Oregon Court of Appeals (5 summaries)
Dept. of Human Services v. H.K.
Under ORS 418.270(4), once children are placed for adoption, a parent’s relinquishment is irrevocable absent proof of fraud or duress; when neither is alleged, the possibility of a future successful revocation is too remote to prevent mootness.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Gazitt v. City of Portland
Summary judgment based on discretionary immunity is “appropriate only if the defendant establishes all of the elements of the defense as a matter of law.” John v. City of Gresham, 214 Or App 305, 311-12, 165 P3d 1177 (2007). A court must then analyze entitlement to immunity “with respect to each distinct alleged specification of negligence.” Robbins v. City of Medford, 284 Or App 592, 596 n 3, 393 P3d 731 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
State v. Champagne
In a child sexual abuse prosecution, other-acts evidence offered to prove sexual purpose is not categorically inadmissible under OEC 404(4) merely because it involves propensity reasoning; its admissibility depends on case-specific OEC 403 balancing and measures mitigating unfair prejudice.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. McGee
A trial court abuses its discretion by admitting other-acts evidence when “the relevance of the evidence derive[s] primarily from character inferences” and the evidence carries “the risk of significant prejudicial impact.” State v. McGee, 341 Or App 237, 247 (2025).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. E.J.R.
Under ORS 419C.478(1), a juvenile court’s written findings must reflect a careful and explicit evaluation of why Oregon Youth Authority custody is in the particular youth’s best interests; a conclusory finding that no less restrictive placement is available is insufficient.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law