Oregon Supreme Court (3 summaries)
State v. Carpenter
"'[C]onceal' requires conduct by the defenant that hides the person who committed a crime punishable as a felony from ordinary observation."
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Toth
There are three requirements for a compensatory fine: “[t]he first is that the crime must ‘result[] in injury.’” State v. Moreno Hernandez, 365 Or 175, __ (2019) (quoting ORS 137.101(1)). Second, "the statutory definition of 'victim' in ORS 137.103(4) must be met, which usually requires a showing that the victim suffered 'economic damages,' defined by ORS 31.710 as 'reasonable charges necessarily incurred for medical, hospital, nursing and rehabilitative services and other health care services***.'" Third, “‘those damages were recoverable against the defendant in a civil action.’” Moreno Hernandez, 365 Or at __ (quoting State v. Barkley, 315 Or 420, 438, 846 P2d 390 (1993)).
Area(s) of Law:- Remedies
Vasquez v. Double Press Mfg., Inc.
“Claims subject to *** ORS chapter 656” under ORS 31.710(1) “most plausibly encompasses an exception” for claims against noncomplying employers and third parties, and the context of ORS 31.710(1), as part of “tort reform” enacted in 1987, does not indicate the damages cap “was intended to apply to … claims in ORS chapter 656.”
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
Oregon Court of Appeals (50 summaries)
State v. Laune
“The primary purposes of the preservation rule are to allow the trial court to consider a contention and correct any error, to allow the opposing party an opportunity to respond to a contention, and to foster a full development of the record.” Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209, 219-20, 191 P3d 637 (2008).
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
State v. Strasser
Excluding evidence is harmless if the finder of fact “would have regarded the evidence as duplicative or unhelpful to its deliberations.” State v. Blaylock, 267 Or App 455, 456 n 1, 341 P3d 758 (2014), rev den, 357 Or 299 (2015) (quoting State v. Perkins, 221 Or App 136, 143, 188 P3d 482 (2008) (internal quotation marks, citations, and ellipses omitted)).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v Marmon
An affidavit requires facts be included to show more likely than not that: “(1)…a crime has been, or is currently being, committed, and that (2) evidence of that crime (3) will be found in the place to be searched.” State v. Cannon, 299 Or App 616, 626-27, 450 P3d 567 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v Pouncey
The denial of the motion for mistrial is reviewed for abuse of discretion, “asking whether the prosecutor’s unremedied misstatement so affected the jury’s consideration as to deny defendant a fair trial.” Citing State v. Davis, 345 Or 551, 582-83, 201 P3d 185 (2008), cert den, 558 US 873 (2009).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Dept. of Human Services v. L. C.
DHS bears the burden of persuasion to demonstrate the consequences asserted by Mother and Father were incorrect on the facts or insufficient legally. Dept. of Human Services v. A. B., 362 Or 412, 427, 412 P3d 1169 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Ortiz-Rico
For ORS 161.067(3), a “sufficient pause” is considered “a temporary or brief cessation of a defendant’s criminal conduct that occurs between repeated violations and is so marked in scope or quality that it affords a defendant the opportunity to renounce his or her criminal intent.” State v. Huffman, 234 Or App 177, 184, 227 P3d 1206 (2010).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Adams
The Court ruled it would “…not presume an implicit finding where the record does not support it or shows that such a finding was not part of the trial court’s chain of reasoning forming the basis of its ultimate legal conclusion.” See Pereida-Alba v. Coursey, 356 Or 654, 671, 342 P3d 70 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Dept. of Human Services v. M. E.
“If the involvement of friends and family members sufficiently counters the risk to a child otherwise presented by a parent’s deficits so that the child is safe, dependency jurisdiction is not warranted.” Dept. of Human Services v. J. G. K., 298 Or App 398, 402, 449 P3d 531 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Rieker
“…ORS 137.106 did not prevent the court from imposing restitution [beyond the 90-day deadline] in order to provide the victim a remedy by due course of law, after it was discovered that her constitutional right to restitution was violated.” State v. Wagoner, 257 Or App 749, 395 P3d 528 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Colman-Pinning
“[T]he automobile exception is a subcategory of the warrant exception for exigent circumstances, necessitated by the fact that a vehicle that is mobile can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought.” State v. Brown, 301 Or 268, 275, 721 P2d 1357 (1986). “The mobility of the vehicle creates a per se exigency, meaning that there is no need to establish other exigencies or that a warrant could not have been quickly obtained.” Id. at 276.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Middleton
“The test for whether an encounter is a ‘seizure’ is whether the officer ‘intentionally and significantly restricts, interferes with, or otherwise deprives an individual’s liberty or freedom of movement,’ or whether ‘a reasonable person under the totality of the circumstances would believe that [that] has occurred.’” State v. Fair, 353 Or 588, 594, 302 P3d 417 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Drew
"A wound on the forehead and scalp that is four to six inches in length and half an inch wide after five staples had been used to close it is a 'disfigurement' as the term is ordinarily used," and, if it is "readily apparent to others, qualifies as 'serious.'" State v. Kinsey, 293 Or App, 208, 213, 426 P3d 674 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Gallegos
“Plain error is an error that is (1) one of law; (2) obvious, i.e., not reasonably in dispute; and (3) apparent on the record.” State v. Vanornum, 354 Or 614, 629, 317 P3d 889 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Remedies
State v. McCarthy
The automobile exception requires “(1) that the automobile is mobile at the time it is stopped by police or other governmental authority, and (2) that probable cause exists for the search of the vehicle.” State v. Brown, 301 Or. 268, 274, 721 P2d 1357 (1986).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Keyes
"[A] 'sentence imposed' under ORS 137.717 is a sentence initially imposed upon conviction, and not a sentence imposed at the time the probation is revoked." State v. Orcutt, 280 Or App 439, 446, 380 P3d 1105 (2016), rev den, 361 Or 525 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Yann v. Bowser
In reviewing the trial court's grant of summary judgment for legal error, the Court determines “whether there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Evans v. City of Warrenton, 283 Or App 256, 258, 388 P3d 1167 (2016); ORCP 47 C.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. M. J. M.
Once a court finds a person is mentally ill by clear and convincing evidence, if the court finds that person is “willing and able to participate in treatment on a voluntary basis” and they “will probably do so” the court must order their release under ORS 426.130(1)(a)(A)(i)-(ii).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
State v. Clay
"The legislature did not intend ORS 163.670 to capture a person’s observation of his own sexual abuse of a child or observation of a child’s sexual or intimate parts while sexually abusing or preparing to sexually abuse the child." Rather, "the legislature intended to address conduct committed for the purpose of observation or visual recording."
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Dept. of Human Services v C.M.H.
Under ORS 419B.157, “the jurisdiction of the juvenile court of the county in which a child is taken into protective custody shall attach from the time the child is taken into custody.” "'Jurisdiction' in that statute is necessarily a reference to subject matter jurisdiction because, at the time a child is taken into custody, the court will not have had the opportunity to make the factual findings and legal determination required by ORS 419.310(3) to assert dependency jurisdiction over a child.”
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Burris
Whenever the State is proceeding under the aid-and-abet theory, as well as the principle liability theory, "a trial court must charge the jury as to its concurrence obligation." State v. Phillips, 354 Or 598, 606, 317 P3d 236 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Coons
“An error is ‘plain; if it is (1) of law, (2) obvious and not reasonably in dispute, and (3) it appears on the record such that there is no need to choose among competing inferences.” State v. Clarke, 300 Or App 74, 80, ___ P3d ___ (2019) (second and third internal quotation marks omitted).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
De Lanoy v. Taylor
"[W]hen only one party asks for a declaration, it is incumbent on the court to declare the respective rights of the parties." See Akles v. State of Oregon, 298 Or App 283, 284, 444 P3d 532 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Remedies
State v. Craigen
"The subcategories in OAR 213-018-0070 assign a different degree of criminal seriousness based on the type of contraband in the inmate's possession, not the manner in which the inmate used the contraband."
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
King v. SAIF
The “going and coming” rule applies when “injuries sustained while an employee is traveling to or from work do not occur in the course of employment.” See SAIF v. Massari, 291 Or App 349, 420 P3d 659 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
Wiggins v. SAIF
The standard in the form ("more than 2/3 of the time") was not the same as the WCD interpretation because under that interpretation, “a person is significantly limited in the repetitive use of a body part if the person ‘can use the body part repetitively for up to, but no more than, two-thirds of the time.’” Broeke v. SAIF, 300 Or App 91 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
State v. Gatewood
The Court followed its approach in State v. Moncada, “[t]o determine the identity of the ‘victim’ for consecutive-sentencing purposes, we refer to the substantive statute defining the relevant criminal offense.” 241 Or App 202, 250 P3d 31 (2011), rev den, 351 Or 546 (2012).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Trent v. Connor Enterprises, Inc.
ORS 652.200(2) requires reasonable attorneys’ fees when the court rules for the plaintiff, except if “the court finds that the plaintiff’s attorney unreasonably failed to give written notice of the wage claim to the employer before filing the action.” ORS 652.200(2).
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
P.K.W. v. Steagall
"[I]t is appropriate to continue FAPA restraining orders when there is evidence of post-separation events that established a continuing threat to petitioner's safety." Hubbell v. Sanders, 245 Or App 321, 263 P3d 1096 (2011).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Abuse Prevention Act
State v. S.T.
The question to ask is "whether the evidence described . . . viewed in the light most favoring the state, provides 'a concrete and particularized foundation for a prediction of future dangerousness absent commitment.” State v. S. E. R., 297 Or App 121, 122, 441 P3d 254 (2019) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
Crown Property Management, Inc. v. Cottingham
"The provision must also designate an address where the tenant can mail notices to the landlord and a location where the tenant can affix notices, 'which shall be described with particularity in the written rental agreement, reasonably located in relation to the tenant and available at all hours.'" ORS 90.155(1)(c)(B).
Area(s) of Law:- Landlord Tenant
Bank of New York Mellon v. Owen
“ORS 86.797 cannot provide finality in a fundamentally flawed nonjudicial foreclosure sale” Troubled Asset Solutions v. Wilcher, 291 Or App 522, 530-31, 422 P3d 314 (2018), rev’d in part on other grounds, 365 OR 397, 445 P3d 881 (2019) (citing DiGregorio v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, 281 Or App 484, 490-91, 381 P3d 961 (2016), rev den, 361 Or 100 (2017)).
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
State v. Hoseclaw
It is appropriate for the court to correct an error if the "plain error [is] based on the defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence given the gravity of the error and intervening change in the law." See State v. Inloes, 239 Or App 49, 54-55, 243 P3d 862 (2010).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Ventris
The 1999 legislative amendment to ORS 138.083 granted the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision the same authority it had to parole persons convicted of murder that it had to parole persons convicted of aggravated murder. State v. Giles, 254 Or App 349-50, 293 P3d 1086 (2012). ).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. McDougal
A trial court's contempt judgment should be reversed and remanded when "the trial court ha[s] applied an incorrect standard in determining that the defendant ha[s] violated a restraining order." State v. Heal, 298 Or App 806, ___ P3d ___ (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Abuse Prevention Act
State v. Steele
“For an error to be plain error, it must be an error of law, obvious and not reasonably 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:- Appellate Procedure
State v. Eatinger
When testimony is scientific, the State is required to lay foundation using the Brown/O’Key factors. State v. O’Key, 321 Or 285, 899 P2d 663 (1995); State v. Brown, 297 Or 404, 687 P2d 751 (1984).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Bank of America, N.A., v. Carlson
“Those statements were not admissible under the hearsay exception for business records under OEC 803(6), which, subject to various requirements, allows for the admission of a ‘memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, in any form’…‘no part of that rule purports to render testimony about [the records] admissible over a hearsay objection.’” U.S. Bank National Assn. v. McCoy, 290 Or App 525, 534-536, 415 P3d 1116 (2018) (emphasis in original).
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
State v. Smartt
In a restitution proceeding under ORS 137.106(1)(a), “the state can demonstrate the reasonable value of medical expenses by offering evidence that the medical expenses reflect the usual and customary rate for those services in the market wherein they occur.” State v. Campbell, 296 Or App 22, 31, 438 P3d 448 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Connelly
A UUV conviction will be upheld when “there is evidence of ‘tampering’ and ‘foul play’ that is ‘relevant to defendant’s knowledge’ that [the] [vehicle] was stolen.” State v. Peirce, 296 Or App 829, 838, 440 P3d 98 (2019) (quoting State v. Bell, 220 Or App 226, 271-72, 185 P3d 541 (2008)).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Albany & Eastern Railroad Co. v. Martell
“To establish a prescriptive easement, a claimant ‘must establish an open and notorious use of [the owner’s] land adverse to the rights of [the owner’ for a continuous and uninterrupted period of ten years.’” Wels v. Hippe, 360 Or 569, 577, 385 P3d 1028 (2016). The use of property is “adverse” if “inconsistent with the owner’s use of the property or if it is undertaken not in subordination to the rights of the owner.” Id. at 578.
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
State v. Cook
“[W]here the issue is presented, a sentencing court must consider an offender’s intellectual disability in comparing the gravity of the offense and the severity of a mandatory prison sentence on such an offender in a proportionality analysis.” State v. Ryan, 361 Or 602, 620-21, 396 P3d 867 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Bohanan v Amsberry
"For petitioners who are 'unable to pay the expenses of a proceeding,' ORS 138.590 creates an exception to the requirement under ORS 138.560(1) that the filing fee be paid at the time the petition is filed. ORS 138.590(1), (8). In that circumstance, 'all court fees in the circuit court' other than the filing fee are waived; the filing fee, however, 'is not waived but may be drawn from, or charged against, the petitioner's trust account if the petitioner is an inmate in a correctional facility.'" ORS 138.590(8)(b).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Bush and Bush
“Although we exercise our discretion to review de novo only in exceptional cases, ORAP 5.40(8)(c), 'a lower court’s reliance on a crucial finding that does not comport with the evidence in the record can be a reason to exercise our discretion.'” Morgan and Morgan, 269 Or App 156, 159, 344 P3d 81 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Berg v. Benton
“The pendency of an appeal does not *** prevent a judgment from operating as res judicata or collateral estoppel.” Ron Tonkin Gran Turismo v. Wakehouse Motors, 46 Or App 199, 207, 611 P2d 658, rev den, 289 Or 373 (1980).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Baldwin v. Seida
The legislature’s intent can be understood by looking at the text of ORS 31.150(2)(a)-(b); in context, under State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160, 171-72, 206 P3d 1042 (2009), the Court examined “submitted” and “judicial proceeding,” determining the plain meaning according to the dictionary definitions was “statements that are sent for consideration or presented for use in a court proceeding or a proceeding initiated to procure an order, decree, judgment, or similar action.”
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
Fenimore v Blachly-Lane County C.E.A.
The court can “affirm on an alternative basis only if, (1) the facts of the record are sufficient to support the alternative basis for affirmance; (2) the trial court’s ruling is consistent with the view of the evidence under the alternative basis for affirmance; and (3) the record is materially the same as the one that would have been developed had the prevailing party raised the alternative basis for affirmance below.” Outdoor Media Dimensions, Inc. v. State of Oregon, 331 Or 634, 659-60, 20 P3d 180 (2001).
Area(s) of Law:- Disability Law
State v. Slaviak
Under State v. Ashkins, 357 Or 642, 659, 357 P3d 490 (2015), a defendant is entitled to a concurrence instruction when an indictment charges "a single occurrence of each offense, but the evidence permit[s] the jury to find any one or more among multiple, separate occurrences of that offense involving the same victim and the same perpetrator," unless the state "elect[ed] which occurrence it would prove." 357 Or at 659.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Craigen
"[A] defendant’s 'personal characteristics' are appropriately considered as part of the defendant’s 'situation' for purposes of the EED defense, whereas a defendant’s 'personality characteristics' or 'personality traits' are not permissibly considered as part of the defendant’s ‘situation.’” Zielinksi, 287 Or App at 780 (citing State v. Ott, 297 Or 375, 686 P2d 1001 (1984)).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. M. G.
“To justify continued commitment on the ‘danger to others’ ground, the state must do more than establish that [A]ppellant was dangerous to others at one time.” State v. D. S., 243 Or App 328, 333, 258 P3d 1250 (2011). “[I]t must establish a factual foundation to predict [A]ppellant’s future dangerousness based on his condition at the time of the hearing in the context of his history.” Id.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
State v. Totland
The court reviews “a trial court’s decision to overrule an objection to closing arguments for abuse of discretion.” State v. Logston, 270 Or App 296, 303, 347 P.2d 352 (2015). "In conducting this review, we review statements made by a party during argument in context, not in a vacuum.” State v. Purrier, 265 Or App 618, 621, 336 P3d 574 (2014).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law