Breidenthal and Breidenthal
"The trial court's ultimate determination as to what property division is 'just and proper in all the circumstances' is a matter of discretion," and will not be disturbed unless the court concludes "that the trial court misapplied the statutory and equitable considerations that ORS 107.105(1)(f) requires."
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Fort Klamath Critical Habitat Landowners v. Woodcock
Under ORS 183.484, the circuit court reviews the record for substantial evidence to determine "whether the evidence would permit a reasonable person to make the determination that the agency made in a particular case."
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Jared v. Harmon
“Any provisions of this section that reasonably apply only to a structure that is used as a home, do not apply to a recreational vehicle where the tenant owns the recreation vehicle, rents the space and, in the case of a dwelling or home, the space is not in a facility.” ORS 90.320(3).
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
Karplyuk v. State
Timing of the filing and prompt resolution of a case play a role in whether or not to grant a motion for leave to amend a post-conviction complaint.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. England
“As defendant acknowledges, we have previously held that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not required in revocation proceedings—rather, "proof by a preponderance of the evidence is sufficient." State v. Fortier, 20 Ore. App. at 616.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Goin
"The appellate court has no authority to review the validity of the defendant's plea of guilty or no contest, or a conviction based on the defendant's plea of guilty or no contest."
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Pozos
“ORS 10.095(3) requires an instruction when, ‘viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction, the evidence is sufficient for the jury to decide that at least one witness consciously testified falsely concerning a material issue’”. State v. Howard, 325 Or App 696, 714.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Russin
“If the sentencing judge accepts the plea agreement, the judge shall impose the stipulated sentence.” ORS § 135.407(4)
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Summit RWP Inc., v. Hallin
In ORS 652.150(1)(a), the word “shall” indicates a lack of discretion to order a lesser award amount.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
Thorin Properties v. City of Eugene
“In order to have standing, to seek a declaration with respect to an ordinance, a plaintiff must show that it had a legally recognized interest that is adversely affected by that ordinance.” MT & M Gaming, Inc. v. City of Portland, 360 Or 544 (2016). A state law can preempt a municipal law by implication if the two “cannot operate concurrently.” Qwest Corp. v. City of Portland, 275 Ore. App. 874 (2015)
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
Allen v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
Under ORS 163A.100, SONL classification is based on an individual’s risk of reoffending at the time of their release rather than at the time of classification, and is intended to be regulatory rather than punitive.
Area(s) of Law:- Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
State v. Cook
Under the framework set forth in State v. Roberson 293 Or 402, 649 P2d 569 (1982), a statute must expressly restrain speech in order justify review for facial overbreadth.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
State v. M. T.
When assessing an appointed counsel’s “suitability” under ORS 426.100(3), poor performance alone does not justify sua sponte substitution of counsel.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
Dept. of Human Services v. G.S.M.
“[A] description of the general effect that domestic abuse can have on a child… is insufficient to establish a risk of serious harm that is reasonably likely to occur.”
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Dept. of Human Services v. S. R. L.
In order for dependency jurisdiction to be exercised, the state must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that there is a current risk of the child being exposed to conditions or circumstances that could result in serious loss or injury. The state may not make generalized complaints and instead must theorize what harm would happen, at what degree, and for what duration.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
In the Matter of the Marriage of Douglas and Minzer
“A trial court has considerable discretion to manage parties in their use of available court time. [T]he court may reasonably control the presentation of evidence, examination of witnesses, and the progress of trial.”
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. Moon
“A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered to exculpate the accused is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement.” OEC 804(3)(c)
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Shine
A “trial court lacks discretion to omit matters of law necessary for the jury’s information in giving its verdict from its oral presentation of the instructions to the jury after close of evidence.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Block v. DEA Properties–2 LLC
“The dispositive question at issue in an implied easement case is whether a reasonable buyer would have been justified in expecting the easement under the circumstances that existed at the time of purchase.”
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
City of Portland v. Kessler
“Exemptions from disclosure are to be narrowly construed. A narrow construction of a public records exemption is one that favors disclosure… The ‘narrow construction’ rule means that, if there is a plausible construction of a statute favoring disclosure of public records, that is the construction that prevails.” Colby v. Gunson, 224 Or App 666, 676 (2008).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
Clardy v. Gangitano
“[D]iscretionary immunity attaches when ‘an immune policy choice expresses a completed thought that fully controls how the employees should apply the policy to a particular case’. Discretionary immunity does not attach, however, when an ‘employee applies an otherwise immune policy to inapplicable circumstances.’”
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
State v. C.C.N.
“To prove that a person is dangerous to others, the state must establish by clear and convincing evidence a factual foundation to predict appellant’s future dangerousness based on his condition at the time of the hearing… The state must also present current evidence to link the appellant’s past behavior to a current serious and highly probable threat of harm.”
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment