Dept. of Land Conservation v. Clackamas Co.
“After October 4, 2000, a local government’s requirements for minimum lot or parcel sizes in rural residential areas shall not be amended to allow a smaller minimum for any individual lot or parcel without taking an exception to Goal 14 pursuant to OAR chapter 660, division 14, and applicable requirements of this division.” OAR 660-004-0040(7).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
State v. Day
Pecuniary penalties imposed in a written judgment but not pronounced at sentencing is unlawful. If a court uses a shorthand phrase, it must: (1) be immediately apparent in the record the parties understood what the shorthand meant; and (2) the shorthand included the obligations on the written judgment.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Sarria
“ [T]o allow a ‘motion to dismiss’ to be used pretrial to ‘challenge the sufficiency of the state’s anticipated proof of a charge’ . . . would ‘contradict and subvert the principle expressed’ . . . that it is error for a trial court to sustain a defendant’s demurrer on the basis of facts not alleged in the complaint.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. T.L.B.
Commitment proceedings are not criminal so long as “the detention is for a non-punitive purpose and ends with that purpose". Brown v. Multnomah County Dist. Ct., 280 Or. 95, 103, 570 P2d 52 (1977).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
State v. Andrews
Law enforcement is obligated to provide a Miranda warning prior to in-custody interrogation or questioning under circumstances an officer should recognize as compelling to protect a suspect’s rights against self-incrimination. State v. Roble-Baker, 340 Or 631, 638, 136 P3d 22 (2006).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Pricewaterhousecoopers, LLP v. Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt P.C.
“In no event shall any action for negligent injury to person or property of another be commenced more than 10 years from the date of the act or omission complained of”. ORS 12.115(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
Roberts v. City of Cannon Beach
“We review LUBA’s order to determine whether it is ‘unlawful in substance or procedure’, ORS 197.850(9)(a), and for ‘whether LUBA correctly applied the substantial evidence standard. A LUBA order is unlawful in substance if it represents a mistaken interpretation of the applicable law”. Tylka v. Clackamas County, 330 Or App 247, 248 (2024).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
State v. Antonio
"[T]he trial court did not engage in OEC 403 balancing because it determined that the OEC 403 balancing requirement only applied to challenges to prior bad acts evidence. But a trial court’s responsibility to engage in OEC 403 balancing is not limited to prior bad acts evidence. [It] was operating under an incorrect understanding of the law."
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. S.L.
"[A]ppellant’s discharge on October 3 did not amount to a “sham” simply because Unity implemented it in a coordinated manner that took into account appellant’s acute psychosis and inability to care for his basic needs."
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment