United States Supreme Court (20 summaries)
Wooden v. United States
Convictions stemming from a single criminal episode count as a single “occasion” under 18 U.S.C. §924(e)(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Cameron v. EMW Women’s Surgical Center, P. S. C.
When deciding the timeliness of a third party’s motion to intervene, the most important consideration for courts is whether the party sought to intervene “as soon as it became clear” that its interests “would no longer be protected” by the parties in the case. United Airlines, Inc. v. McDonald, 432 U. S. 385, 394 (1977).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
United States v. Zubaydah
The state secrets privilege bars the disclosure of information upon the Government’s showing that disclosure would have a “reasonable probability” to harm national security. United States v. Reynolds, 345 U. S. 1, 6–7, 11 (1953).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Unicolors, Inc. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P.
The safe harbor for copyright applications provided by 17 U.S.C. §411(b) excuses mistakes of fact and law.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Hughes v. Northwestern Univ.
Plaintiffs “may allege that a fiduciary breached the duty of prudence by failing to properly monitor investments and remove imprudent ones.” Tibble v. Edison Int’l, 575 U. S. 523, 530 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson
Sovereign immunity allows a pre-enforcement challenge to state legislation under the U.S. Constitution to proceed beyond the motion to dismiss stage against litigants with enforcement power against abortion providers, but not state judges, clerks, the state attorney general, or private parties.
Area(s) of Law:- Sovereign Immunity
Edwards v. Vannoy
New procedural rules announced by the Supreme Court are not retroactively applied on federal collateral review.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Carr v. Saul
Administrative proceedings must be adversarial in nature for a court to impose the requirement of issue exhaustion.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Jones v. Mississippi
Miller v. Alabama and Montgomery v. Louisiana do not require a sentencer to make a finding that a defendant under the age of eighteen is permanently incorrigible before imposing a sentence of life without parole.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid
Under 47 U.S.C. §227(a)(1)(A), an autodialer must have the capacity “to use a random or sequential number generator” to either “store or produce phone numbers” to be called.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
United States Fish and Wildlife Serv. v. Sierra Club, Inc.
The deliberative process privilege shields predecisional and deliberative documents from Freedom of Information Act requests, but documents which communicate an agency’s settled position on a matter are not protected.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp
The expropriation exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act incorporates the domestic takings rule, which makes a sovereign’s taking of its own nationals’ property a domestic affair.
Area(s) of Law:- Sovereign Immunity
United States v. Briggs
Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), no time limitation exists for bringing charges on crimes which are “punishable by death” under the USMJ.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
McGirt v. Oklahoma
Congress has the sole power to disestablish a Native American reservation; the Major Crimes Act requires federal prosecution of certain crimes within “Indian country,” including the Creek Reservation in Oklahoma.
Area(s) of Law:- Indian Law
Barr v. Am. Ass'n of Political Consultants, Inc.
The 2015 amendment to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 excluding robocalls made to collect government debts from the general prohibition against robocalls to cellular phones is unconstitutional and therefore severed.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
June Med. Servs. L. L. C. v. Russo
Louisiana’s admitting-privileges law for abortion doctors represents a substantial obstacle to a woman pursuing an abortion and is therefore unconstitutional.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez
The three-strikes provision under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, denying prisoners the ability to bring suit without paying a filing fee if three or more prior suits were dismissed, includes all dismissals for failure to state a claim—with or without prejudice.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Fin. Oversight & Mgmt. Bd. for Puerto Rico v. Aurelius Inv., LLC.
The Appointments Clause of the Constitution, Art. II, §2, cl. 2, applies to the appointments of some territorial officials, but not to officials whose powers and duties are primarily local.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
U.S. v. Sineneng-Smith
Under the party presentation principle, a court’s role is to neutrally adjudicate cases as presented by the parties, not to reframe the controversy.
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
Barton v. Barr
The offense which disqualifies a permanent legal resident from eligibility for cancellation of removal does not have to be one of the offenses which triggered the removal action.
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted (2 summaries)
Transunion LLC v. Ramirez, Sergio L.
Whether either Article III or Rule 23 permits a damages class action where the vast majority of the class suffered no actual injury, let alone an injury anything like what the class representative suffered.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project
Whether the court of appeals erred in vacating as arbitrary and capricious the FCC orders under review, which, among other things, relaxed the agency’s cross-ownership restrictions to accommodate changed market conditions.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Oregon Supreme Court (13 summaries)
State v Meiser
Under ORS 161.295, the affirmative defense of GEI does not require proof that a lack of capacity is due solely to a mental disease or defect, such that an antisocial personality disorder played no part in the incapacity.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Arrowood Indemnity Co. v. Fasching
Eligibility for the business records exception under OEC 803(6) depends upon: (A) the record itself having the characteristics required by OEC 803(6) and (B) “evidence of the record-making practices of the business that created the record.” Allan v. Oceanside Lumber Co., 214 Or 27, 328 P2d 327 (1958).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Belden
The constitutional right to confrontation requires the State to exhaust “all reasonably available means of producing the witness,” under “the circumstances of the individual case.” State v. Harris, 362 Or 55, 66–67, 404 P3d 926 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Owen v. City of Portland
“A party that challenges a home-rule city’s authority as preempted by state law is required to show that the legislature ‘unambiguously’ expressed its intent—a high bar to overcome.” Rogue Valley Sewer Services v. City of Phoenix, 357 Or 437, 454, 353 P3d 581 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Preemption
State v. Bartol
Under Article I, section 16, two special proportionality requirements apply to the death penalty. (1) Death must be limited to those who commit “a narrow category of the most serious crimes,” and are “the most deserving of execution. Atkins v. Virginia, 536 US 304, 319, 122 S Ct 2242 (2002). (2) There must be “a fundamental, moral distinction” between death-penalty and non-death-penalty crimes. Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 US 407, 438, 128 S Ct 2641 (2008).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Dept. of Human Services v. C. M. H.
The allegations and relief sought in a pending petition are sufficient to bring a case under the subject matter jurisdiction of the juvenile court. ORS 419B.100(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Friends of Columbia Gorge v. Energy Fac. Siting Coun.
Although the Energy Facility Sitting Council may restrict the rights of participation for limited parties, it cannot restrict the rights of full parties in a matter. ORS 183.417; ORS 183.450(3).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Walker v. Oregon Travel Information Council
A claim of wrongful discharge requires a plaintiff to identify an important public policy that would be foiled if the plaintiff were discharged; “it is necessary to ‘find’ a public duty, not create one.” Babick v. Oregon Arena Corp., 333 Or 401, 409, 40 P3d 1059 (2002). “The reasonableness of an employee’s belief” about an employer’s violation of law, like the reasonableness determination in civil negligence claims, is a question of fact. Fazzolari v. Portland School Dist. No. 1J, 303 Or 1, 12, 734 P2d 1326 (1987).
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
State v. Banks
A prosecutor may not make statements to a jury which imply that “additional evidence exists but cannot be presented” due to “our laws and rules of the court.” State v. Newburn, 178 Or 238, 241-42, 166 P2d 470 (1946). A trial court “accentuate[s] the error” if it overrules a defendant’s objection; reversal is required if the trial court fails to instruct the jury to disregard the prosecutor’s statement. Id.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co. v. Sulejmanagic
Under ORS 100.450(7)(c), a foreclosure action that has been filed and dismissed is treated as if it had never been filed.
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
State ex rel Rosenblum v. Nisley
Under ORS 236.010 (1)(g), an office becomes vacant if the “incumbent ceases to possess any other qualification required for election or appointment to such office.” Under ORS 8.630, a district attorney must be admitted to practice law in Oregon.
Area(s) of Law:- Election Law
James v. State of Oregon
The contract rights of a member of the Public Employees Retirement System are impaired if: (1) an amendment functions retrospectively to decrease benefits attributable to work completed prior to the change, or (2) an amendment prospectively operates to reduce future benefits and the prior offer was irrevocable. Moro v. State of Oregon, 357 Or 167, 202-207, 351 P3d 1 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Elkhorn Baptist Church v. Brown
Under ORS 401.192(4), the “powers granted to the Governor” under a state of emergency declared under 401.165 continue until the “termination of the state of emergency” either by the Governor or by a joint resolution of the state legislature. Under ORS 433.441(4), the Governor’s powers related to a public health emergency are not subject to the twenty-eight-day limit, if a state of emergency under ORS 401.165 is declared.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
Oregon Court of Appeals (80 summaries)
State v. Azar
When determining the legislature’s intent when enacting a statute, courts examine the text, context, and legislative history of the statute. State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160, 171–72, 206 P3d 1042 (2009). A statute that provides a “reasonable degree of certainty” as to the prohibited conduct is not unconstitutionally vague. State v. Graves, 299 Or 189, 195, 700 P2d 244 (1985).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Dunn
The “preferred means of assuring that the defendant understand[s] the risks of self-representation” is a colloquy on the record. State v. Meyrick, 313 Or 125, 133, 831 P2d 666 (1992). A defendant’s request for self-representation may not be summarily denied by a trial court. State v. Miller, 254 Or App 514, 524, 295 P3d 158 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Wetzel v. Sandlow
When determining the adequacy of a corporation’s capitalization, a court evaluates whether capital is sufficient to cover anticipated liabilities. Klokke Corp. v. Classic Exposition, Inc., 139 Or App 399, 405, 912 P2d 929, rev den, 323 Or 690 (1996). As part of the issue of veil-piercing, plaintiffs have the burden of proof for showing insufficient capitalization. See Rowden v. Hogan Woods, LLC, 306 Or App 658, 680, 476 P3d 485 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Business Law
State v Mashadda
Plain error review requires the error to be “apparent on the record without requiring the court to choose among competing inferences.” State v. Vanornum, 354 Or 614, 629, 317 P3d 889 (2013). “[W]here the prosecutor presents some evidence to support restitution of a particular amount, and the defendant does not raise an objection to the amount of restitution . . . the trial court does not plainly err in imposing restitution in that amount.” State v. West, 249 Or App 257, 258, 274 P3d 892 (2012) (summarizing State v. Gruver, 247 Or App 8, 17, 268 P3d 760 (2011)).
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
State v. Avila
For a Miles instruction, the State is required to present evidence that a physical condition makes a defendant more susceptible to the influence of intoxicants. State v. Huck, 100 Or App 193, 197, 785 P2d 785 (1990).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Jackson
Under ORS 810.420(2), an officer must be trained on the type of speed measuring device used.
Area(s) of Law:- Traffic Infractions
State v. R. J. S.
Juvenile delinquency proceedings are not criminal trials. State v. N. R. L., 249 Or App 321, 324, 277 P3d 564 (2012), aff’d, 354 Or 222, 311 P3d 510 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
County of Klamath v. Ricard
Courts will “defer to [an] agency’s plausible interpretation of its own rule,” but otherwise will consider the text and context of the rule and “the rule’s adoption history.” Harris v. Dept. of Public Safety Standards, 287 Or App 111, 115, 400 P3d 1032, rev den, 362 Or 94 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
McKeown v. McKeown
Arbitrators are authorized to decide the law and the facts submitted. Brewer v. Allstate Insurance. Co., 248 Or 558, 561, 436 P2d 547 (1968). Perceived procedural errors during arbitration are not grounds to vacate an award under ORS 36.705(1)(d). Id. at 562.
Area(s) of Law:- Arbitration
State v. Yerton
A conviction for criminal mistreatment requires the state to show a defendant caused a “physical injury” to a “dependent person.” ORS 163.205(1)(b). A “physical injury” includes an “impairment of physical condition.” Prevention of breathing qualifies as a “physical injury,” but strangulation does not necessarily give rise to “physical injury” in every case. State v. Merrill, 303 Or App 107, 121, 463 P3d 540 (2020), adh’d to as modified on recons, 309 Or App 68, 481 P3d 441, rev den, 368 Or 402 (2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Pohle
The “suspension of driving privileges is civil and administrative, rather than criminal, in nature.” State v. Phillips, 138 Or App 468, 471, 909 P2d 882, rev den, 323 Or 114 (1996). Under ORS 801.557, a traffic violation is a “traffic offense that is designated as a traffic violation in the statute defining the offense, or any other offense defined in the Oregon Vehicle Code” punishable by a fine, but not imprisonment.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Watt v. SAIF
Under ORS 656.005(7)(a), an injury is compensable if it arises out of and in the course of employment. The two prongs of the work-connection inquiry—the “arising out of” prong and the “in the course of” prong—must each be evaluated. Norpac Foods, Inc. v. Gilmore, 318 Or 363, 366, 867 P2d 1373 (1994).
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
Albrecht v. Emmert
“ORCP 68 governs the pleading, proof and award of attorney fees in all cases.” Anderson v. Dry Cleaning To-Your-Door, 249 Or App 104, 108, 275 P3d 181 (2012).
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
State v. Street
Conduct that puts multiple persons at risk can support separate convictions under ORS 161.067(2). Jones v. State of Oregon, 246 Or App 253, 260 n 3, 265 P3d 75 (2011).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Dept. of Human Services v R. D.
The Department of Human Services has the burden of proof to show a connection between a parent’s risk-causing conduct and harm to the children, and that the risk is current, not speculative. Dept. of Human Services v. C. J. T., 258 Or App 57, 61–62, 308 P3d 307 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Bondick v. Lane County Circuit Court
When an application for a fee waiver under ORS 21.682 demonstrates a person is eligible, the court must develop the record or provide an explanation if it denies the request. Stanwood v. Multnomah County, 135 Or App 58, 61, 898 P2d 196 (1995).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Keys
“[B]y entering a plea, without objection, in the presence of counsel, defendant waived the preliminary hearing required” by the Oregon Constitution. State v. Sheppard, 35 Or App 69, 581 P2d 549 (1978), rev den, 285 Or 1 (1979).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Taylor
To admit other acts evidence as evidence of a spurious plan, the State must show (1) “not merely a similarity” in results, but concurrence of “common features” that are naturally explained “as caused by a general plan” and (2) “something more than the similarity required for other crimes evidence to be admissible to prove intent.” State v. Leistiko, 352 Or 172, 181, 188–89, 282 P3d 857 (2012).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Interiano v. SAIF
Under ORS 656.005(7)(a)(B), two separate conditions must be identified; a “preexisting condition and its symptoms are not separate conditions.” Carrillo v. SAIF, 310 Or App 8, 12, 484 P3d 398, rev den, 368 Or 560 (2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
State v. McCall
A warrantless arrest requires the arresting officer to have “probable cause to believe that the person committed” a crime. State v. Owens, 302 Or 196, 211, 729 P2d 524 (1986). A warrantless arrest for UUV requires an officer to have an objective basis to believe a suspect, knowing the vehicle was stolen, “exercise[d] control over or otherwise used the vehicle.” 164.135(1); see State v. Gibson, 268 Or App 428, 433, 342 P3d 168 (2015). A warrantless arrest for PSV requires an officer to have an objective basis to believe a suspect was in possession of a vehicle when the suspect had “reason to believe” the vehicle was stolen. ORS 819.300; State v. Noe, 242 Or App 530, 532, 256 P3d 166 (2011).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Thornsberry
Any fact that increases a criminal penalty past a statutory maximum must be a fact found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 US 466, 490, 120 S Ct 2348, 147 L Ed 2d 435 (2000).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Carter
Lay opinion testimony is not relevant to prove the truth or falsity of a person’s statement. See State v. Chandler, 360 Or 323, 334, 380 P3d 932 (2016). “If there is little likelihood that the error affected the verdict, [an appellate court] will not reverse on the basis of that error.” State v. Nguyen, 293 Or App 492, 498, 429 P3d 410 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Henry
For restitution award purposes, a trial court may not find that an amount paid was reasonable based solely on the fact of payment by CVCP. State v. J. M. E., 299 Or App 483, 489, 451 P3d 1018 (2019). Medical costs that are at or below the market rate are considered reasonable. State v. Workman, 300 Or App 622, 623-24, 455 P3d 566 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Remedies
State v. Phillips
The term “vehicle” in ORS 164.135(1)(a) covers items such as trailers and conduct such as towing. State v. Eastep, 361 Or 746, 756–57, 399 P3d 979 (2017). The failure to include a “lesser-included offense can impermissibly enhance the risk of an unwarranted conviction” when (1) the “element that elevates the lesser-included offense to the greater one is doubtful” and (2) “there must be substantial evidence of a serious lesser offense.” Perida-Alba v. Coursey, 356 Or 654, 665, 342 P3d 70 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Dept. of Human Services v. W. C. T.
Under ORS 419B.337, ORS 419B.387, and case law, a court may order a psychological evaluation of a parent if the following are true after an evidentiary hearing: (1) “the evaluation is rationally related to the jurisdictional findings,” (2) evaluation is a “predicate component to the determination of treatment and training,” (3) treatment or training is needed to “ameliorate the jurisdictional findings or to facilitate the child’s return,” and (4) “the parent’s participation” in the treatment or training is “in the best interests of the child.” See State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. G. L., 220 Or App 216, 224, 185 P3d 483, rev den, 345 Or 158 (2008) (allowing trial court to order psychological evaluation under ORS 419B.337(2)).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Partsafas and Partsafas
“Any decision to set child support above the guidelines cap must, at a minimum, be based primarily on the child’s needs, as set out in specific supporting findings.” Stringer v. Brandt, 128 Or App 502, 507, 877 P2d 100 (1994). Disparity in income cannot serve as a reason for rebutting the presumptive amount because relative incomes of the parents is a factor in determining the presumptive amount in the first place. Larkin and Larkin, 146 Or App 310, 313, 932 P2d 115 (1997).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. A. R. H.
When determining whether a youth failed to meet the burden of proof under ORS 163A.030, an appellate court must determine whether “no court could find itself unpersuaded that” a youth is rehabilitated and no longer presents a threat to public safety. State v. A. L. M., 305 Or App 389, 404–05, 469 P3d 244, rev den, 367 Or 218 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Powe
Under ORS 163.275(1), coercion is the use of the fear of a specified consequence to “influence or persuade a victim to alter his or her course of conduct—to do something that the victim otherwise would not have done or to not do something which the victim otherwise would have done.” State v. Pedersen, 242 Or App 305, 312, 255 P3d 556, rev den, 351 Or 254 (2011).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. K. M.
An involuntary civil commitment requires more than the mere diagnosis of a mental disorder or threats to others. State v. C. H., 306 Or App 63, 67, 473 P3d 60 (2020). The State must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, “that actual future violence is highly likely.” State v. M. A., 276 Or App 624, 629, 371 P3d 495 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
Braymen v. Water Resources Dept.
Courts may consider extrinsic evidence when assessing whether a stipulated judgment is ambiguous. Van Atta v. Stephanie Fry, Inc., 295 Or App 465, 473, 434 P3d 575 (2018). Voluntarily engaging in conduct that violates the terms of a judgment, with knowledge of the terms, amounts to contempt. Chang v. Chun, 305 Or App 144, 152, 470 P3d 410 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
Reynolds v. Dept. of Human Services
Under ORS 183.484(4), an agency may withdraw a final order “in an other than contested case” for reconsideration at any time after the filing of a petition for judicial review, before the date set for hearing, without permission from the court.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Craig
Convictions for felony sex crimes must result in a sentence to count towards a defendant’s eligibility for life without parole under ORS 137.719(1). Gordon v. Hall, 232 Or App 174, 221 P3d 763 (2009).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Friends of Columbia Gorge v. Energy Fac. Siting Coun.
Orders denying requests for contested case proceedings are final orders on the contested case requests. ORS 183.310(b)(6). A request for a contested case proceeding is not itself a contested case; they are “other than contested cases.” ORS 183.310(2)(a); ORS 183.484.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Mouktabis v. Amarou
A guardian ad litem is not a party to an action based solely upon his or her guardian ad litem status. Christman v. Scott, 183 Or 113, 117-18, 191 P2d 389 (1948). Non-attorney guardians ad litem who appear pro se are engaging in the unlawful practice of law; only members of the Oregon State Bar may appear on behalf of another. ORS 9.160(1); ORS 9.320.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Lebanno
“In the formation of probable cause, the stacking of inferences to achieve probable cause is impermissible.” State v. Goennier, 291 Or App 694, 699, 422 P3d 391, rev den, 363 Or 481 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Lipka
“The test for validity of a search incident to arrest is the reasonableness of the search in light of the circumstances of the particular case.” State v. Hernandez, 299 Or App 544, 551, 449 P3d 878 (2019), rev den, 366 Or 292 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Vasquez-Gonzalez
It is the State’s burden to show that a defendant “knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights.” State v. Ward, 367 Or 188, 191, 475 P3d 420 (2020). The knowing and intelligent inquiry “focuses primarily on a defendant’s state of mind.” State v. Norgren, 287 Or App 165, 169, 401 P3d 1275 (2017), rev dismissed, 363 Or 40 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Walton v. Neskowin Regional Sanitary Authority
Under ORS 12.080, takings claims have a six-year statute of limitations; the statute of limitations begins to run when the physical occupation begins. Suess Builders v. City of Beaverton, 294 Or 254, 268, 656 P2d 306 (1982); The Foster Group, Inc. v. City of Elgin, Oregon, 264 Or App 424, 442, 332 P3d 354 (2014).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
State v. Busch
No error exists if there are adequate grounds in the record to support the reliability of statements admitted under the domestic violence hearsay exception. State v. Wilcox, 180 Or App 557, 562, 43 P3d 1182, rev den, 334 Or 632 (2002).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Burns v. American Family Mutual Ins.
An insurer is liable for arbitration-related attorney fees under ORS 742.061(1) if the insurer refuses to pay the damages awarded during binding arbitration.
Area(s) of Law:- Insurance Law
Carrillo v. SAIF
A combined condition involves the combination of two separate conditions. Brown v. SAIF, 361 Or 241, 255-56, 391 P3d 773 (2017); Multifoods Specialty Distribution v. McAtee, 333 Or 629, 634, 43 P3d 1101 (2002).
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
Sky Lakes Medical Center v. Dept. of Human Services
A court must defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own administrative rule if the interpretation is “plausible” and not “inconsistent with the wording of the rule itself, or with the rule’s context, or with any other source of law.” Don’t Waste Oregon Com. v. Energy Facility Siting, 320 Or 132, 142, 881 P2d 119 (1994).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
State v. Lara-Vasquez
A punishment which is so disproportionate to the offense as to “shock the moral sense of reasonable people” violates Article I, section 16. State v. Rodriguez/Buck, 347 Or 46, 58, 217 P3d 659 (2009). Courts consider three factors when determining disproportionality: (1) severity of penalty versus gravity of offense; (2) “penalties imposed for other, related crimes”; and (3) criminal history of the defendant. Id.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Stockton
Other misconduct evidence, to be relevant to a defendant’s motive, must “show a common motive among the charged acts and the acts against former partners.” State v. Tena, 362 Or 514, 523-24, 412 P3d 175 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Johnson and Johnson
The standard for a change of circumstances for the purposes of custody modification is: (1) “the custodial parent is no longer competent to care for the child” or (2) the custodial parent’s continued care and custody is “inimical to the child’s welfare.” Merges v. Merges, 94 Or 246, 254, 186 P 36 (1919). The “primary purpose” of this requirement is “to avoid repeated litigation over custody and to provide a stable environment for children.” Ortiz and Ortiz, 310 Or 644, 649, 801 P2d 767 (1990).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. Deshaw
Evidence of uncharged acts can be admitted to establish a timeline of events in appropriate circumstances. State v. Grubb, 279 Or App 458, 460, 468, 379 P3d 715, rev den, 360 Or 423 (2016). Admittance of “highly inflammatory” uncharged-misconduct evidence is not harmless if it affected the verdict. State v. Wright, 283 Or App 160, 178, 387 P3d 405 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Zimmerman
The aid-and-abet statute, ORS 161.155, “applies only to conduct prior to or during the commission of a crime”; aid-and-abet theories of criminal liability do not apply after a crime has been committed. State v. Barboe, 253 Or App 367, 375, 290 P3d 833 (2012), rev den, 353 Or 714 (2013). Under ORS 164.015, the theft-by-taking theory requires a defendant to exercise dominion or control and physically move the property of another. State v. Spears, 223 Or App 675, 699, 196 P3d 1037 (2008).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Horner
Reversal of unanimous verdicts after a jury instruction allowing nonunanimous verdicts is not required. State v. Ciraulo, 367 Or 350, 353, 478 P3d 502 (2020). In light of Ramos, accepting “nonunanimous guilty verdicts for a nonpetty offense constitutes plain error.” State v. Ulery, 366 Or 500, 464 P3d 1123 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. S. S.
Under ORS 426.005(1)(f)(A), an individual may be involuntarily committed if the individual: (1) engaged in behavior that “caused or risked serious harm” and (2) the behavior is likely to recur. State v. T. Y., 285 Or App 21, 24, 396 P3d 986 (2017); State v. S. R. J., 281 Or App 741, 751, 386 P3d 99 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
C. R. v. Eugene School Dist. 4J
A special motion to strike under ORS 31.150 must “be filed within 60 days after service of the complaint” or at any later time, in the court’s discretion. ORS 31.152(1). Claims may be stricken if “based on written or oral statements” made during or in connection with a “proceeding authorized by law,” an “issue of public interest,” or in furtherance of “constitutional right of free speech” in connection with an issue of public interest. ORS 31.150(2).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
State v. Hernandez
When considering whether an affidavit establishes probable cause for a search, reviewing courts look at the “totality of the circumstances presented in the affidavit” and the inferences that an issuing magistrate could reasonably draw from those circumstances. State v. Miser, 303 Or App 347, 352, 463 P3d 599, rev den, 366 Or 827 (2020). The “paramount consideration” of a request for a bench trial is “whether a bench trial will fully protect a defendant’s rights.” State v. Austin, 274 Or App 114, 120, 360 P3d 603 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. E. J. J.
In order to commit someone “based on dangerousness to others, there must be a causal connection between” the person’s mental disorder and his allegedly dangerous behavior; the person must be “highly likely to engage” in actual, “future violence towards others.” State v. D. A. H., 241 Or App 391, 398, 250 P3d 423 (2011); State v. S. E. R., 297 Or App 121, 122, 441 P3d 254 (2019). To commit someone based on inability to provide for basic personal needs, the State must show that the inability to provide will place the person in danger of serious physical harm in the near future. State v. M. A. E., 299 Or App 231, 240, 448 P3d 656 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
Davison and Schafer
Under the best-interests analysis of ORS 107.137(1), a court may consider lifestyle choices, such as moves, only if the choices “will or may cause damage to the child.” Miller and Miller, 269 Or App 436, 443, 345 P3d 472 (2015) (emphasis in original). Increased difficulty to the noncustodial parent’s ability to co-parent is “not relevant to the determination of damage.” Id. at 444. If a parent is a full-time student, imputation of full-time income is not appropriate. Bouris and Bouris, 276 Or App 637, 639, 369 P3d 1186 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. M. T.
To establish a mentally ill person “is a danger to herself,” the state must establish that the person is likely to cause life-threatening physical harm to herself in the near future. State v. B. B., 240 Or App 75, 82-83, 245 P3d 697 (2010). Further, the “threat of serious physical harm” must be “particularized” and “highly probable.” State v. M. A., 276 Or App 624, 628-29, 371 P3d 495 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
State v. T. T.
Officers must have reasonable suspicion that a person has committed or is about to commit a “specific type of crime”; reasonable suspicion based on “nonspecific criminal activity” is not sufficient to initiate or extend a stop. State v. Maciel-Figueroa, 361 Or 163, 180-81, 389 P3d 1121 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Harper v. Washburn
The proponent of impeachment evidence must “lay a sufficient foundation for” the evidence’s admission; “reasonable inferences are permissible,” but speculation and guesswork are not. State v. Hubbard, 297 Or 789, 796, 688 P2d 1311 (1984); State v. Bivins, 191 Or App 460, 467, 83 P3d 379 (2004).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Querbach v. Dept. of Human Services
The standard for founded dispositions of abuse is “reasonable cause to believe” abuse occurred. OAR 413-015-1010. The “reasonable cause” standard is akin to the “reasonable suspicion” standard; on review, the court must only determine “whether a reasonable person could reach” DHS’s determination. A. F. v. Oregon Dept. of Human Services, 251 Or App 576, 583-84, 284 P3d 1189 (2012).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. Beeson
Determining whether a breath test derived from a violation of Miranda requires a “totality-of-the-circumstances” examination of the facts to determine whether the causal chain between the violation and the test was broken. State v. Swan, 363 Or 121, 131, 420 P3d 9 (2018). This fact-specific analysis may include “the nature of the violation,” the time between the violation and statements, whether the suspect remained in custody, subsequent events that “may have dissipated the taint,” and other circumstances. State v. Jarnagin, 351 Or 703, 716, 277 P3d 535 (2012).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Dykstra
Under ORS 131.525 (1)(b)(B), manifest necessity includes “a legal defect in the proceeding that would make any judgment entered…reversible as a matter of law.” Without a written jury waiver, a trial court “errs in going to trial at all” and any decision made by the court must be reversed on appeal. State v. Barber, 343 Or 525, 530, 173 P3d 827 (2007).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Magno, LLC v. Bowden
Under ORS 19.245(2), a defendant may not challenge a default judgment. Under ORS 18.235(7), if a court determines an applicant is entitled to relief, “the court shall issue an order providing that” a money award has been satisfied in full.
Area(s) of Law:- Remedies
Jones v. Willamette United Football Club
A permit application must be based upon “standards and criteria which shall be set forth in the zoning ordinance” or other relevant county regulation. ORS 215.416(8)(a).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
State v. Deshaw
A sex offender is required to report a change of residence within 10 days of that change; the term “‘change of residence’…refer[s] to the date of moving out of the current residence.” ORS 163A.010(3)(a)(B); State v. Cox, 219 Or App 319, 323 182 P3d 259 (2008).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Hunt
Under ORS 138.035(3), “new or modified condition[s] of probation” does not include sanctions; sanctions imposed on a probationer by a trial court are not appealable under ORS 138.035(3).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Wanting and Wanting
Courts must take into consideration the statutory preference of awarding custody to a child’s primary caregiver. Nice v. Townley, 248 Or App 616, 622-623, 274 P3d 227 (2012); ORS 197.137.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Easley v. Bowser
To establish a claim for habeas relief, a prisoner must establish that prison officials have not treated the prisoner in a timely manner and “have been deliberately indifferent to the prisoner’s serious medical” needs; deliberate indifference requires something “more than an honest difference of medical opinion about correct diagnosis and necessary treatment.” Billings v. Gates, 323 Or 167, 180-81, 916 P2d 291 (1996).
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
Gillette v. Cain
A waiver hearing transferring a juvenile into adult court is not sufficient consideration of an offender’s youth to constitutionally impose a mandatory sentence of life without parole; the sentencer must consider the offender’s youth. Miller v. Alabama, 567 US 460, 486-89, 132 S Ct 2455, 183 L Ed 2d 407 (2012); State v. Link, 297 Or App 126, 155, 441 P3d 664, rev allowed, 365 Or 556 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Mayfield and Mayfield
Under ORS 109.744(1)(a), to conclude that it does not have continuing jurisdiction in a child-custody case, a trial court must determine: (1) the children do not have “a significant connection with Oregon” and (2) substantial evidence concerning the “care, protection, training and personal relationships” of the children are “no longer available in Oregon.” Under ORS 109.761, an Oregon court may consider “all relevant factors” to determine that “it is an inconvenient forum under the circumstances” and another court “is a more appropriate forum.”
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Morris v. Dental Care Today, P. C
A claim under the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act must “commence within one year” of discovery of “the unlawful method, act or practice;” the statute of limitations “begins to run when the plaintiff knows or should have known of the allegedly unlawful conduct.” ORS 646.638(6); Pearson v. Philip Morris, Inc., 358 Or 88, 137, 361 P3d 3 (2015). “Once a defendant moves for summary judgment,” the plaintiff must “produce evidence showing she can” meet her burden of proof. Sternberg v. Lechman-Su, 299 Or App 450, 456, 450 P3d 37 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
State v. N. S.
A court may commit someone to the Oregon Health Authority if, due to mental illness, the person is “unable to provide for basic personal needs that are necessary to avoid” physical harm serious enough to require treatment in the near, but not immediate, future. ORS 426.130(1)(a)(C); ORS 426.005(1)(f)(B); State v. M. A. E., 299 Or App 231, 239-240, 488 P3d 656 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
Durham v. Laney
In order to “support a claim for medical habeas relief,” a prisoner must allege facts which show that he or she “has a serious medical need that has not been treated in a timely and proper manner and that prison officials have been deliberately indifferent to the prisoner’s serious medical needs.” Billings v. Gates, 323 Or 167, 180-81, 916 P2d 291 (1996).
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
State v. Kyger
When a person takes “a substantial step toward murder of more than one person” during a single criminal episode, but is unsuccessful in killing anyone, that person has committed the crime of attempted aggravated murder. State v. Quintero, 110 Or App 247, 256-257, 823 P2d 981 (1991), modified on other grounds on recons, 114 Or App 142, 834 P2d 496 (1992), rev den, 314 Or 392 (1992).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
LNV Corp. v. Fauley
Under ORS 18.948(2), “an objector to an execution sale of real property” must establish that: (1) the sale was “not conducted in the manner” prescribed by law and (2) “that as a result” the objector “suffered damage.” Further, a trial court’s confirmation order under ORS 18.948 is appealable.
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
State v. M. C. D.
In order to continue an involuntary commitment, the State must show that a person will be put at a “nonspeculative risk of serious physical harm” due to an inability to “provide for his or her basic personal needs” if released. State v. M. A. E., 299 Or App 231, 240, 448 P3d 656 (2019). Neither homelessness nor a likely inability to obtain or prepare food is sufficient to support continued commitment. State v. C. M. C., 301 Or App 206, 213, 454 P3d 30 (2019); State v. S. T., 294 Or App 683, 685-87, 432 P3d 378 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
State v. Frick
A trial court errs when it imposes fines or fees in a written judgment that it did not include at the sentencing hearing. State v. Toombs, 302 Or App 173, 174, 460 P3d 533 (2020). Payment of fines or fees is allowed during a period of imprisonment if the court finds that the defendant has assets to pay the amounts; the defendant may challenge this finding in the trial court. ORS 161.675(1); State v. Ciraulo, 301 Or App 849, 459 P3d 960 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Gutierrez
Under the Sixth Amendment, hearsay statements that are testimonial in nature are prohibited unless the person who made the statement is unavailable and the defendant previously had an opportunity to cross-examine the person. Crawford v. Washington, 541 US 36 (2004). The curative admissibility doctrine allows one party to counter inadmissible testimony elicited by the other party by introducing its own otherwise inadmissible testimony. State v. Apodaca, 291 Or App 268, 274-75, 420 P3d 670 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
McMillan v. Kelly
Under Oregon law, a defendant may only be convicted as an accomplice to a crime the defendant has the specific intent to facilitate, assist, or promote; the defendant may not be convicted of every crime which is a natural and probable consequence to the specific crime. Specific intent is required for conviction based on accomplice liability. State v. Lopez-Minjarez, 350 Or 576, 582, 260 P3d 439 (2011).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State/Klamath County v. Hershey
An animal forfeiture claim is most akin to a lien foreclosure claim in general, which was not entitled to a jury trial at the time of the adoption of the Oregon Constitution, and does not include the kind of fact-finding that would customarily be tried to a jury.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Rhamy
"[D]etermination of the reliability of the child victim’s testimony and statements—and, in particular, how various questioning or interviewing techniques call the reliability of that evidence into question—is a matter for the trier of fact at trial, not a matter to be determined by the court in a pretrial hearing." State v. Kelly, 244 Or App 105, 109-110, 260 P3d 551 (2011); State v. Bumgarner, 219 Or App 617, 632-34, 184 P3d 1143, rev den, 345 Or 175 (2008), cert den, 555 US 1101, adh’d to as modified on recons, 229 Or App 92, 209 P3d 857 (2009).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
NAES Corp. v. SCI 3.2, Inc.
The standard of proof for a claim under the last injurious exposure rule is reasonable medical probability; medical certainty is not required to show an employer was the sole cause of an injury. Liberty Metal Fabricators v. Lynch Co., 295 Or App 809, 813, 435 P3d 810 (2019), adh’d to as modified on recons, 302 Or App 110, 456 P3d 691 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
Wright v. Turner
Under ORS 742.504(7)(a) and ORS 742.502(2), uninsured motorist protection is part of coverage under an insurance policy; the burden of proof is on the insured to prove coverage. FountainCourt Homeowners v. FountainCourt Develop., 360 Or 341, 360, 380 P3d 916 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Insurance Law
Land Use Board of Appeals (2 summaries)
Laurel Hill Valley Citizens v. City of Eugene
“[T]he exact nature and extent of the role played by any [refinement plan] policy depends, presumably, on the actual text and context of the particular policy.” Bothman v. City of Eugene, 51 Or LUBA 426, 439 (2006).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Central Oregon Landwatch v. Jefferson County
Under OAR 660-015-0000(14) and OAR 660-024-0040(1), changes of Urban Growth Boundaries require showing a 20-year need and a need for “housing, employment opportunities or uses such as public facilities, streets and roads, schools, parks or open space.”
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use