Oregon Supreme Court (1 summary)
Kragt v. Bd. of Parole & Post Prison Supervision
ORS 144.103 (1991) provides that any person sentenced for certain enumerated offenses "shall serve a term of post-prison supervision that shall continue until the term of post-prison supervision, when added to the term of imprisonment served, equals the maximum statutory indeterminate sentence for the violation."
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Oregon Court of Appeals (61 summaries)
Rennie and Rennie
Under ORS 109.119, if a third party seeks "custody, guardianship, right of visitation or other right," the court must determine whether the presumption has been rebutted according to the type of relief sought and the parties’ present circumstances.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Hecker v. Fella
A prescriptive easement requires clear and convincing evidence of continuous, open, and adverse use for the statutory period. ORS 33.055(9) requires a court to advise an accused contemnor of the right to retain counsel if they are unrepresented. A contempt judgment must include specific findings of fact, including a finding of willfulness.
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
Oregon Youth Authority v. Haag Home for Boys, Inc.
The existence of such a duty is generally determined by comparing the allegations of the complaint with the terms of the insurance policy known as the “four-corners” or “eight-corners” rule.
Area(s) of Law:- Insurance Law
M.F. v. H.S.-S.
Appellate courts only review claims properly preserved by specific objections; requesting a particular outcome or expressing a preference is insufficient.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Arena
“... a prosecutor may comment on a defendant's failure to present evidence (1) of affirmative defenses, and (2) when the defense has raised an issue on which the defendant bears the initial burden of production but fails to present any evidence.” State v. Strain, 332 Or App 79.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Huerta-Contreras
A warrantless arrest is permissible when “the arresting officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed a crime.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
LandWatch Lane County v. Lane County
"A county or city may approve an application to validate a unit of land that was created by a sale that did not comply with the applicable criteria for creation of a unitof land if the unit of land is not a lawfully established unit of land, and could have complied with the applicable criteria for the creation of a lawfully established unit of land in effect when the unit of land was sold." ORS 92.176
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Follansbee v. Ooi
Under ORS § 19.270, “a party seeking dismissal of an entire appeal based on inadequate service on less than all parties on which service was required must establish that prejudice is likely to arise to such a degree to warrant dismissal of the entire appeal.”
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
Breidenthal and Breidenthal
"The trial court's ultimate determination as to what property division is 'just and proper in all the circumstances' is a matter of discretion," and will not be disturbed unless the court concludes "that the trial court misapplied the statutory and equitable considerations that ORS 107.105(1)(f) requires."
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Fort Klamath Critical Habitat Landowners v. Woodcock
Under ORS 183.484, the circuit court reviews the record for substantial evidence to determine "whether the evidence would permit a reasonable person to make the determination that the agency made in a particular case."
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Jared v. Harmon
“Any provisions of this section that reasonably apply only to a structure that is used as a home, do not apply to a recreational vehicle where the tenant owns the recreation vehicle, rents the space and, in the case of a dwelling or home, the space is not in a facility.” ORS 90.320(3).
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
State v. England
“As defendant acknowledges, we have previously held that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not required in revocation proceedings—rather, "proof by a preponderance of the evidence is sufficient." State v. Fortier, 20 Ore. App. at 616.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Goin
"The appellate court has no authority to review the validity of the defendant's plea of guilty or no contest, or a conviction based on the defendant's plea of guilty or no contest."
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Russin
“If the sentencing judge accepts the plea agreement, the judge shall impose the stipulated sentence.” ORS § 135.407(4)
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Thorin Properties v. City of Eugene
“In order to have standing, to seek a declaration with respect to an ordinance, a plaintiff must show that it had a legally recognized interest that is adversely affected by that ordinance.” MT & M Gaming, Inc. v. City of Portland, 360 Or 544 (2016). A state law can preempt a municipal law by implication if the two “cannot operate concurrently.” Qwest Corp. v. City of Portland, 275 Ore. App. 874 (2015)
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
State v. Rose
A warrant must be specific enough to allow an officer to identify with reasonable effort the place to be searched and the items to be seized. Under the Johnson framework, "the defendant has the initial burden to establish a minimal factual nexus between the illegality and the challenged evidence."
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Yocom
Former ORS § 802.093 (2021) did not make the 2020 traffic stop invalid for lack of probable cause because ORS 810.410(3)(b) authorizes police to stop a person for a traffic violation and investigate the violation even when the officer is not authorized to issue a citation.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Weaver v. Highberger
A trial court's termination of continuing jurisdiction in a habeas case is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Barrera v. Employment Dept.
Under ORS 657.176(2)(a), a person is disqualified from receiving benefits if the Employment Department finds that the person "[h]as been discharged for misconduct connected with work[.]" The department defines misconduct to be "a willful or wantonly negligent violation of the standards of behavior which an employer has the right to expect of an employee[.]" OAR 471-030-0038(3)(a).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Johnson v. Monsanto Co.
Whether a witness is qualified to testify as an expert is relative to the topic about which the witness is asked to testify. A witness testifying as an expert needs to have the necessary skill and knowledge to arrive at an intelligent conclusion about the subject matter in dispute. Or. Evid. Code 702.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Smith
The term 'qualifying mental disorder' does not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct, nor does the term include any abnormality constituting solely a personality disorder. ORS 161.295(2)
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Thomsen v. Board of Parole
The board’s charge under ORS 163A.100 is to classify sex offenders into one of three notification levels based on their risk of reoffending at the time of the assessment. The 2013 Legislative Assembly, which enacted ORS 163A.100, intentionally enacted “a statute that tasked the board with assessing present risk.”
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Bean v. Oregon Health Authority
Under OAR 309-114-0010(1)(b)(C), a state institution may administer that medication to a patient without the patient’s informed consent for “good cause” by demonstrating the three factors relevant under OAR 309-114-0020(1)(a)-(c).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Dept. of Human Services v. M. B.
Agency efforts are reviewed by focusing on DHS's conduct, measuring the reasonableness of those efforts through the lens of the adjudicated bases for jurisdiction, and basing the review on the totality of the circumstances. Parental progress toward safe family reunification is measured by what the parent has done to ameliorate the circumstances that led to juvenile court jurisdiction. ORS 419B.476(2)(a).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Fitzgerald v. Rogue Agrisource LLC
"Clerical mistakes in judgments, orders, or other parts of the record and errors therein arising from oversight or omission may be corrected by the court at any time on its own motion or on the motion of any party and after such notice to all parties who have appeared, if any, as the court orders." ORCP 71 A.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Ruiz
"Under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life" means "unconcern in a very high degree, exceeding the ordinary, that an act might cause the death of a human being." State v. Downing, 276 Ore. App. 68 (2016). By its plain text and with limited exception, OAR 213-008-0002(2) prohibits using factual aspects that serve as an element of a crime to justify a departure sentence for that crime.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Lehman v. Board of Parole
Except as provided in ORS 137.635 [concerning repeat offenders], each inmate sentenced to the custody of the department for felonies committed on or after November 1, 1989, shall be eligible for a reduction in the term of incarceration for appropriate institutional behavior, as defined by rule of the Department of Corrections.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. Wilson
Under ORS 137.123(5)(b), a sentencing court has discretion to impose consecutive sentences for separate convictions arising out of a continuous and uninterrupted course of conduct only if it finds that the criminal offense for which a consecutive sentence is contemplated "caused or created a risk of causing greater or qualitatively different loss, injury or harm to the victim or caused or created a risk of causing loss, injury or harm to a different victim than was caused or threatened by the other offense or offenses committed during a continuous and uninterrupted course of conduct."
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Nava v. SAIF
"An insurer 'unreasonably delays' payment of compensation for purposes of ORS 656.262(11) if, at the time compensation is due, the insurer had no legitimate doubt regarding its liability for the compensation." Snyder v. SAIF, 287 Ore. App. 361.
Polonsky v. Washington County
"The reasonable time for challenging the decision of the Secretary of State—including her failure to decide—whether a proposed initiative violates the 'one subject only' rule of Oregon Constitution, Article IV, section 1(2)(d), expires on the 60th day following final approval of the ballot title." Ellis v. Roberts, 302 Or 6.
Area(s) of Law:- Election Law
State v. Graham
In the specific context of prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument, for an error to be “plain,” it must be “beyond dispute that the prosecutor’s comments were so prejudicial as to have denied defendant a fair trial.” State v. Chitwood, 370 Or 305.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. North
ORS 161.215(1) bars self-defense claims where the defendant either provoked the victim to act or was the initial aggressor.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Washington v. Kelly
Post-conviction relief is warranted when there has been a "substantial denial" of a petitioner's "rights under the Constitution of the United States, or under the Constitution of the State of Oregon, or both, and which denial rendered the conviction void." ORS 138.530(1)(a).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. C. T.
If the person is being involuntarily detained before a hearing on the issue of commitment, the right under paragraph (a) of this subsection to contact an attorney or under paragraph (b) of this subsection to have an attorney appointment may be exercised as soon as reasonably possible. ORS 426.100(3)(e)
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
State v. Fasasi
To avoid merger, repeated violations of the same statutory provision against the same victim must be separated from other such violations by a sufficient pause in the defendant's criminal conduct to afford the defendant an opportunity to renounce the criminal intent. ORS 161.067(3)
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Lockner v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Oregon
“Under Oregon law, the purpose of an exclusion in an insurance policy is to eliminate coverage that, were it not for the exclusion, would otherwise exist.” ZRZ Realty v. Beneficial Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 222 Ore. App. 473
Area(s) of Law:- Insurance Law
State v. Willis
A person with a qualifying marijuana conviction may apply to the court in which the judgment of conviction was entered for entry of an order setting aside the conviction as provided in this section. “Qualifying marijuana conviction” means a conviction for a marijuana offense: For which the person has completed and fully complied with or performed the sentence of the court. ORS 475C.397(7)(b).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Clark v. Gilstrap
The statute of limitations for a personal injury claim under ORS 12.110(1) is subject to the “discovery rule,” such that the statute of limitations does not begin until a plaintiff knows or reasonably should have known that they were injured and that the defendant caused the injury.
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
State v. B. I. Z. V.
Under ORS 163.165(1)(e), a person commits third-degree assault when the person “while being aided by another person actually present, intentionally or knowingly causes physical injury to another.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Orvis
“To that end, "inquiring into the prospective jurors' potential interest or bias in a case is a legitimate way of selecting fair-minded individuals to serve on the jury." That means that jury selection necessarily "entails an inherent risk that the panel of prospective jurors will be exposed to information revealed by individual prospective jurors who are excused from the panel for cause." State v. Evans, 344 Ore. 358 (2008).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. A. E. A.
ORS 419C.450(1)(a) requires the juvenile court to award restitution for “injury, loss or damage” caused by the adjudicated youth and suffered by the victim. The juvenile court must award restitution when there is sufficient evidence of criminal activity, economic damages, and a causal relationship between the criminal activity and the economic damages. State v. C. A. M.-D., 312 Or App 4.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Martin-Thanislaus
A conspiracy to commit a crime requires proof that, with the requisite intent, two or more people agreed to commit a crime punishable as a felony. ORS 161.450(1). A conspiracy to tamper with a witness requires proof that a person agreed (and intended) to seek to induce a witness either to offer false sworn testimony in an official proceeding or to unlawfully withhold sworn testimony in such a proceeding. ORS 162.285
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Walker
ORS 162.285(1)(a) provides that a person commits the crime of witness tampering if the person “knowingly induces or attempts to induce a witness or a person the person believes may be called as a witness to offer false testimony or unlawfully withhold any testimony.” Read in context, “unlawfully” modifies the phrase “withhold any testimony,” indicating that the legislature intended to exempt behavior such as advising a witness to exert a lawful privilege. State v. Bailey, 346 Or 551 (2009).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Sutherland v. Fhuere
“To succeed on a claim of inadequate assistance of counsel under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution, petitioner must show by a preponderance of the evidence facts demonstrating that (1) counsel failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment,” and (2) counsel’s failure prejudiced petitioner, meaning “counsel’s failure had a tendency to affect the result of [the] trial,” commonly referred to as the deficiency and prejudice prongs. Bacon v. Cain, 327 Or App 673 (2023).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Kharma and Aljundi
Any action, suit, or proceeding may be prosecuted or defended by a party in person, or by attorney, unless otherwise specifically provided by law. ORS 9.320. Thus, in a dissolution trial, a party can forego appearing in person and may be represented by an attorney instead.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Atwood
“A person commits the offense of driving a motor vehicle while using a mobile electronic device if the person, while driving a motor vehicle on a highway or premises open to the public: (a) Holds a mobile electronic device in the person’s hand; or (b) uses a mobile electronic device for any purpose.” ORS 811.507(2).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Atwood
“A person commits the offense of driving a motor vehicle while using a mobile electronic device if the person, while driving a motor vehicle on a highway or premises open to the public: (a) Holds a mobile electronic device in the person’s hand; or (b) uses a mobile electronic device for any purpose.” ORS 811.507(2).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. M.M.-B.
“The court shall also advise the person of the right to subpoena witnesses and to suitable legal counsel possessing skills and experience commensurate with the nature of the allegations and complexity of the case during the proceedings…” ORS 427.265(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
State v. M.M.-B.
"The court shall also advise the person of the right to subpoena witnesses and to suitable legal counsel possessing skills and experience commensurate with the nature of the allegations and complexity of the case during the proceedings…” ORS 427.265(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Perkins v. Fhuere
Counsel’s failure to object to the trial court’s enhanced sentences based on “judicially-found facts, instead of jury-found facts as required under Appendi v. New Jersey * * * entitle[s] [petitioner] to a new sentencing proceeding pertaining to those counts.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
J.E.-S v. Shields
Under ORS 107.716(3)(a), the trial court may continue a FAPA order following a contested hearing after finding that (1) the respondent committed past abuse within 180 days of filing, (2) the petitioner reasonably fears for their physical safety, and (3) the respondent represents a credible threat to the petitioner’s physical safety or the physical safety of their children.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. Bilbao
Under ORS 135.703 and ORS 135.705(1)(a), a trial court has statutory authority to dismiss a charge pursuant to a civil compromise only if four conditions are met: “(1) the defendant is charged with a crime punishable as a misdemeanor, (2) the person injured by the act constituting the crime has a remedy by civil action, (3) the person injured acknowledges in writing before trial that the person has received satisfaction for the injury, and (4) the defendant pays costs and expenses incurred.”
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Mason v. Griffin-Valade
Article XVII, section 1, of the Oregon Constitution requires proposed amendments to the constitution to be submitted to voters in a manner that allows each amendment to be “voted on separately."
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
State v. Pfannenstiel
And in determining whether instructional error was harmless, “we consider the instructions ‘as a whole and in the context of the evidence and record at trial, including the parties’ theories of the case with respect to the various charges and defenses at issue.’ ” State v. Owen, 369 Or 323.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Mouton v. TriMet
We seek to ascertain the intent of the enacting legislature by examining the disputed provision’s text and context, as well as any helpful legislative history. If the legislature’s intent remains unclear after examining text, context, and legislative history, the court may resort to general maxims of statutory construction to aid in resolving the remaining uncertainty. State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160, 171-73 (2009).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
Mouton v. TriMet
We seek to ascertain the intent of the enacting legislature by examining the disputed provision’s text and context, as well as any helpful legislative history. If the legislature’s intent remains unclear after examining text, context, and legislative history, the court may resort to general maxims of statutory construction to aid in resolving the remaining uncertainty. State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160, 171-73 (2009).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
State v. Cox
“Additionally, ‘as a matter of law, the identity of persons connected with a criminal offense need not be stated in an indictment unless such identity is an essential element of the crime charged.’ ” State v. Kelly, 263 Or App 361, 366 (2014) (quoting State v. Shadley/Spencer/Rowe, 16 Or App 113, 121 (1973).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Gage v. Fred Meyer Stores - Kroger Co.
“In a case where a Final Order is issued following a Recommended Order, a petition for reconsideration should be limited to: ‘A claim of factual error.’” OAR 115-010-0100(3)(c)(A).
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
State v. Brockway
“In reviewing the denial of a motion for continuance, we determine the propriety of the motion by examining the circumstances of the case and the reasons presented to the court at the time that it denied the request.” State v. Stull, 281 Or App 662, 667 (2016). “If the trial court’s decision ‘is within the range of legally correct choices and produces a permissible, legally correct outcome, then the trial court did not abuse its discretion.’” State v. Ferraro, 264 Or App 271, 281 (2014).
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
State v. Postlethwait
“OEC 803(25), [] authorizes the admission of certain documents containing out-of-court statements, while providing that ‘the defendant may subpoena’ the declarant at no cost. That language impermissibly shifted the responsibility to secure the declarant’s attendance at trial to defendant, which is directly at odds with defendant’s right to confront her accusers and to ‘meet the witnesses face to face.’ Or Const, Art I, § 11.”
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Tacia
“To prove constructive possession of a controlled substance, the state must show that the defendant exercised control over or had the right to control the substance.” State v. Sosa-Vasquez, 158 Or App 445, 448 (1999). “The state must link the defendant’s proximity to the substance with a right to control it, and defendant’s ‘own statements can prove the necessary link.’” State v. Fry, 191 Or App 90, 93 (2003).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Land Use Board of Appeals (1 summary)
YRC Worldwide, Inc. v. Corrigan
We are further persuaded that, in light of the statute’s enactment history and the removal of a “living apart” requirement from the first sentence, the legislature did not intend “living separate and apart” to be a prerequisite under the first sentence of the statute.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law