Oregon Supreme Court (2 summaries)
Sasinowski v. Legislative Assembly
“The caption of a ballot title for a referred state measure must reasonably identify the subject matter of the measure.” ORS 250.035(2)(a). “A ‘yes’ result statement must set out a simple and understandable statement that describes the result if a referral for a state measure is approved.” ORS 250.035(2)(b).
Area(s) of Law:- Ballot Titles
Brown v. Kotek
“[A]lthough the court does not have a role in reviewing a governor’s exercise of discretion either to grant or revoke a conditional commutation, [the court] can review whether the revocation of plaintiff’s commutation exceeded the Governor’s authority under [the] circumstances.”
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
Oregon Court of Appeals (28 summaries)
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
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
Trapp v. Hodges
“For potentially ambiguous terms, the court considers the context in which the term appears and then the context of the policy as a whole. If ambiguity remains, the term is construed against the drafter.” Allianz Global Risks v. ACE Property & Casualty Ins. Co, 367 OR 229, 734 (2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil 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
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. 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. 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
Dept. of Human Services v. J.M.-A.
Terminating child's relationship with Father was not in the child's best interest where “[t]he record does not suggest that father had meaningful opportunities to coordinate directly with providers… [and does] not reflect any attempt to coordinate with or accommodate father’s working schedule or other obligations and place the burden entirely on father to appear as directed.”
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. Mendell
“[A] license plate is illegally altered for purposes of ORS 803.550 if it is altered, modified, covered or obscured in any manner, including but not limited to the placement of any material or covering over or in front of the plate that alters the appearance of the plate.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
In the Marriage of Boyd and Boyd
“An award of child support is intended to benefit the child… By contrast, a discretionary award of attorney fees, such as the one at issue here, is for the benefit of the other party.” ORS 25.275(2)(a); ORS 197.135(8).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Schultz v. Scott
“[T]he legislature intended courts applying ORS 90.427(5)(c) to focus on how the landlord intends to occupy the space in order to determine whether the landlord intends to occupy ‘the dwelling unit as a primary residence.’”
Area(s) of Law:- Landlord Tenant
State v. W. B.
“Under the current version of [ORS 45.400]… the court’s decision whether to allow remote location testimony remains a matter of discretion, even when a witness’s testimony may be outcome-determinative.”
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
State v. Wolcott
“[The Court has] discretion to correct an unpreserved error only if it is an error of law, the legal point is obvious and not reasonably in dispute, and it appears on the face of the record.” ORAP 5.45(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
Roberts and Roberts
“In determining whether to terminate spousal support, the court must consider the purpose of the support award and whether it has been satisfied.” Rubey and Rubey, 165 OR App 616, 621 (2000).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. Christ
“A prospective juror’s statement of bias shall not of itself be sufficient to sustain the challenge, but the court must be satisfied, from all of the circumstances, that the juror cannot disregard such opinion and try the issue impartially.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Stone v. Witt
“[W]hen the typical foreseeability framework articulated in Fazzolari applies – when the plaintiff alleges the defendant’s conduct created the risk to a universally protected interest like the interest in avoiding physical harm – that is the end of the matter, and there is no need to consider the Tomlinson factors.”
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
Dept. of Human Services v. T.F.
“The reasonable-efforts inquiry focuses on DHS’s conduct, and a parent’s resistance to DHS’s efforts does not categorically excuse DHS from making meaningful efforts toward that parent.”
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Blue
Mere speculation that a document is inaccurate is not sufficient to create a genuine question of authenticity.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Barr
"A criminal defendant has the right to have their sentence announced in open court. A trial court commits reversible error if it does not do so.”
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Dept. of Human Services v. K.M.
“Evaluating a motion to set aside a judgment under ORS 419B.923(1)(b) entails a two-step process. First, the court must determine whether the parent has established excusable neglect. Second, if the court determines that a parent has established excusable neglect, it must then decide whether to exercise its discretion to grant the motion to set aside.” Dept. of Human Services v. J.J.J., 317 Or App 188, 190 (2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
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
“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:- Tort Law