Oregon Supreme Court (5 summaries)
State v. Perez
“[A] plain-error challenge based on the prosecution’s purportedly improper arguments to the jury [requires] that the defendant establish that it is obvious and beyond reasonable dispute that the prosecutor’s statements were improper, whether because they misstated the law, adversely commented on the defendant’s exercise of a constitutional right, referenced matters not in evidence, or otherwise could only be understood to have urged the jury to draw an impermissible inference.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Wiltse
“[W]hether a trial court erred by giving an instruction that violated [the rules governing jury instructions] is something that can be determined based on the instruction itself.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Tugman v. Kotek
"The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied without prejudice to plaintiff seeking a writ of habeas corpus in the appropriate circuit or county court."
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
In re Flint
“Based on the stipulation, we conclude that, at a minimum, respondent has violated Rule 2.1(A), and we approve the stipulation to censure.”
Area(s) of Law:- Professional Responsibility
Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co. v. Dept. of Rev.
“Santa Fe, by having its representatives take “prebook orders” from Oregon retailers, took itself outside the safe harbor of Section 381(a)(2).”
Area(s) of Law:- Tax Law
Oregon Court of Appeals (21 summaries)
Cumming v. Nipping
(1) Wrongfully burdening trust property with a mortgage “qualifies as a transaction” for purposes of ORS 82.010(1), and (2) ORS 82.010(1)(a) “requires prejudgment interest when the amount and due date are ascertainable,” even when “the transaction and the due date are contemporaneous.”
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
Kim and Kinnersley
ORS 107.135(6) prohibits modifying child support obligations to include expenses that predate the modification motion’s service date.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. Dempsey
“[W]hen determining whether a defendant has absconded from supervision, the sentencing court must consider whether the defendant’s actions show that the defendant intended to evade or avoid legal process, not simply that the defendant failed to attend one meeting with a probation officer or could not be located for a brief period of time[.]” State v. LaCoe, 323 Or App 74, 80, 522 P3d 18 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Dixon
“Whether an [erroneous sentence] is an ‘error that requires resentencing’ depends on whether ‘there remain options that the trial court permissibly could adopt on resentencing.’” State v. Edson, 329 Or 127, 139, 985 P2d 1253 (1999).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. G. K. S.
“[The juvenile court’s decision to adjudicate] youth on a ground different from, and not subsumed within, the one alleged in the petition without giving youth notice or an opportunity to defend against that allegation [was reversable error.]”
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Kitzmiller
“Under State v. Shedrick, 370 Or 255, 518 P3d 559 (2022), in criminal mischief proceedings, failure to instruct the jury as to the ‘culpable mental state regarding the value of the property damaged’ constitutes plain error.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Waggoner v. Husk
“A prima facie showing under [Oregon's Corrupt Practices Act] requires evidence that defendant (1) published (2) a false statement (3) of a material fact (4) with knowledge or reckless disregard that it was false. ORS 260.532; Bryant v. Recall for Lowell’s Future Committee, 286 Or App 691, 698, 400 P3d 980 (2017).”
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
State v. Kyei
“The trial court needs to evaluate the error, along with the explicit and implicit instructions from the appellate court, and consider the impact of the error on the record. If the trial court determines that the record could have developed in a materially different way if the error had not occurred, then a defendant is entitled to a new trial.” State v. Hightower, 368 Or 378, 387, 491 P3d 769 (2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Thornburgh v. Cyrus
“Under Oregon’s FED statutes, before a tenant is forcibly evicted from a property, there must be ‘a judicial determination that [the tenant] is not legally entitled to possession.’ Lindsey v. Normet, 405 US 56, 72, 92 S Ct 862, 31 L Ed 2d 36 (1972).”
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
State v. Hall
“[W]hen an officer testifies that two clues on the walk-and-turn test or the one-leg-stand test indicates impairment and that the officer observed that number or a higher number of clues, the testimony is scientific. As a result, it is inadmissible unless the state lays a Brown/O’Key foundation.”
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
A. A. v. Cunial
“[P]rior voluntary contacts do not, as a matter of law, disqualify subsequent contacts from being unwanted or objectively alarming.”
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Stalking Protective Order
A. Z. v. Lange
To qualify as unwanted, expressive contacts must present a level of threat that "instills in the addressee a fear of imminent and serious personal violence from the speaker, [that] is unequivocal, and [that] is objectively likely to be followed by unlawful acts." (quoting State v. Rangel, 328 Or 294, 303, 977 P2d 379 (1999)).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Stalking Protective Order
State v. Gilmore
"[A]lthough the intent to commit a murder might “follow the bullet” under the doctrine of transferred intent, the legislature in ORS 161.219 expressly conditioned a person’s use of deadly force on their reasonable belief that a particular person—i.e., the person killed— was engaged in the conduct described by ORS 161.219 (1) to (3)."
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Lane
“[T]he crime of harassment, which involves subjecting another person to offensive physical contact, ORS 166.065(1)(a)(A), is a qualifying misdemeanor under the firearm prohibition.” State v. Eggers, 372 Or 789, 791, 558 P3d 830 (2024).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
]Miller v. Pettis
“[Adoption terminates] the relationship between the birth parent and the child, as if it had never happened.” See ORS 109.041(1). As applied to intestate succession, “the relationships existing at the time of the death of the decedent govern the passing of the decedent’s estate.” ORS 112.077(2).
Area(s) of Law:- Trusts and Estates
State v. Bitz
“If [a jury instruction, given in error, affected the verdict], then we must reverse the resulting convictions. If it did not, then we are obliged to affirm those convictions. Or Const, Art VII (Amended), § 3.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Garrett
“[When the state violates] a defendant’s state constitutional rights and the defendant establishes a minimal factual nexus between the violation and the subsequent discovery of evidence, the evidence must be suppressed unless the state shows that the evidence did not result from that violation.” State v. Craigen, 370 Or 696, 712 (2023).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Miller
“[Four nonexclusive factors guide the compelling circumstances determination:] the length of the encounter, the location of the encounter, the amount of pressure placed on the defendant, and the defendant’s ability to end the encounter.” State v. Roble-Baker, 340 Or 631, 640-41, 136 P3d 22 (2006).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
A. N. A. v. Alexander
“ORCP 68 is not applicable to the assessment of attorney fees in FAPA proceedings.”
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
SAIF v. Kelkay
“If a ‘facially nonspeculative idiopathic explanation [for an injury]’ is apparent on the record, . . . the claimant bears the burden of production and persuasion to show that [the] explanation is, in fact, speculative.” Sheldon v. US Bank, 364 Or 831, 847 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
State v. Roskelley
When determining restitution, “the trial court may consider any evidence that it ordinarily would at sentencing hearing.” State v. Kirkland, 268 Or App 420, 425 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law