United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted (1 summary)
State v. Carter
There must be an identifiable rule of law that was violated in order for a court to have plainly erred.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Oregon Court of Appeals (15 summaries)
State v. Wilcox
The evaluation of the lawfulness of a search and seizure of a defendant’s backpack while being transported to a detox facility must be done under administrative principles rather than criminal.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Fitch
A defendant’s inconsistent story, lack of ownership documentation, and documentation containing another person’s name are sufficient evidence to establish both a “knowing” and “reckless” mental state for UUV under ORS 164.135.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Bates v. Oregon Health Authority
A statute regulating product packaging that is “attractive to minors” is unconstitutional if it regulates an expression of speech but does not regulate the effect of the product’s sale to a minor.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Karplyuk v. State
Timing of the filing and prompt resolution of a case play a role in whether or not to grant a motion for leave to amend a post-conviction complaint.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Allen v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
Under ORS 163A.100, SONL classification is based on an individual’s risk of reoffending at the time of their release rather than at the time of classification, and is intended to be regulatory rather than punitive.
Area(s) of Law:- Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
State v. Cook
Under the framework set forth in State v. Roberson 293 Or 402, 649 P2d 569 (1982), a statute must expressly restrain speech in order justify review for facial overbreadth.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
State v. M. T.
When assessing an appointed counsel’s “suitability” under ORS 426.100(3), poor performance alone does not justify sua sponte substitution of counsel.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
Dept. of Human Services v. S. R. L.
In order for dependency jurisdiction to be exercised, the state must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that there is a current risk of the child being exposed to conditions or circumstances that could result in serious loss or injury. The state may not make generalized complaints and instead must theorize what harm would happen, at what degree, and for what duration.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Juarez-Hernandez
Under Article 1, Section 11 of the Oregon Constitution, a defendant has the right “to be heard by himself and counsel,” including during a sentencing hearing. However, a defendant must indicate he wishes to speak.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. E.S.
ORS 419.478(1) requires written findings to create a nexus between the youth’s issues and the benefits they would receive by being placed with OYA instead of remaining with their family.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Greenwood
When the State violates a defendant’s right to counsel by intruding on a defendant’s attorney-client privilege, the State bears the burden of proving there is an absence of prejudice to the defendant.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Greenwood
When the State violates a defendant’s right to counsel by intruding on a defendant’s attorney-client privilege, the State bears the burden of proving there is an absence of prejudice to the defendant.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Biggs
Under OEC 901, witness testimony stating videos presented as evidence are a fair and accurate description of the events that occurred is sufficient to authenticate.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Cid
ORS 137.707(1) only applies to youths waived into adult court under ORS 419C.349(1)(a)
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Mickels
Under ORS 161.190, all crimes are subject to justification defenses unless an exception applies.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure