United States Supreme Court (1 summary)
Torres v. Madrid
The use of physical force against a person with the intent to restrain is a seizure for Fourth Amendment purposes, even if the person is not subdued.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Oregon Supreme Court (1 summary)
Evans v. Nooth
“Appellate courts should not decide new issues upon which the trial court had no opportunity to rule.” Vancil v. Poulson, 236 Or 314, 388 P2d 444 (1964).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Oregon Court of Appeals (28 summaries)
Koenig v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co.
An award of economic damages including damages paid by PIP in an undetermined amount does not prevent a PIP offset in a UIM claim. Wade v. Mahler, 167 Or App 350, 355-58, 1 P3d 485, rev den, 331 Or 334 (2000).
Area(s) of Law:- Insurance Law
Mouktabis v. M.A.
Statements made as part of a judicial proceeding are absolutely privileged, meaning that they cannot form the basis for a defamation claim. Chard v. Galton, 277 Or 109, 112, 559 P2d 1980 (1977).
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
State v. Hubbell
An “attempt” under ORS 161.405(1) requires an act that is “strongly corroborative of the actor’s criminal purpose” such that it “(1) advance[s] the criminal purpose charged and (2) provide[s] some verification of the existence of that purpose.” State v. Walters, 311 Or 80, 85, 804 P2d 1164, cert den, 501 US 1209 (1991)
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Schneider v. Water Resources Dept.
Pursuant to Gafur v. Legacy Good Samaritan Hospital and Medical Center, 344 Or 525, 185 P3d 446 (2008), the courts will give deference to the plausible interpretations of a statute by a government agency, so long as that interpretation is not inconsistent with “the wording of the rule, its context, or any other source of law.”
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
State v. Sylva
“A defendant is the movant in seeking to have [their] conviction set aside under ORS 137.225, and it is [their] burden to show that [they meet] the criteria of that statute.” State v. Langan, 301 Or 1, 5, 718 P2d 719 (1986).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Callais v. Henricksen
To recover attorney’s fees under ORS 20.080(1), a plaintiff must satisfy four requirements: (i) the plaintiff must file an action pleading damages of $10,000 or less; (ii) the plaintiff must prevail in that action; (iii) the plaintiff must issue written demand on the defendant for payment of their claim at least thirty days prior to commencing the action; and (iv) the judgment obtained by the plaintiff must be greater than any pre-filing settlement offer made by the defendant. Johnson v. Swaim, 343 Or 423, 172 P3d 645 (2007).
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
State v. Delaney
“A defendant cannot establish substantial prejudice [under ORS 132.560(3)] ‘if the evidence pertaining to the separate charges is “mutually admissible in separate trials or is sufficiently simple and distinct to mitigate the dangers created by joinder[.]”’” State v. Tidwell, 259 Or App 152, 155, 313 P3d 345 (2013), rev den, 355 Or 142 (2014).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Larson
“[W]hen it is clear from the record that a condition of probation is to take effect immediately, the validity of the condition does not depend on entry of the judgment.” State v. Quackenbush, 116 Or App 453, 455-56, 841 P2d 671 (1992).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Dept. of Human Services v. A. D. G.
To terminate parental rights under ORS 419B.504, a juvenile court must find, by clear and convincing evidence, that (i) the parent is unfit by reason of conduct or condition seriously detrimental to the child; (ii) that integration of the child into the home of the parent or parents is improbable within a reasonable amount of time due to conduct or conditions not likely to change, and; (iii) that termination is in the child’s best interest.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Lufkin v. Dept. of Human Services
“The general rule in Oregon is that, although waivers of constitutional and statutory rights may be expressed through contract terms, those terms must clearly indicate an intention to renounce a known privilege or power.” Assn. of Oregon Corrections Emp. v. State of Oregon, 353 Or 170, 295 P3d 38 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
State v. Kindred
A trial court may deny a qualified person’s request to set aside a conviction only if it determines (i) that the person violated public law after their date of conviction and; (ii) that the violation warrants denial of the request. State v. Larson, 268 Or App 802, 344 P3d 59 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
W.A.S. v. Teacher Standards and Practices Comm.
The appearance of unfairness, without more, is insufficient to establish a due process violation in an agency proceeding. To prevail, the plaintiff must demonstrate “actual bias on the part of the decision-maker” or some other actual unfairness. Shicor v. Board of Speech Language Path. and Aud., 291 Or App 369, 420 P3d 638 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Lemus v. Potter
An amendment to substitute the correct defendant for the named defendant in an automobile accident case changes the party against whom the claim is asserted and relates back only if all three conditions set out in ORCP 23 C are satisfied. Hamilton v. Moon, 130 Or App 403, 405, 882 P2d 1134, rev den, 320 Or 492 (1994).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Nevius v. Palomares
The voluntary cessation doctrine renders a case moot only when it is absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur. Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 US 85, 91, 133 S Ct 721 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
Sexton v. Sky Lakes Medical Center
“[R]equiring a previous acceptance of a preexisting condition that [an] employer determined not to be compensable would be illogical, even in the case of a new or omitted condition, because the ‘employer would be required to accept a claim for which no benefits are due.’” Tektronix, Inc. v. Nazari, 117 Or App 409, 844 P2d 258 (1992), adh’d to as modified on recons, 120 Or App 590, rev den, 318 Or 27 (1993).
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
State v. Shaw
A defendant’s possession of a methamphetamine pipe, without more, is insufficient to support probable cause for an arrest for possession of methamphetamine. State v. Sunderman, 304 Or App 329, 467 P3d 52 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Stephens
Because a blood draw is a search for purposes of the Fourth Amendment, a warrantless blood draw may only be conducted if an exception to the warrant requirement applies. An exigency exception exists when BAC evidence is dissipating and some factor creates pressing health, safety, or law enforcement needs that necessarily take priority over a warrant application. Mitchell v. Wisconsin, 139 S. Ct. 2525 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Purdy v. Deere & Co./Norton
Not all instructional errors mandate reversal. An erroneous jury instruction is a reversible error only if, considering the record as a whole, it substantially affects a right of the parties by enabling the jury to reach an erroneous result. Wallach v. Allstate, 344 Or 314, 180 P3d 19 (2008).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Reed v. Kelly
To prevail on a post-conviction claim based on the right to adequate assistance of counsel, a petitioner must establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that counsel failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment, and as a result, the petitioner suffered prejudice because of counsel’s inadequacy. Delgado-Juarez v. Cain, 307 Or App 83, 475 P3d 883 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Allman v. Allman
ORS 205.460 is “not available against a person lawfully conducting business as [a]n institution, a national bank, an out-of-state bank or an extranational institution . . . a savings bank, a federal savings bank or a subsidiary of an entity described in this paragraph[.]” ORS 205.460(7)(a).
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
State v. Acosta
The identity of a declarant regarding an out-of-court statement is an issue of conditional relevance evaluated under the standards for identity as a condition precedent to admissibility under OEC 901. If the party presenting an out-of-court statement as evidence presents a prima facie case that their opponent is the declarant, the court must admit and instruct the jury to consider that evidence only if the jury determines that the opponent was the declarant. State v. Park, 140 Or App 507, 511, 916 P2d 334, rev den, 323 Or 690 (1996).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Etzel
Under OEC 702, whenever scientific or other specialized knowledge is used to assist a jury in understanding evidence or determining a fact in issue, a qualified expert witness may testify thereto. However, only scientifically valid knowledge can assist the jury, therefore, when evidence is scientific in nature, the state must “comply with the standards for admission of scientific evidence.” State v. Henley, 363 Or 284, 422 P3d 217 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Hooper
“[T]he trial court is required to instruct the jury that, to convict, it must determine that the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that [the] defendant acted with a culpable mental state.” State v. Gray, 261 Or App 121, 322 P3d 1094 (2014).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Glenn v. Glenn
Pursuant ORS 105.615, title vests in a cotenant when the cotenant has maintained continuous adverse possession of a property for 20 years and has satisfied all property taxes accrued against the property during that time.
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
State v. Brass
Pursuant ORS 137.123(5)(b), a court can sentence a person consecutively for an offense if the crime caused or threatened loss, harm, or injury to a different victim than was harmed or threatened by other offenses committed during a single criminal episode.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Johns
A court’s acceptance of a nonunanimous verdict is plainly erroneous and a court may use its discretion to correct such error. State v. Ulery, 366 Or 500, 464 P3d 1123 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Pryor
Pursuant ORS 137.172, a trial court retains authority after entry of judgment to modify the judgment in order to remedy any clerical errors or erroneous terms. State v. Johnson, 242 Or App 279, 285, 255 P3d 547, rev den, 350 Or 530 (2011).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Ralston
When determining whether a defendant was denied a speedy trial under Article I, Section 10 of the Oregon Constitution, courts must consider three factors: (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; and (3) the prejudice to the defendant. State v. Emery, 318 Or 460, 472, 869 P2d 859 (1994).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law