Cuddigan-Placito v. State Action Insurance Fund
Any person who engages in protected conduct, like opposing discriminatory practices, is not discouraged from doing so by the threat of disparate treatment by their employer. However, there needs to be a causal connection between the protected activity and the alleged unlawful employment practice to make a successful claim.
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
State v. Lewis
“We acknowledge that the factors point in different directions. However, given the neutral form of the instruction to simply keep deliberating and the amount of time spent deliberating before and after the instruction, we conclude that the instruction was not impermissibly coercive.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Wilcox
The evaluation of the lawfulness of a search and seizure of a defendant’s backpack while being transported to a detox facility must be done under administrative principles rather than criminal.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
LandWatch Lane County v. Lane County
"A county or city may approve an application to validate a unit of land that was created by a sale that did not comply with the applicable criteria for creation of a unitof land if the unit of land is not a lawfully established unit of land, and could have complied with the applicable criteria for the creation of a lawfully established unit of land in effect when the unit of land was sold." ORS 92.176
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Palmer v. Olson
The absolute privilege extends to actions taken and statements made in connection with a judicial proceeding.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
State v. Fitch
A defendant’s inconsistent story, lack of ownership documentation, and documentation containing another person’s name are sufficient evidence to establish both a “knowing” and “reckless” mental state for UUV under ORS 164.135.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Salah
An officer has implied consent to enter a home when the officer would have reasonably understood the occupant’s acts and gestures to amount to consent to enter.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Bates v. Oregon Health Authority
A statute regulating product packaging that is “attractive to minors” is unconstitutional if it regulates an expression of speech but does not regulate the effect of the product’s sale to a minor.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Dept. of Human Services v. M.M.
To be judicially noticeable, a fact “must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either [g]enerally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court; or [c]apable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” OEC 201(b)(1), (2).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Duran v. Majorie House McMinnville, LLC, 335 Or App 501 (2024))
“[U]nder the plain text and context of the rules, there is no independent legal authority for a designated representative to enter into an arbitration agreement on an individual’s behalf. ”
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
State v. Wilson
A person’s refusal to waive their constitutional right to not consent to a warrantless search is not admissible at trial as evidence of the person’s guilt. State v.Banks, 364 Or 332, 342, 434 P3d 361 (2019).
“ORS 136.432 does not allow courts to suppress evidence whose sole taint is that it was obtained in violation of a statutory provision.” State v. Warner, 181 Or App 622, 631-32, 47 P3d 497 (2002).
- Evidence
Department of Human Services v. J.M.R.
In plain error analysis, the argument on appeal must not be meaningfully different from the argument made in the trial court.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Ferguson Creek Investment v. Lane County
In assessing the lawfulness of a nonconforming use, the moving party has to show that the use was lawfully established before the relevant zoning laws went into effect. If the use was lawfully established, the movant must show that the use had been continuous. The ‘use’ is specific to the building, not the property it is on.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Follansbee v. Ooi
Under ORS § 19.270, “a party seeking dismissal of an entire appeal based on inadequate service on less than all parties on which service was required must establish that prejudice is likely to arise to such a degree to warrant dismissal of the entire appeal.”
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
State v. G.B.
"[G]iven the totality of the circumstances before the trial court when it ruled, we conclude that the court made a choice outside the permis-sible range of discretion"
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment