Oregon Supreme Court (4 summaries)
Unger v. Rosenblum
ORS 250.035(2)(a) is applied to the general wording of an Initiative Petition when identifying the subject matter appropriately for a ballot title caption rather than inferences made from the general wording.
Area(s) of Law:- Ballot Titles
Broadway Cab LLC v. Employment Dept.
A person can be considered an employee even when wages are paid directly from a third party receiving a service and not from the putative employer.
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
AT&T Corp. v. Dept. of Revenue
Pursuant to ORS 314.665(4), Oregon's codification of the Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act (UDITPA), “income-producing activity” is determined by “individual exchange[s] between a buyer and a seller..., whether the transmissions are sold individually or are sold in bulk.” Once the income-producing activity is identified, the location of the income-producing activity needs to be ascertained to determine whether it is performed completely within Oregon or “the greater proportion of the income-producing activity is performed in [Oregon], based on costs of performance.”
Area(s) of Law:- Tax Law
State v. Bailey
The per se rule of State v. Dempster that “the discovery and execution of a valid arrest warrant necessarily attenuate the taint of preceding unlawful police conduct,” specifically with evidence found upon search incident to said arrest, is overturned in light of Brown v. Illinois' factor test. Officers still may lawfully arrest and then search a defendant.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Oregon Court of Appeals (68 summaries)
State v. Poston
“ORS 132.560 requires that a charging instrument that charges multiple crimes to allege the basis for joinder or facts that would permit the court to determine the basis for joinder.” This means that, to withstand demurrer, a charging instrument on its face should allege that the acts which resulted in separate charges occurred by the same person, “are of the same or similar character, are based on the the same act or transaction, or that two or more acts or transactions connect together or constitute parts of a common scheme or plan.”
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Richardson
State v. Cantwell concluded that under ORS 166.025(1)(a) (Disorderly conduct where conduct is fighting or violent, tumultuous, or threatening behavior”) the State needs to prove that the defendant “either used physical force or engaged in physical conduct that was immediately likely to produce the use of physical force.” Cantwell further provided that a conviction under that statute could not be based on the defendant’s speech but on the physical force aspect. Subsequent cases showed that incidental physical conduct, such as grabbing a shoulder, which is a “common method of gaining someone’s attention” does not fall under the physical force necessary for a conviction under this statute.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Dept. of Human Services v. R. W.
While a parent’s failure or unwillingness to participate in reunification services and sign releases necessary for referrals to those services is taken into account by the courts, it does not preclude DHS from making reasonable efforts to engage the parent for reunification with their child.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. Garcia
Under State v. Fair, 353 OR 588 (2013), “a temporary on-the-scene seizure of a likely material witness will be constitutional if: (1) the officer reasonably believes that an offense involving danger of forcible injury to a person recently has been committed nearby; (2) the officer reasonably believes that the person has knowledge that may aid the investigation of the suspected crime; and (3) the detention is reasonably necessary to obtain or verify the identity of the person, or to obtain an account of the crime.” Furthermore, even when temporary on-the-scene detention is legal, continued presence of officers within a home requires either a search warrant or justified exception. This seizure does not create an exception for officer presence within a home without a warrant or other exception.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Pilgrim
A passenger’s silence as to whether objects located within a vehicle belong to him does not indicate that that passenger has unequivocally manifested an intention in giving up his possessory and privacy interest in said objects.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Dept. of Human Services v. T.M.B.
The legislative intent behind ORS 419B.923(1) is determined to “encompass a parent’s reasonable, good faith mistake as to the time or place of a dependency proceeding” including those good faith mistakes that are careless; however, the party has the burden to establish that their non-appearance was a result of excusable neglect and the juvenile court retains discretion in whether they will allow the motion.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. Brown
Though State v. Slatton allows for merger of multiple counts of crimes charged under alternative theories, ORS 161.067(2) should be taken into account to so that where multiple counts are listed, not only under alternative theory but also with different victims, those counts do not merge.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Rivas-Valles v. Board of Parole
The 60-day deadline set forth in ORS 144.335(4) is only for the filing of a petition for review and not for the service of said petition given that the language of the statute only explicitly refers to the petition in regards to the deadline.
Area(s) of Law:- Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
Washington County v. Querbach
In condemnation proceedings, ORS chapter 35 governs over statutory filing requirements listed in ORCP 9 or 17, so that an Offer of Compromise that is unsigned and unfiled when the county makes it, is considered “effective to sever [a] defendant’s entitlement to attorney fees and costs under ORS 35.300(4).”
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Corbin
Any error by a trial court if a party does not request a Leistiko instruction and the trial court fails to provide one is not a plain error. Moreover, a trial court need not follow the precise steps of the Mayfield analysis, the court still meets the requirements of Mayfield so long as the record establishes that the trial court considered the elements outlined in Mayfield.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Labor Ready v. Mogensen
While ORS 656.262(7)(a) and ORS 656.267 require "notice of new medical conditions, they do not require notice of diagnoses.” Moreover, “a particular diagnosis is not required to support the compensability of a work-related condition.”
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
Phillips v. Dept. of Public Safety Standards and Training
When an employment case is heard by an administrator and his findings pertain to allegations of misconduct under OAR 259-008-0070 then the Department of Public Safety Standards and Training must consider that issue resolved in a certification case. However, if the administrator’s decision on allegations of misconduct is not made under OAR 259-008-0070 then the Department of Public Safety Standards and Training is able to review the issues of the case for misconduct under that statute despite the arbitrator’s decision.
Area(s) of Law:- Labor Law
State v. Martinez
A clearly made objection to an exhibit as a whole may be preserved but if the defendant does not distinguish between admissible and objectionable statements and the Court finds that any portion of that exhibit is admissible, the objection will no longer stand.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Pichardo
State v. Unger and the companion cases have modified the analysis set forth in State v. Hall say that, “when a defendant seeks to suppress evidence discovered during a consent search that followed unlawful police conduct, ‘the state bears the burden of demonstrating that (1) the consent was voluntary; and (2) the consent was not the product of police exploitation of the illegal stop or search.’”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Sherman
A passenger is not automatically seized during a traffic stop and the determination of his seizure is whether there was a significant “show of authority” by the police. Moreover, while voluntary consent given by the defendant is an important consideration, it does not cure any unlawful conduct committed by the police. The voluntary consent should be reviewed alongside “the nature of the unlawful [police] conduct, including its purpose and flagrancy, the temporal proximity between the unlawful conduct and consent, and the presence of intervening or mitigating circumstances.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Crummett
If charges are properly joined, the party seeking severance of those charges bears the burden of showing that the joinder will effectuate substantial prejudice to the defendant and the court is not to presume it. The party must be specific in demonstrating how the joinder will lead to prejudice and the arguments must relate to specific facts of the defendant’s case.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Furrillo
Under the automobile exception to a warranted search, a backpack of a passenger can be included as a container that can be searched if the backpack is in the vehicle at the time probable cause for the search arose.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Carcamo-Tellez
Pursuant to ORS 137.225 the court must grant a motion to set aside certain convictions unless findings by clear and convincing evidence are made that “granting the motion would not be in the best interests of justice.” Unstipulated information asserted by counsel without any other proof is not considered evidence.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Gonzalez-Aguilera v. Premo
In reviewing a claim for plain error, the Oregon Court of Appeals has the ability to use their discretion to correct the error.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. Zepeda
Pursuant to ORS 161.665(4), the State must bear the burden of proof establishing that the defendant has or might acquire resources to pay for court-appointed attorney fees to be imposed.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Heise-Fay
Compelling circumstances are when a suspect is placed in a position that a reasonable person in that position would feel compelled to answer a police officer’s questions. Compelling circumstances are determined through a totality of the circumstances based on a four factor test set forth in State v. Roble-Baker, 340 Or 631, 641 (2006).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Worth
Pursuant to ORS 161.737(1), a dangerous offender’s determinate sentence can be considered a departure sentence which would be governed by the “400%” rule set forth for sentencing purposes in OAR 213-008-0007(3). OAR 213-012-0020(5)’s rules apply to consecutive presumptive sentences. “The ultimate result is that the “shift-to-I” and “200%” rules have no direct application to dangerous offender sentences and are implicated only derivatively if a trial court imposes a dangerous offender determinate term in excess of the guidelines presumptive sentence.”
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Gerhardt
When determining whether restitution for a victim arising from criminal conduct of a defendant, the court should look to when the conduct causing restitution owed occurred and whether it is a direct result of the initial criminal conduct and not latter criminal conduct stemming from the initial criminal conduct.
Area(s) of Law:- Remedies
State v. Howe
Pursuant to ORS 161.067(3) a defendant's multiple count assault convictions must be merged. To prevent merging, the state must show that there was a sufficient pause in the defendant's conduct to permit an opportunity for defendant to renounce the criminal intent of his conduct, and that, despite this pause, defendant continued to engage in criminal activity.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Kimmons
Pursuant to Rodgers/Kirkeby, “a stop is unlawfully extended, effectuating an unconstitutional seizure, where 'an officer, without letting the person know expressly or by implication that he or she is free to leave, detains the person beyond the time reasonably required to investigate the initial basis for the stop and to issue a citation, without the requisite reasonable suspicion.'”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Barbera v. State of Oregon
Misrepresentation by an attorney regarding post-conviction time-lines does not allow for an excuse in timely filing of petitions for post-conviction relief. Moreover, petitions for post-conviction relief do not require a notary signature.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. Navickas
Evaluating a “lawful order” pertaining to ORS 162.247(1)(b) should be done independently of the circumstances giving rise to the order given. The standard is whether a rational trier of fact could find that the order was given by one who had the authority to give such order and the lawfulness of said order could be found in substantive law.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. McHaffie
Consideration of all the circumstances together can create sufficient specific and articulable facts for an officer to have had reasonable suspicion to make a lawful stop.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Cervantes
Testimony cannot be preemptively denied on the sole basis that it may be inadmissible before the trier of fact unless exceptional circumstances arise which would allow for such preemption to occur.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Stevenson v. Board of Parole
Mastriano v. Board of Parole held that an order which denies the review or reconsideration of a previous order is not considered a final order subject to judicial review. Additionally, a petition which is substantively different, but, in effect, duplicates the request made in a previous petition that was denied, is not subject to judicial review.
Area(s) of Law:- Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
State v. Sherman
Constructive possession of a controlled substance occurs when the defendant exercises control, or has the right to exercise control, over the substance. However, merely being proximately close to the substance does not indicate constructive possession. Evidence needs to be established connecting defendant to his right to control the substance and that evidence can be circumstantial, including defendant's own statements.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Stewart
Under the Oregon Constitution, Article VII, section 3, an appellate court is required to affirm a conviction, even if an evidentiary error occurred, if there is little possibility that the error negatively impacted the verdict. The evidence in question needs to be weighed as to whether it is “merely cumulative” or “qualitatively different” from other evidence presented in the case that led to the conviction.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Logan v. Logan
The trial court has discretion to determine the amount and duration of spousal support that will be just and equitable. The Court of Appeals will not disturb that discretionary determination unless there was a misapplication of law under ORS 107.105.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. Lusareta
Though State v. Mills asserts that, under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution, a criminal defendant “has a waivable constitutional right to object to improper venue by way of a pretrial motion”, if the law at the time of trial allows for objection of venue to be raised after the trail has begun, it is permitted to be considered an allowable objection.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Valerio
“Accomplice liability is both created by and limited by ORS 161.155” in that criminal liability of an accomplice can be attached to a crime that is intended but the statute does not extend the liability to the natural and probable consequence of the intended crime.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Davis
OEC 412 is intended to protect victims of sexual abuse from having “degrading or embarrassing disclosure of intimate details about [their] private lives” and the prejudicial effect of such details will be weighed against the probative value of the proffered evidence.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Nichols
A court can look to the cumulative “specific and articulable facts” as set out in State v. Holdorf where even if the individual “specific and articulable facts” in and of themselves are not to a level of reasonable suspicion, if under the totality of the circumstances the facts indicate a level of reasonable suspicion, then there is sufficient reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Hickey v. Hickey
The historical statutory context of ORS 60.952 is that it was enacted to reflect judicial practice and that practice has been to avoid penalizing controlling shareholders’ ownership interests in a manner that significantly departing from what was required to relieve minority shareholders from the oppressive conduct; and also to avoid increasing any value or benefit from a minority shareholders’ interest beyond what minority shareholders could reasonably expect or the fair value of the shares.
Area(s) of Law:- Corporations
Taylor v. Portland Adventist Medical Center
ORS 19.250(2) does not apply where a trial court judge determines to let a subsequent trial proceed following a mistrial in the same matter. The trial court judge is not making a judgment nor does the trial court's order “'effectively determine[] the action so as to prevent a judgment in the action.' It merely allows for another trial,” thus making a denial to a motion for dismissal unappealable.
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
State v. Nascimento
Under ORS 164.377(4), “Without authorization” applies to a machine limited to one function, and authorization given to use such machine for that one function, which does not constitute general authorization to use the machine for other functions outside of what was indicated.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Smith v. Mills
There is no Oregon statutory entitlement (under ORS 144.315, ORS 183.413, and ORS 183.445), or Constitutional entitlement (under Oregon Constitution Article 1, section 10, or the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution) to subpoena witnesses for parole consideration hearings.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Hall v. Dept. of Corrections
Judicial review of an administrative rule is limited to its challenge on the face of the rule and not “as applied.”
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
State v. Jackson
Evidence obtained pursuant to an unlawful search should be inadmissible - even if said evidence is acquired from a consented search that resulted from unlawful search.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Dept. of Human Services v. L.C.
To have continued jurisdiction over a child there needs to be current threat of danger or serious loss of injury that is based in facts, and not speculation. The factual basis “cannot be based on a parent's past problems, absent evidence that the problems persist and endanger the child.”
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. S.R.
When petitioning for civil commitment as a result of mental illness, the state is not obligated to wait until a person is on the threshold of dying to petition for said commitment, but still needs to show that the person is so unable to care for their basic needs as a result of a mental disorder that they are “at risk of death in the near future.”
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
State v. Olendorff
After an arrest, if a request by arrestee is made to hand over personal belongings to another person and no exception pursuant to an arrest warrant exists at the time of the arrest, then the officer is to release said personal belongings to the other person as requested.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Dept. of Human Services v. T.S.
To determine whether Department of Human Services (DHS) established reasonable efforts to reunify both the mother and the father, the efforts should be viewed through the totality of the case. DHS needs to endeavor to reunify both parents, even if it appears that only one will eventually be reunified.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. K.M.
It is not sufficient for a client to be informed by their attorney as to the possible outcomes of a hearing to determine mental illness and possible involuntary confinement. The trial judge must advise the alleged mentally ill person of their rights pursuant to ORS 426.100.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
State v. Meek
A letter, as a form of “written communication” is not considered an “object” under ORS 163.750(1)(c).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Dept. of Human Services v. M.H.
Under ORS 419B.500 and ORS 419.498(3), a termination of parental rights petition will be based upon the most recent permanency plan determination since it is based on the current circumstances of the child.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Coffman
Warrantless entrance onto residential curtilage is likely a trespass, unless the resident has given implied or express consent. When determining implied consent to enter the curtilage of a home that consists of multiple units, the Court looks at the physical layout of the units and the residents' use of the area to see whether an objective member of the public would understand that there is an implied consent to enter.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Shell v. Schollander Companies, Inc.
This Court previously concluded that ORS 12.135 “applies to any action, 'in contract, tort, or otherwise,' regardless of the type of damages sought, so long as the action arises out of the specified construction-related circumstances.” The Court further concludes that these claims need to arise out of a construction contract.
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
State v. Baker
It is important to consider “whether all elements of one offense are subsumed within the elements of the other offense” when determining whether two counts should merge as one. While “underlying factual circumstances of the crime” might seemingly overlap to a degree, the statutory duplication of all elements are what analysis hinges on.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Carlon
To avoid error, trial courts should ensure that when answering a jury's question, further instructions are applicable to the charges at hand and not further focusing the jury on irrelevant issues.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Duvall
Trial court that assumes the jury has an understanding of a legal definition and then fails to give that definition to the jury risks having the trial remanded.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Davis
Under Article I, Section 11 of the Oregon Constitution, a defendant has the right for a jury to find all elements of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Issue preclusion, therefore, cannot be used to definitively establish essential facts to obtain a conviction because it hinders a jury's duty to deliberate and find every element of a crime.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Moore
Under ORS 136.432.1, a court cannot suppress relevant evidence, even if obtained in violation of statutory provision, unless there is an exception under the United States Constitution or the Oregon Constitution; the rules of evidence governing privileges and the admission of hearsay; or, the rights of the press.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Hamel-Spencer
Defendant has the burden to prove that multiple offenses are the result of a single criminal episode and that the first prosecutor is aware of the multiple offenses to demonstrate double jeopardy.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Smith
Under ORS 161.370, trial courts have the authority to commit defendants to hospitals for treatment designed to restore their competence to stand trial.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
US Bank, NA v. Eckert
Under former ORS 86.735, the appointment of a successor trustee to a deed of trust needs to be recorded with the county where the relevant property is located.
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
State v. Rose
Under ORS 136.583, a search warrant issued in Oregon can be executed in another state so long as the criminal matter is triable in Oregon and “exercise of jurisdiction over the recipient is not inconsistent with the Oregon Constitution or Constitution of the United States.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Fernaays
Where remand of a sentencing hearing would not materially promote the “ends of justice” the Court of Appeals has the ability to decline to exercise its discretion to remedy the statutory error.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Sines
When the state is sufficiently involved in a search or seizure conducted by a private party, state constitutional protection is triggered.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Schmidt v. Slader
Direct causation, rather than reasonable foreseeability, is the sine qua non of respondeat superior liability. Evidence regarding acts that are the outgrowth of and within the scope of employment ought to be obtained and presented to the court.
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
Rowlett v. Fagan
A properly stated negligence claim cannot be dismissed on the merits after an answer has already been filed before trial.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Dalessio
Under State v. Moore/Coen, a defendant's trial testimony is considered tainted by the erroneous admission of unconstitutionally-obtained statements even if Defendant did not move to exclude his pretrial statement during his first trial.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Bistrika
Evidence of independent crimes that threaten the safety of police officers do not need to be suppressed even if evidence is obtained as a result of unlawful police conduct.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Durando
If conviction would have occurred despite the evidence in question being suppressed then it is considered a harmless error; however, unlawfully obtained evidence that is the sole evidence leading to a conviction will be suppressed.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure