Oregon Supreme Court (4 summaries)
KKMH Properties, LLC v. Shire
Under ORS 90.392(3)(c) must state that a violation can be cured when, as a matter of law, a tenant has a right to cure the violation.
Area(s) of Law:- Landlord Tenant
Benjamin v. O'Donnell
ORS 136.290 establishes a 60-day limit on how long a defendant “may remain in custody pending commencement of the trial of the defendant.”
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. Blackmon
“When improper official conduct is so prejudicial to the defendant that it cannot be cured by means short of a mistrial, and if the official knows that the conduct is improper and prejudicial and either intends or is indifferent to the resulting mistrial or reversal. State v. Kennedy, 295 Or 260, 276, 666 P2d 1316 (1983).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. Soto
Under ORS 163.225, a person may commit kidnapping in either of two ways: by taking a victim “from one place to another,” or by “secretly confin[ing]” the victim in a place where the victim is unlikely to be found, and under ORS 137.123(5)(a), a consecutive sentence is proper if the offense was not merely an incidental violation . . . but rather was an indication of the defendant’s willingness to commit more than one offense.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Oregon Court of Appeals (22 summaries)
State v. Ballangrud
A sufficient pause is “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."
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Scofield
The emergency aid exception applies when officers have an “objectively reasonable belief, based on articulable facts, that a warrantless entry is necessary to either render immediate aid to persons, or to assist persons who have suffered, or who are imminently threatened with suffering, serious physical injury or harm.” State v. Baker, 350 Or 641, 649, 260 P3d 476 (2011).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Taylor v. Goodman
A directed verdict “for a defendant on a negligence claim is appropriate only if the court can affirmatively say that there is no evidence from which a jury could find facts necessary to establish each element of the claim."
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
State v. Meyers
Probable cause must exist for each device that a warrant authorizes to be searched. State v. Cannon, 299 Or App at 626, 629 450 P3d 567 (2019)
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Pool
There are three prerequisites to an order of restitution: (1) criminal activities, (2) economic damages, and (3) a causal relationship between the two.” State v. Pumphrey, 266 Or App 729, 733, 338 P3d 819 (2014).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
State v. S. G.
A “person with a mental illness” includes someone who suffers from a “mental disorder,” and, as a result of that disorder, is a danger to self. ORS 426.005(1)(f)(A).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
State v. Howard
In arguing to the jury, a prosecutor “must not inappropriately characterize the jury’s factfinding function in a manner that raises some realistic possibility of confusing the jurors about the ultimate standard or burden of proof."
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Franzen
Speculation that missing evidence may be more helpful is insufficient to require a less satisfactory evidence instruction to the jury.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. J. K.
In determining whether a person poses a danger to others, we assess “whether the evidence presented was sufficient to prove that a person is a danger to others as a result of his condition at the time of the hearing as understood in the context of his history."
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Hutchinson
“When conducting the OEC 403 analysis, a trial court should consider how the proffered evidence would have fared under OEC 404(3) to determine whether the evidence would have been admissible under that rule for “one or more nonpropensity purposes”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Villasenor-Sibrian
“For purposes of Article I, section 9, a search occurs when governmental action invades a protected privacy interest.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Carlton
“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
State v. E. K. C.
ORS 426.090 requires a citation to “be served upon the person by delivering a duly certified copy of the original thereof to the person in person prior to the hearing.”
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Harrington
Misjoinder is harmless if there is little likelihood it affected the verdict.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Dept. of Human Services v. K. R. K.
ORS 419B.476(2)(a) states that “DHS is required to make “reasonable efforts * * * to make it possible for the ward to safely return home.”
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Dept. of Human Services v. R. M. E.
Under ORS 419B.387 “If the court finds in an evidentiary hearing that treatment or training is needed by a parent to correct the circumstances that resulted in wardship or to prepare the parent to resume the care of the ward, the court may order the parent to participate in the treatment or training if the participation is in the ward’s best interests.”
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
C. O. Homes, LLC v. Cleveland
Under ORCP 21 G(2) “A defense that * * * the action has not been commenced within the time limited by statute, is waived if it is neither made by motion under this rule nor included in a responsive pleading or an amendment thereof.”
Area(s) of Law:- Landlord Tenant
State v. Monaco
ORS 136.425(1) provides that ‘[a] confession or admission of a defendant, whether in the course of judicial proceedings or otherwise, cannot be given in evidence against the defendant when it was made under the influence of fear produced by threats.’
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Dept. of Human Services v. J. S. C.
Former ORS 419B.881(6) (2021) provides that ‘[u]pon a showing of good cause, the court may at any time order that specified disclosure be denied, restricted or deferred or make such other order as is appropriate.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. Ross
Under ORS 132.560(1)(b)(A) we consider factors such as the temporal proximity of the acts, similarities in the elements of the offenses, whether there will be similar evidence or evidentiary overlap, and whether the charges involve the same or similar victims. State v. Gialloreto, 301 Or. App. 585, 591, 457 P.3d 1105 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Dept. of Human Services v. D. F.
Generally, an issue not preserved in the trial court will not be considered on appeal. State v. Wyatt, 331 Or. 335, 341, 15 P.3d 22 (2000)
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Rivera v. Perlo Construction, LLC
Palmer v. Bi-Mart Co., 92 Or. App. 470, 758 P.2d 888 (1988), holds that the exclusive remedy provided in ORS 656.018 for “injuries, diseases, symptom complexes or similar conditions arising out of and in the course of employment” does not preclude an employee from bringing an employment discrimination claim against her employer based on an injury to a separate, distinct legal right, even when the two claims arise from the same set of facts.
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation