410(3)(b) authorizes police to stop a person for a traffic violation and investigate the violation even when the officer is not authorized to issue a citation.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Weaver v. Highberger
A trial court's termination of continuing jurisdiction in a habeas case is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Juarez-Hernandez
Under Article 1, Section 11 of the Oregon Constitution, a defendant has the right “to be heard by himself and counsel,” including during a sentencing hearing. However, a defendant must indicate he wishes to speak.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Ribas
"[T]he state was required to prove that defendant did not report by the 10th day after a change of residence—in other words . . . that defendant moved on or before February 15."
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Barrera v. Employment Dept.
Under ORS 657.176(2)(a), a person is disqualified from receiving benefits if the Employment Department finds that the person "[h]as been discharged for misconduct connected with work[.]" The department defines misconduct to be "a willful or wantonly negligent violation of the standards of behavior which an employer has the right to expect of an employee[.]" OAR 471-030-0038(3)(a).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
State v. P.D.
To satisfy the statutory standard under ORS 426.130 and ORS 426.005(1)(f)(B), “the state must prove two things: (1) that the individual’s inability to provide for their basic personal needs puts them at a ‘non-speculative risk of serious physical harm’ and (2) that the serious physical harm is likely to occur ‘in the near future.’” State v. M.A.E., 299 Or App 231, 240 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
State v. Sevits
“[B]efore conducting an inventory of a vehicle in a noncriminal and nonemergency context … police must give occupants who are present and not under arrest notice that they may retrieve readily removable personal belongings before an inventory is conducted.” State v. Fulmer, 366 OR 224, 460 P3d 486 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Thomsen v. Board of Parole
The board’s charge under ORS 163A.100 is to classify sex offenders into one of three notification levels based on their risk of reoffending at the time of the assessment. The 2013 Legislative Assembly, which enacted ORS 163A.100, intentionally enacted “a statute that tasked the board with assessing present risk.”
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
YRC Worldwide, Inc. v. Corrigan
We are further persuaded that, in light of the statute’s enactment history and the removal of a “living apart” requirement from the first sentence, the legislature did not intend “living separate and apart” to be a prerequisite under the first sentence of the statute.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Bean v. Oregon Health Authority
Under OAR 309-114-0010(1)(b)(C), a state institution may administer that medication to a patient without the patient’s informed consent for “good cause” by demonstrating the three factors relevant under OAR 309-114-0020(1)(a)-(c).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Creekside Valley Farms v. Dept. of Agriculture
“Implicit in the requirement that orders be supported by substantial evidence is an additional requirement that they be supported by substantial reason. An order is supported by substantial reason when it articulates a rational connection between the facts and the legal conclusions it draws from them…”. SAIF v. Coria, 371 Or 1, 12 (2023).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Dept. of Human Services v. M. B.
Agency efforts are reviewed by focusing on DHS's conduct, measuring the reasonableness of those efforts through the lens of the adjudicated bases for jurisdiction, and basing the review on the totality of the circumstances. Parental progress toward safe family reunification is measured by what the parent has done to ameliorate the circumstances that led to juvenile court jurisdiction. ORS 419B.476(2)(a).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Fitzgerald v. Rogue Agrisource LLC
"Clerical mistakes in judgments, orders, or other parts of the record and errors therein arising from oversight or omission may be corrected by the court at any time on its own motion or on the motion of any party and after such notice to all parties who have appeared, if any, as the court orders." ORCP 71 A.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Ruiz
"Under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life" means "unconcern in a very high degree, exceeding the ordinary, that an act might cause the death of a human being." State v. Downing, 276 Ore. App. 68 (2016). By its plain text and with limited exception, OAR 213-008-0002(2) prohibits using factual aspects that serve as an element of a crime to justify a departure sentence for that crime.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Wilson
“There are three prerequisites for the imposition of restitution as part of a defendant’s criminal sentence: (1) criminal activities, (2) economic damages, (3) a causal relationship between the criminal activity and the economic damages”. State v. Kirkland, 268 Or App, 420, 424 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law