January 20 summaries
Calderon v. Dept. of Human Services
“‘[F]ounded determinations are not determinations that petitioner in fact abused the [child] in the ways that were alleged, but rather that DHS had ‘reasonable cause to believe’ that he had done so… the evidence in the record, an objectively and subjectively reasonable person could believe that petitioner had abused the [child] in the ways alleged. Querbach v. Dept. of Human Services, 369 Or 786, 804 (2022).”
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
In re Trout and Eitzen
“When determining whether a substantial change of circumstances exists to warrant modification or termination of spousal support, the trial court must ‘consider income opportunities and benefits of the respective parties from all sources[.]’” ORS 107.135(4)(a). To make that determination, “the trial court must consider whether the new spouse’s income is actually available to the remarried party.” Davis v. Lallement, 287 Or App 323, 329 (2017)
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Kasliner v. Dept. of Human Services
A circuit court must produce “special findings of fact” when it reverses an agency’s order in other than a contested case. ORS 183.484(6).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Mantle v. SAIF Corp.
ORS 656.327(1)(a) provides, in relevant part: “If an injured worker, an insurer or self-insured employer the Director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services believes that the medical treatment … that the injured worker has received, is receiving, will receive or is proposed to receive is excessive, inappropriate, ineffectual or in violation of rules regarding the performance of medical services, the injured worker, insurer or self-insured employer must request administrative review of the treatment by the director prior to requesting a hearing on the issue and so notify the parties.” ORS 656.327(2) provides, in relevant part: “The worker is not obligated to pay for medical treatment determined not to be compensable under this section.”
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
State v. Miles
“When considering merger and interpreting ORS 161.067(1), a court must answer three questions: ‘(1) Did defendant engage in acts that are the same conduct or criminal episode, (2) did defendant’s acts violate two or more statutory provisions, and (3) does each statutory provision require proof of an element that the others do not.’” State v. Serbin, 324 Or App 792, 795 (2023). “If the answer to the first two factors is affirmative, but the answer to the third is negative, merger is required. Id."
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Dept. of Human Services v. G. O.
“[T]he key inquiry in determining whether conditions or circumstances warrant jurisdiction is whether, under the totality of the circumstances, there is a reasonable likelihood of harm to the welfare of the child.” Dept. of Human Services v. C.Z., 236 Or App 436, 440 (2010). “The risk of physical violence to a child under one year of age is a threat of serious harm that supports juvenile court jurisdiction.” See, e.g., Dept. of Human Services v. T. J., 302 Or App 531, 538-39, (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
In re Gott-Dinsmore and Dinsmore
“In the absence of evidence of ‘uncontroverted circumstances’ constraining actual income, reliance on evidence of the obligor’s work history, experience and skills, and past income is not necessarily speculative and can support a determination of earning capacity.” In re Cortese and Cortese, 260 Or App 291, 296-97 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. Cowan
ORS 803.550(1)(c) states in part that “[a] person commits the offense of illegal alteration or illegal display of a registration plate if the person knowingly … [o]perates any vehicle that is displaying a registration plate the is illegally altered … or illegally displayed[.]” ORS 803.550(2)(a) states in part that “[a] registration plate is illegally altered … if the plate has been altered, modified, covered or obscured in any manner including but not limited to … [a]ny change of the color, configuration, numbers, letters, or material of the plate.”
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Morgan
“[W]hen introducing statements made by a defendant in conjunction with a polygraph examination, [the state] may not introduce evidence that the statements were made in the context of a polygraph examination or details of the polygraph examination.” State v. Harberts, 315 Or 408, 413 (1993). “[W]hen the issue in the case for which the polygraph evidence is being offered is entirely independent of the questions that were the subject of the polygraph, the evidence may be admissible.” Id. at 414.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
DHS v. M.D.L.
Under ORS 419B.875(2)(c), a party has a right to be represented by counsel at a permanency hearing.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Newmann v. Highberger
“First, under the state constitution, a petitioner must show that trial counsel ‘failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment,’ and under the federal constitution, that ‘counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.’” Smith v. Kelly, 318 Or App 567, 568-69 (2022). “Second, under both constitutions, a petitioner must show that counsel’s inadequate performance caused prejudice. Id. at 568.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. Hamilton
When a person refuses to consent to a search, that refusal invokes the person’s constitutional right to insist that the government obtain a warrant, and thus evidence of the refusal may not be admitted at trial as evidence of their guilt. However, refusals to perform breath tests may be admitted as evidence of guilt if the state proves that law enforcement’s requests to perform the tests could be understood only as a request to submit to the physical act, and not as a request that defendant provide constitutionally significant consent to the tests. Banks, 364 Or at 342.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Tylka v. Clackamas County
A LUBA order is unlawful in substance if it represents a mistaken interpretation of applicable law. 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Clackamas County, 320 Or App 444, 452-53, (2022). “Where LUBA properly articulates its substantial-evidence standard of review. . .we will not reverse its determination unless there is no evidence to support the finding or if the evidence in the case is ‘so at odds with LUBA’s evaluation that a reviewing court could infer that LUBA has misunderstood or misapplied its scope of review.’” Stevens, 260 Or App at 772 (citing Younger v. City of Portland, 305 Or 346, 359 (1988).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
State v. Carachuri
“Restitution is to be imposed when ‘a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would have foreseen that some-one in the victim’s position could reasonably incur damages of the same general kind that the victim incurred,’ and such losses resulted from the defendant’s criminal conduct.” State v. Ramos, 358 Or 581, 594 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Dietrich
“[T]he rules of accretion and avulsion are straightforward: ‘[I]f the change be gradual, the boundary of the upland will follow the water; if it be sudden, the boundary remains as before.’ State Land Board v. Sause et al, 217 Or 52, 80 (1959). “ORS 93.310(2) provides that ‘permanent and visible or ascertained boundaries or monuments’ prevail over conflicting ‘measurement[s], either of lines, angles or surfaces.’”
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
State v. H. N.
A law infringing on rights protected under the Second Amendment is valid when consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 US 1, 17,142 S Ct 2111, 213 L Ed 2d 387 (2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
State v. K.G.
Counsel for an alleged mentally ill person in a civil commitment proceeding is not required to be present for an interview by the civil commitment investigator.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
State v. Long-Ellis
Under ORS 137.225(1)(a), the term, “fully complied with and performed the sentence of the court” means fully satisfying the terms of parole and not just avoiding subsequent parole violations.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Snyder
A continuance is only warranted if unanticipated circumstances come about from a discovery violation. State v. Sassarini, 300 Or App 106, 117, 452 P3d 457 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Tacia
“To prove constructive possession of a controlled substance, the state must show that the defendant exercised control over or had the right to control the substance.” State v. Sosa-Vasquez, 158 Or App 445, 448 (1999). “The state must link the defendant’s proximity to the substance with a right to control it, and defendant’s ‘own statements can prove the necessary link.’” State v. Fry, 191 Or App 90, 93 (2003).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
February 20 summaries
State v. McCombs
A defendant’s statement can only be used to corroborate the defendant’s confession if it is made for some other purpose other than to acknowledge guilt, and if it not so closely related to the confession as to become part of it.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Thompson
(1) ORS 161.485(2) provides “[a] person shall not be convicted of more than one [attempt] offense . . . for conduct designed to commit or to culminate in the commission of the same crime.” The application of ORS 161.485 is “akin to merger,” because a defendant can be guilty of “multiple inchoate crimes pertaining to a single substantive offense but cannot have more than one such conviction entered.” State v. Kimbrough, 364 Or 66, 73, 431 P3d 76 (2018). (2) ORS 161.067(1), provides that guilty verdicts may not merge if “the same conduct or criminal episode violates two or more statutory provisions and each provision requires proof of an element that the others do not.” The difference between first-degree robbery and second-degree robbery is that first-degree robbery requires more than second-degree robbery, preventing a downward merger into second-degree robbery. See State v. Burris, 270 Or App 512, (2015). (3) An error is plain when, among other thing, it is “obvious and not reasonable in dispute, and apparent on the record without requiring the court to choose among competing inferences. State v. Vanornum, 354 Or 614, 629, 317 P3d 889 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Gage v. Fred Meyer Stores - Kroger Co.
“In a case where a Final Order is issued following a Recommended Order, a petition for reconsideration should be limited to: ‘A claim of factual error.’” OAR 115-010-0100(3)(c)(A).
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
State v. Brockway
“In reviewing the denial of a motion for continuance, we determine the propriety of the motion by examining the circumstances of the case and the reasons presented to the court at the time that it denied the request.” State v. Stull, 281 Or App 662, 667 (2016). “If the trial court’s decision ‘is within the range of legally correct choices and produces a permissible, legally correct outcome, then the trial court did not abuse its discretion.’” State v. Ferraro, 264 Or App 271, 281 (2014).
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
State v. C. A. C.
ORS 426.005(1)(f)(a) allows for civil commitment of someone who, because of a mental disorder, is dangerous to themselves or others.
The standard is defined by a highly probable threat of future harm that requires threatening statements to be accompanied by some overt act. State v. J.P., 295 Or App 228, 234, 433 P3d 452 (2018).The burden is clear and convincing evidence. State v. M.G., 296 Or App 714, 718, 440 P3d 123 (2019).
- Civil Commitment
State v. Carter
There must be an identifiable rule of law that was violated in order for a court to have plainly erred.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Dikeos
Evidence that possessed an exculpatory value that was apparent before the evidence was destroyed and was of such a nature that it might be expected to play a significant role in the suspect’s defense was material, exculpatory evidence and would thus implicate a defendant’s due process rights.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Mickels
Under ORS 161.190, all crimes are subject to justification defenses unless an exception applies.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Page
“In civil cases involving temporary damage to real property, the appropriate measure of damage is the total cost of restoring the property to its original condition.” McCormick v. City of Portland, 191 Or App 383, 390-91 (2004).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Page
Restitution may be ordered when it is reasonably foreseeable that the damages were "the kind of harm to which a defendant may be held liable." State v. Ramos, 358 Or 581, 595, 368 P3d 446 (2016).
The appropriate calculation of damages to real property is the cost to return the property to its original state. McCormick v. City of Portland, 191 Or App 383, 82 P3d 1043 (2004).
- Criminal Law
State v. Postlethwait
“OEC 803(25), [] authorizes the admission of certain documents containing out-of-court statements, while providing that ‘the defendant may subpoena’ the declarant at no cost. That language impermissibly shifted the responsibility to secure the declarant’s attendance at trial to defendant, which is directly at odds with defendant’s right to confront her accusers and to ‘meet the witnesses face to face.’ Or Const, Art I, § 11.”
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. R. D. M.
The timing requirement in ORS 419C.450(1)(a) requires the state to present its restitution evidence ‘prior to or at the time of adjudication’.
- Juvenile Law
Parker v. Burnes
ORCP 71 B(1) permits a court to relieve a party from judgement due to newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 64(f), such motions must be made within one year of notice of judgment.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State ex rel Elitextrx v. Siegel
A Land Use Compatibility Statement (LUCS) “must demonstrate that the requested license is for a land use that is allowable as a permitted or conditional use within the given zoning designation where the land is located. ORS 475C.053(1).Whether a land use is “outright permitted” or “conditional” as those terms are used in the statute, depends on whether the proposed use requires discretionary local permit approval “within the given zoning designation where the land is located. ORS 475C.065.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
State v. Cassidy
“Business facility” is a term that can be broadly construed to encompass real property that is used by and is necessary for the operation of a particular business venture.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Tayborne
To establish that a defendant is not licensed or privileged to enter premises not open to the public when the defendant has been permitted or invited to enter, the state must prove two elements: (1) The person extending the permission or invitation lacked actual authority to do so, and (2) the defendant knew or believed that the person lacked such authority. State v. Hartfield, 290 Or 583, 595, 624 P2d 588 (1981).
[E]ntering a building to commit a crime is not burglary if the person has permission to be in the building. State v. McLaughlin, 317 Or App 596, 607, 505 P3d 1088 (2022).
- Criminal Law
Mouton v. TriMet
We seek to ascertain the intent of the enacting legislature by examining the disputed provision’s text and context, as well as any helpful legislative history. If the legislature’s intent remains unclear after examining text, context, and legislative history, the court may resort to general maxims of statutory construction to aid in resolving the remaining uncertainty. State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160, 171-73 (2009).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
State v. Biggs
"Testimony by a witness with knowledge that a matter is what it is claimed to be" is sufficient to authenticate evidence. OEC 901(2)(a).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Cox
“Additionally, ‘as a matter of law, the identity of persons connected with a criminal offense need not be stated in an indictment unless such identity is an essential element of the crime charged.’ ” State v. Kelly, 263 Or App 361, 366 (2014) (quoting State v. Shadley/Spencer/Rowe, 16 Or App 113, 121 (1973).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Swafford
“Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution requires a closer connection between the purpose of the stop and the questions an officer poses.” State v. Bradley, Or App 736, 741-43 (2023).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
March 7 summaries
Lowes v. Thompson
Oregon’s anti-SLAPP statute ORS 31.150 protects free speech in public matters, but these rights can be waived by contract.
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
State v. Guerrero
Second-degree kidnapping may be committed by asportation, taking the person from one place to another. ORS 163.225(1).
“[A]nother important factor in determining whether the defendant moved the victim ‘from one place to another’ is whether the movement served to limit the victim’s freedom of movement and increase the victim’s isolation.” State v. Walch, 346 Or 463, 475, 213 P3d 1201 (2009).
- Criminal Law
State v. Slay
Under OEC 403, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Ward and Ward
In “exceptional cases” the Court will undertake de novo review of a trial court’s decision, applying the factors described in ORAP 5.40(8)(d). Dept. of Human Services v. D.W.M., 296 Or App 109, 111, 437 P3d 1186 (2019) (citing ORAP 5.40(8)(c)).
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
Wilson v. Mack
“No matter claimed as error will be considered on appeal unless the claim of error was preserved in the lower court.” ORAP 5.45(1). “An unpreserved error is reviewable as plain error when (1) the error is one of law; (2) the legal point is obvious, meaning it is not reasonably in dispute; and (3) to reach the error, we need not go outside the record or choose between competing inferences to find it.” State v. Nickerson, 272, Or App 155, 156 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
Mason v. Griffin-Valade
Article XVII, section 1, of the Oregon Constitution requires proposed amendments to the constitution to be submitted to voters in a manner that allows each amendment to be “voted on separately."
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
State v. Pfannenstiel
And in determining whether instructional error was harmless, “we consider the instructions ‘as a whole and in the context of the evidence and record at trial, including the parties’ theories of the case with respect to the various charges and defenses at issue.’ ” State v. Owen, 369 Or 323.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
April 7 summaries
Trent v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.
“ORCP 71 reserves the trial court’s inherent power to entertain an independent action to relive a party from a judgment. Generally a trial court has inherent authority to correct or set aside a judgement, provided that it does so both (1) within a reasonable time and (2) for good and sufficient reason.” Patrick v. State of Oregon, 178 Or App 97, 104 (2001).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Strain
Two exceptions which permit the prosecution to address a defendant’s failure to present or contradict evidence are (1) affirmative defenses, and (2) when the defense holds the burden of proof for an issue it raises but fails to produce evidence. State v. Mayo, 303 Or App 525, 531-2, 465 P3d 267 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Teitelman v. SAIF
When an insurer submits an Independent Medical Examination (IME) as evidence to support denial of a worker’s claim, the denial is “based” on an IME such that the worker is eligible for a Worker Requested Medical Examination (WRME) under the terms of ORS 656.325(1)(e).
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
Umatilla County v. Dept. of Energy
“For an energy facility or a related or supporting facility that must be evaluated against the applicable substantive criteria pursuant to subsection (5) of this section, that the proposed facility does not comply with one or more of the applicable substantive criteria but does otherwise comply with the applicable statewide planning goals, or that an exception to any applicable statewide planning goal is justified under subsection (2) of this section”. ORS 469.504(1)(b)(B).
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
J.E.-S v. Shields
Under ORS 107.716(3)(a), the trial court may continue a FAPA order following a contested hearing after finding that (1) the respondent committed past abuse within 180 days of filing, (2) the petitioner reasonably fears for their physical safety, and (3) the respondent represents a credible threat to the petitioner’s physical safety or the physical safety of their children.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. Bilbao
Under ORS 135.703 and ORS 135.705(1)(a), a trial court has statutory authority to dismiss a charge pursuant to a civil compromise only if four conditions are met: “(1) the defendant is charged with a crime punishable as a misdemeanor, (2) the person injured by the act constituting the crime has a remedy by civil action, (3) the person injured acknowledges in writing before trial that the person has received satisfaction for the injury, and (4) the defendant pays costs and expenses incurred.”
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Greenwood
When the State violates a defendant’s right to counsel by intruding on a defendant’s attorney-client privilege, the State bears the burden of proving there is an absence of prejudice to the defendant.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
May 14 summaries
Perkins v. Fhuere
Counsel’s failure to object to the trial court’s enhanced sentences based on “judicially-found facts, instead of jury-found facts as required under Appendi v. New Jersey * * * entitle[s] [petitioner] to a new sentencing proceeding pertaining to those counts.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Brown v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC.
A hospital may be a "seller" that is "engaged in the business of selling" if it administers a dangerous, defective drug while providing healthcare services, and thus subject to strict products liability under the terms of ORS 30.920(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
Kharma and Aljundi
Any action, suit, or proceeding may be prosecuted or defended by a party in person, or by attorney, unless otherwise specifically provided by law. ORS 9.320. Thus, in a dissolution trial, a party can forego appearing in person and may be represented by an attorney instead.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
McGeehan v. Cunningham
“To show that circumstances detrimental to the child exist if relief is denied, the nonparent must demonstrate that the circumstances of living with the legal parent post a serious present risk of psychological, emotional, or physical harm to the child”. G.J.L. v. A.K.L., 244 Or App 523, 532.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. Atwood
“A person commits the offense of driving a motor vehicle while using a mobile electronic device if the person, while driving a motor vehicle on a highway or premises open to the public: (a) Holds a mobile electronic device in the person’s hand; or (b) uses a mobile electronic device for any purpose.” ORS 811.507(2).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. M.M.-B.
"The court shall also advise the person of the right to subpoena witnesses and to suitable legal counsel possessing skills and experience commensurate with the nature of the allegations and complexity of the case during the proceedings…” ORS 427.265(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. A. E. A.
ORS 419C.450(1)(a) requires the juvenile court to award restitution for “injury, loss or damage” caused by the adjudicated youth and suffered by the victim. The juvenile court must award restitution when there is sufficient evidence of criminal activity, economic damages, and a causal relationship between the criminal activity and the economic damages. State v. C. A. M.-D., 312 Or App 4.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Martin-Thanislaus
A conspiracy to commit a crime requires proof that, with the requisite intent, two or more people agreed to commit a crime punishable as a felony. ORS 161.450(1). A conspiracy to tamper with a witness requires proof that a person agreed (and intended) to seek to induce a witness either to offer false sworn testimony in an official proceeding or to unlawfully withhold sworn testimony in such a proceeding. ORS 162.285
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Walker
ORS 162.285(1)(a) provides that a person commits the crime of witness tampering if the person “knowingly induces or attempts to induce a witness or a person the person believes may be called as a witness to offer false testimony or unlawfully withhold any testimony.” Read in context, “unlawfully” modifies the phrase “withhold any testimony,” indicating that the legislature intended to exempt behavior such as advising a witness to exert a lawful privilege. State v. Bailey, 346 Or 551 (2009).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Sutherland v. Fhuere
“To succeed on a claim of inadequate assistance of counsel under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution, petitioner must show by a preponderance of the evidence facts demonstrating that (1) counsel failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment,” and (2) counsel’s failure prejudiced petitioner, meaning “counsel’s failure had a tendency to affect the result of [the] trial,” commonly referred to as the deficiency and prejudice prongs. Bacon v. Cain, 327 Or App 673 (2023).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Skotland
To preserve an issue on appeal, the defendant must have adequately explained the basis of their objection at the lower court.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Clark v. Gilstrap
The statute of limitations for a personal injury claim under ORS 12.110(1) is subject to the “discovery rule,” such that the statute of limitations does not begin until a plaintiff knows or reasonably should have known that they were injured and that the defendant caused the injury.
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
State v. B. I. Z. V.
Under ORS 163.165(1)(e), a person commits third-degree assault when the person “while being aided by another person actually present, intentionally or knowingly causes physical injury to another.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Orvis
“To that end, "inquiring into the prospective jurors' potential interest or bias in a case is a legitimate way of selecting fair-minded individuals to serve on the jury." That means that jury selection necessarily "entails an inherent risk that the panel of prospective jurors will be exposed to information revealed by individual prospective jurors who are excused from the panel for cause." State v. Evans, 344 Ore. 358 (2008).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
June 11 summaries
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
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
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
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
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. 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
July 10 summaries
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
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
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
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
August 2 summaries
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
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
September 1 summary
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