Oregon Supreme Court (3 summaries)
Martinez v. Cain
“When the same conduct or criminal episode violates two or more statutory provisions and each provision requires proof of an element that the others do not, there are as many separately punishable offenses as there are separate statutory violations.” ORS 161.067(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Pilling v. Travelers Ins. Co
Under ORS 656.128, an application for workers' compensation insurance must be in writing, request coverage for a specific person, and contain sufficient information for an insurer to determine the person's work classification and wage for the purposes of setting a preliminary rate for the coverage.
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
State v. Moreno-Hernandez
“It is generally held that medical expenses incurred due to the negligent injury of a minor unemancipated child are damages suffered by the parent and not the child.” Palmore v. Kirkman Laboratories, 270 Or 294, 527 P2d 391 (1974); ORS 31.700.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Oregon Court of Appeals (52 summaries)
State v. Mayo
A prosecutor is permitted to comment on a defendant’s failure to meet the burden of production or persuasion when an affirmative defense has been raised, State v. Spieler, 269 Or App 623, 641-42, 346 P3d 549 (2015); To establish a defense, the burden of producing evidence rests on the defendant. State v. McCoy, 17 Or App 155, 162, 521 P2d 1074, aff’d on other grounds, 270 Or 340, 27 P2d 725 (1974); ORS 161.055. The prosecutor may comment on a defendant’s failure to present evidence when the defense raises matters, such as alibi, on which, as a practical matter, the defendant bears the initial burden of production, but fails to present any evidence.” Spieler, 269 Or App at 642; see State v. Abram, 273 Or App 449, 456, 359 P3d 431 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Summa Real Estate Group, Inc. v. Horst
A directed verdict is to be granted only when the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, is insufficient to allow a factfinder to find the facts necessary to establish each element of the claim at issue. Miller v. Columbia County, 282 Or App 348, 349, 385 P3d 1214 (2016), rev den, 361 Or 238 (2017); The party seeking to recover lost profits bears the burden to prove them. Peterson v. McCavic, 249 Or App 343, 354, 277 P3d 572, rev den, 352 Or 564 (2012). Specifically, the party “must establish with reasonable certainty the existence and amount of lost profits.” Id.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
Dept. of Human Services v. D. L.
“ORS 419B.100(1)(c) authorizes a juvenile court to take dependency jurisdiction over a child where the evidentiary record before the court allows for the determination that the ‘child’s condition or circumstances expose child to a current threat of serious loss or injury that is likely to be realized.’” Dept. of Human Services v. C. D. B., 299 Or App 513, 514, 450 P3d 1032 (2019). ORS 419B.340(1) requires DHS “to make ‘reasonable efforts’ to make possible a child’s safe return home while the dependency case is pending.” Dept. of Human Services v. J. F. D., 255 Or App 742, 747, 298 P3d 653 (2013). “’Reasonable efforts’ for purposes of ORS 419B.340 are ones that assist parents in making the adjustments needed to become minimally adequate parents.” State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Williams, 204 Or App 496, 506-07, 130 P3d 801 (2006).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Stockert
A reviewing court must examine “the language of the pertinent statutes in context and, where necessary, [they] consider legislative history and other aids to construction. PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606, 610-12, 859 P2d 1143 (1993), as modified by State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160, 170-72, 206 P3d 1042 (2009).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Kelley v. Washington County
“For a discrimination claim, the inquiry is whether a jury could have reasonably found that defendant discriminated against plaintiff.” Herbert v. Altimeter, Inc., 230 Or App 715, 717, 218 P3d 42 (2009); “[W]e view the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, as the nonmoving party, affording him every reasonable inference that can be drawn from it.” Wheeler v. LaViolette, 129 Or App 57, 60, 877 P2d 665 (1994). “[The Court] must “deem plaintiff’s testimony to be true.” Crawford v. Cobbs & Mitchell Co., 121 Or 628, 643, 257 P 16 (1927).
Area(s) of Law:- Disability Law
State v. Estrella
“[W]hen the deportation consequence is truly clear… the duty to give correct advice is equally clear.” Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 US 369, 130 S Ct 1473, 176 L Ed 2d 284 (2010). “When the law is not succinct and straightforward … a criminal defense attorney need do no more than advise a non-citizen client that pending criminal charges may carry a risk of adverse immigration consequences.” Id.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
M. D. O. v. Desantis
"Each contact 'must give rise to subjective alarm and that alarm must be objectively reasonably, and the contacts, cumulatively, must give rise to subjective apprehension regarding the petitioner's personal safety or the personal safety of a member of the petitioner's immediate family or household, and that apprehension must be objectively reasonably.'" Blastic v. Holm, 248 Or App 414, 418, 273 P3d 304 (2012).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Stalking Protective Order
Portland Fire Fighters' Assn. v. City of Portland
“’Collective bargaining’ means the performance of the mutual obligation of a public employer and the representative of its employees to meet at reasonable times and confer in good faith with respect to employment relations for the purpose of negotiations concerning mandatory subjects of bargaining…” ORS 243.650(4). “Mandatory subjects of bargaining are those that affect employment relations.” ORS 243.650(4). “Employment relations ‘includes, but is not limited to, matters concerning direct or indirect monetary benefits, hours, vacations, sick leave, grievance procedures and other conditions of employment.’” ORS 243.650(7)(a).
Area(s) of Law:- Labor Law
State v. Snelgrove
“If the defendant does not comply with the conditions of the release agreement, the court having jurisdiction shall enter an order declaring the entire security amount to be forfeited. [...] If, within 30 days after the court declares the forfeiture, the defendant does not appear or satisfy the court having jurisdiction that appearance and surrender by the defendant was, or still is, impossible and without fault of the defendant, the court shall enter judgment for the state, or appropriate political subdivision thereof, against the defendant…” ORS 135.280(3).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Dayton v. Jordan
“In order to subdivide or partition any property, the declarant shall include on the face of the subdivision or partition plat, if a partition plat is required, a declaration […] stating that the declarant has caused the subdivision or partition plat to be prepared and the property subdivided or partitioned in accordance with the provisions of this chapter […] any public or private easements created, or any other restriction made, shall be stated in the declaration.” ORS 92.075(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
Reister v. City of Portland Bureau of FPDR
“An ‘FPDR Two Member whose employment with the Bureau of Fire or Police terminates after completing five Years of Service shall be eligible to receive the benefit on vested termination.’ That benefit ‘shall be the FPDR Two Member’s retirement benefit accrued […] to the date of the FPDR Two Member’s termination of employment’ and ‘shall be payable monthly for the life of the FPDR Two Member commencing on Earliest Retirement Date.’" Portland City Charter § 5-305(b), (c).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Dept. of Human Services v. F. Y. D.
ORS 419B.100(1)(c) provides that "a juvenile court has jurisdiction in a dependency case when a child’s ‘condition or circumstances are such as to endanger the welfare’ of the child.” “A child is endangered if the child is exposed to conditions or circumstances that ‘present a current threat of serious loss or injury.’” Dept. of Human Services v. A. L., 268 Or App 391, 397, 342 P3d 174 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Swartz
“[A] person commits the crime of IPO ‘if the person, knowing that another person is a peace officer[,] … [r]efuses to obey a lawful order by the peace officer,’” ORS 162.247(1). Passive resistance means any “noncooperation with a lawful order of a peace officer that does not involve active conduct.” State v. McNally, 361 Or 314, 339 P3d 721 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Mast
"Whether post-Miranda statements must be suppressed when the Miranda warnings are belatedly given turns on whether the state has established that the warnings were 'effective.'" State v. Vondehn, 348 Or 462, 480, 236 P3d 691 (2010). "To determine whether belatedly administered Miranda warnings are effective, we consider 'all relevant circumstances.'" Id. at 482.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Lorenzo
“Disobedience to a subpoena or a refusal to be sworn or to answer as a witness may be punished as contempt by a court before whom the action is pending or by the judge or justice issuing the subpoena. Upon hearing or trial, if the witness is a party and disobeys a subpoena or refuses to be sworn or to answer as a witness, such party’s complaint, answer, or reply may be stricken.” ORCP 55 G; “Except for offenses based on municipal or county ordinance, in a criminal action the State of Oregon is the plaintiff and the person prosecuted is the defendant.” ORS 131.025.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Judd
“Except as provided in ORS 136.427, a confession alone is not sufficient to warrant the conviction of the defendant without some other proof that the crime has been committed.” ORS 136.425(2); see also State v. Wenning, 282 Or App 21, 23, 386 P3d 1 (2016), rev den, 360 Or 852 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Business Development Dept. v. Huttenbauer
A negotiable instrument is defined for purposes of chapter 73 as a written order or promise of payment that is “(1) unconditional;...” ORS 73.0104(1); see UCC § 3-103 cmt 1 (2002). A party may avoid a contract under a fraud-in-the-inducement theory by proving that the other party to the contract made a false representation of material fact and that the person to whom the representation was made was induced to enter the agreement in reliance on that misrepresentation. See, e.g., Graves v. Tulleners, 205 Or App 267, 276-77, 134 P3d 990 (2006).
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
State v. Basham
“[A]n instruction is appropriate if it correctly states the law and is supported by evidence in the record, when the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction,” in this case the state. State v. Ashkins, 357 Or 642, 648, 357 P3d 490 (2015); For a Miles instruction to be proper, “there must be evidence that [the defendant’s physical condition] made [the] defendant more susceptible to the effects of alcohol than he otherwise would have been[.]” State v. Huck, 100 Or App 193, 197, 785 P2d 785 (1990).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Bentley
For accomplice liability, “[a] person is criminally liable for the conduct of another person constituting a crime if: … [w]ith the intent to promote or facilitate the commission of the crime the person: … [a]ids or abets or agrees or attempts to aid or abet such other person in planning or committing the crime.” ORS 161.155(2)(b); A sentencing court could conclude that a defendant was disqualified from receiving a lesser sentence under ORS 137.712 if the victim suffered a significant physical injury in the course of a crime, regardless of whether or not the defendant being sentenced had personally inflicted that injury.” State v. Arnold, 214 Or App 201, 164 P3d 334 (2007); Three nonexclusive factors to determine whether a sentence is disproportionate, under Article I, section 16: “(1) a comparison of the severity of the penalty and the gravity of the crime; (2) a comparison of the penalties imposed for other, related crimes; and (3) the criminal history of the defendant.” State v. Rodriguez/Buck, 347 Or 58, 217 P3d 659 (2009).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Bishop v. KC Development Group, LLC
“Whether a case is moot depends on whether a justiciable controversy exists." Brumnett v. PSRB, 315 Or 402, 405, 848 P2d 1194 (1993). "In a declaratory judgment action like the present one, a justiciable controversy ‘must involve a dispute based on present facts rather than on contingent or hypothetical events.’" TVKO v. Howland, 335 Or 527, 534, 73 P3d 905 (2003).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Maza v. Waterford Operations, LLC
In interpreting an administrative rule, the Court applies the same general principles applicable to an interpretation of statutes to determine the intention of the administrative agency that adopted the rule. Marshall’s Towing v. Department of State Police, 339 Or 54, 62, 116 P3d 873 (2005).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
State v. Gustafson
The Court will consider five factors in its evaluation to determine whether a reasonable inference exists that the evidence will be where the affidavit suggests: "(1) the length of time; (2) the 'perishability' versus the durability of the item; (3) the mobility of the evidence; (4) the 'nonexplicity inculpatory character' of the evidence; and (5) the 'propensity of an individual suspect or general class of offenders to maintain and retain possession of such evidence.'" State v. Van Osdol, 290 Or App 902, 909 (2018) (quoting State v. Ulizzi, 246 Or App 430, 438-39 (2011)).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Carpenter
“The legislature did not intend the term ‘conceals’ in ORS 162.325(1)(a) to include denying knowledge about a wanted person or his or her whereabouts. Rather, ‘conceals’ for hindering prosecution requires conduct by the defendant that hides the statutory object of concealment—a person who committed a crime punishable as a felony—from ordinary observation.” State v. Carpenter, 365 Or 488, 446 P3d 1273 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Lobue
ORS 162.205(1)(a) makes it a crime to knowingly fail to appear only after “[h]aving by court order been released from custody or a correctional facility under a release agreement or security release upon the condition that the person will subsequently appear personally in connection with a charge.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Dept. of Human Services v. T. S. J.
“[F]or the juvenile court to have jurisdiction over a child pursuant to ORS 419B.100 (1)(c), the child’s condition or circumstances must give rise to a threat of serious loss or injury to the child. The threat must be current. And, there must be a reasonable likelihood that the threat will be realized.” Dept. of Human Services v. A. F., 243 Or App 379, 386, 259 P3d 957 (2011).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Clarke
Because defendant expressly acknowledged to the court that his argument did mischaracterize the evidence, his contention on appeal is not preserved. See State v. Craigen, 296 Or App 772, 777, 439 P3d 1048 (2019); 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.” ORAP 5.45 n 1; Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or 376, 381-82, 823 P2d 956 (1991).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Dowty
In order to reverse, a judgment revoking probation is based on whether an error in the course of the revocation proceedings may have been “prejudicial,” as opposed to whether the error was “harmless” under constitutional standards. State v. Milnes, 256 Or App 701, 711, 301 P3d 966 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Gibson
“Generally, a trial court has broad discretion in determining whether to reconsider its earlier rulings, and may revisit a pretrial ruling when events at trial unfold that call for adjustments to that ruling.” State v. Langley, 363 Or 482, 521, 424 P3d 688 (2018), adh’d to as modified on recons, 365 Or 418, 446 P3d 542 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Hernandez
"Officers may conduct a warrantless search incident to a defendant’s arrest when (1) the search relates to the crime for which the officer has arrested the defendant or a crime for which the officer has probable cause to believe that the defendant has committed and (2) the search is reasonable under the totality of the circumstances." State v. Owens, 302 Or 196, 204, 729 P2d 524 (1986).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Fuller v. Dept. of Public Safety Standards
In a substantial reason review, the courts look to whether the agency has “articulate[d] a rational connection between the facts and the legal conclusions it draws from them.” Jenkins v. Board of Parole, 356 Or 186, 195, 335 P3d 828 (2014). An agency order regarding a contested case that lacks such reasoning requires the Court to reverse and remand for the agency to correct the deficiency. Id.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Deyette v. Portland Community College
Pursuant to ORS 174.117(1)(e), "a community college district or community college service district established under ORS chapter 341 is a 'special government body' [but] is not an 'officer authorized by law to make rules'" under ORS 183.310(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
State v. Keith
“Improper joinder can prejudice a defendant in several ways, including if the defendant would testify regarding some charges but not others, if the defendant’s defenses to the charges could be viewed as inconsistent, if the evidence of one charge might improperly influence the jury’s verdicts on other charges, or if the evidence could confuse the jury. Therefore, if the disallowance of a demurrer allows charges to be tried together improperly and the joint trial affects the defense in any of those ways, the disallowance may be prejudicial.” State v. Warren, 364 Or 105, 430 P3d 1036 (2018)
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Tajipour
“[A] court must (1) determine which offense is the offense for which a consecutive sentence is contemplated; (2) compare the harms—real or potential—that arose from that offense with those that arose from the offense to which it will be sentenced consecutively; (3) determine whether the offense for which a consecutive sentence is contemplated caused or risked causing any harm that the other did not; and, if so, (4) determine whether the harm that is unique to that offense is greater than or qualitatively different from the harms caused or threatened by the other.” State v. Rettmann, 218 Or App 179, 178 P3d 333 (2008).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Salkoski
An inventory policy may lawfully authorize police officers to open closed containers that are either designed to hold valuables or are likely to contain them. See State v. Hite, 266 Or App 710, 720, 338 P3d 803 (2014).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. McBride
“Under the unavoidable lull rule, whether an officer’s inquiry about a matter unrelated to the reasons for a traffic stop unlawfully extends the stop depends on whether the officer makes the inquiry instead of expeditiously proceeding with the steps necessary to complete the stop.” State v. Nims, 248 Or App 708, 713, 274 P3d 235, rev den, 352 Or 378 (2012).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Dept. of Human Services v. D. R. D.
A psychological evaluation is authorized as a component of treatment or training under ORS 419B.387.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
L. M. B. v. Cohn
To obtain an SPO against a person, a petitioner must demonstrate the factors under ORS 30.866(1) by a preponderance of the evidence; unless a respondent admits to a petitioner’s allegations, the factual allegations made in an SPO petition are not evidence. Falkenstein v. Falkenstein, 236 Or App 445, 449, 236 P3d 798 (2010).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Stalking Protective Order
State v. Ramirez
Pursuant to ORS 137.540, a defendant violates probation by violating a general or special condition of probation lawfully imposed by the court.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Partain
Defendants are not required to preserve a challenge that is raised on appeal if the error appears for the first time in the judgment. State v. Lewis, 236 Or App 49, 52, 234 P3d 152 (2010).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Amalgamated Transit Union v. TriMet
Collective bargaining agreements “generally are interpreted in the same manner as are other contracts.” OUS v. OPEU, 185 Or App 506, 512, 60 P3d 567 (2002). If a provision is unambiguous, no further analysis is necessary or appropriate, and the court must “give the appropriate effect to the parties’ intentions.” Industra/Matrix Joint Venture v. Pope & Talbot, 341 Or 321, 332, 142 P3d 1044 (2006).
Area(s) of Law:- Arbitration
State v. Ames
In determining whether an assignment of error is adequately preserved, a court looks at "whether the policies that underlie the preservation requirement—giving the opposing party a fair opportunity to respond, fostering appellate review through full development of the record, and giving the trial court the opportunity to fully consider and rule in the first instance—have been served in a particular case." State v. Parkins, 346 Or 333, 340-41, 211 P3d 262 (2009). In assessing a defendant's requested waiver of jury trial, “[a]ll things considered, the paramount consideration remains 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. Gale
"[T]he state must first prove that defendant subjectively believed the victim to be under the age of 16. Then, after establishing that belief, the state must prove that the defendant's belief was objectively reasonable. ORS 163.433.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Haws
Generally, a "criminal defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed in accordance with his or her theory of the case if the instruction correctly states the law and there is evidence to support giving it." State v. Roberts, 293 Or App 340, 341, 427 P3d 1130 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Randle and Randle
“Upon motion of a party for an order to show cause why a judgment of separation should not be converted to a judgment of dissolution and after service of notice to the other party at least 30 days before the scheduled hearing, the court may, within two years after the entry of a judgment of separation, convert a judgment of separation into a judgment of dissolution of the marriage.” ORS 107.465(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Frazier v. State of Oregon
“The court’s ‘authority to grant relief is not entirely constrained by the precise manner in which a petitioner alleges a claim for relief’ as it extends ‘to matters within the scope of the pleaded claims.’” Ogle v. Nooth, 292 Or App 387, 388, 424 P3d 759 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Marsh v. SAIF
“’To prevail on a new or omitted condition claim under ORS 656.267, claimants are required to establish, with medical evidence, the actual existence of the condition,’ and that proof of ‘mere symptoms’ is insufficient.” De Los-Santos v. Si Pac Enterprises, Inc., 278 Or app 254, 257, 373 P3d 1274 (2016). “OAR 436-060-0025(5)(a)(A) requires the ‘average weekly wage’ be calculated using the ‘actual weeks of employment.’”
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
State v. Reineke
"[A]ll evidence of whatsoever nature tending to throw light upon the relations existing between the accused and the deceased and the feeling between them is competent." State v. Finch, 54 Or 482, 488-89, 103 P 505 (1909); “Evidence that shows a hostile relationship existed between a defendant and his victim tends to shed light on a defendant’s mens rea” State v. Moen, 309 Or 45, 68, 786 P2d 111 (1990).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Culver v. Deaver
“An evaluating court must look for clear and convincing evidence of whether the decedent intended the specific writing at issue to be his or her will at the time of its creation.” Estate of Whitlatch v. Richardson, 99 Or App 548, 553, 783 P2d 46 (1989).
Area(s) of Law:- Trusts and Estates
Brown v. State Historic Preservation Office
“The interpretive amplification or refinement of an existing rule is a new exercise of agency discretion and must be promulgated as a rule under the APA to be valid.” Smith v. TRCI, 259 Or App 11, 25, 312 O3d 568 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
State v. Sarmento
To demonstrate that an officer’s less intrusive measures are “reasonably related to a traffic investigation and reasonably necessary to effectuate it, the state must present evidence that (1) the officer perceived a circumstance-specific danger and decided that [the action taken] was necessary to address that danger; and (2) the officer’s perception and decision were objectively reasonable.” State v. Jimenez, 357 Or 417, 430, 353 P3d 1227 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Dept. of Human Services v. P.W.
When reviewing an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the court has held "[i]f we conclude that the evidentiary record is insufficient for us to resolve on appeal an unpreserved claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we can, 'where appropriate,' remand to the juvenile court for an evidentiary hearing on the claim." Dept. of Human Services v. T.L., 358 Or 679, 703-04, 369 P3d 1159 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Halladay v. Board of Parole
“For offenders who committed their offenses between May 19, 1988 and April 4, 1990, it would violate the state and federal constitutional prohibitions on ex post facto laws for the board to rely on information other than a psychological evaluation in determining whether an offender’s parole release date should be deferred on the ground that the offender had a present severe emotional disturbance that made the offender dangerous to the health or safety of the community.” Peek v. Thompson, 160 Or App 260, 980 P2d 178, rev dismissed, 329 Or 553 (1999).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law