Oregon Supreme Court (2 summaries)
Teitelman v. SAIF
ORS 656.325(1)(e) authorizes a WRME if the “claimant has requested ‘a hearing on a denial of compensability that is based on’ an IME report”...“a claimant’s right to a WRME is not limited to the grounds of denial at the time of the hearing request” because an insurer may rely on an IME after the claimant made the hearing request.
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
Twigg v. Admiral Ins. Co.
“Whether an insurance claim seeks recovery for an “accident” does not depend on a plaintiff’s pleading decisions in the underlying claim against the insured but depends instead on whether there is a basis in fact for imposing tort liability.” … Because the insured “breached a duty imposed by law, and not one solely arising from contract”, the property damage is covered under the insurer’s policy for indemnification.
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
Oregon Court of Appeals (11 summaries)
Justice Resource Center v. Board of Parole
A ‘rule’ is “any agency directive, standard, regulation or statement of general applicability that implements, interprets or prescribes law or policy, or describes the procedure or practice requirements of any agency.” ORS 183.310(9)...“Testimony about law, standing alone, does not function in a self-executing way as law itself.”
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Laack v. Botello
“The award of an enhanced prevailing party fee is a discretionary determination, and it does not require the trial court to have ‘found that [defendant] acted in a reckless manner.’ The court must consider the conduct of the parties, but it is not required to find recklessness. See ORS 20.190(3)(a)."
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
Neatherlin v. Brown
For a petitioner to succeed on this appeal, they must prove that trial counsel failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and it was a prejudicial error. To prove prejudice in this context, petitioner had to show “more than a mere possibility, but less than a probability that, had trial counsel properly investigated potential mitigating evidence, the sentence would have been different.” Maxfield v. Cain, 322 Or App 405, 409, 520 P3d 890 (2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. Buck
“ORS 132.560(2) does not limit the trial court to the face of the indictments when determining whether two indictments ‘are found in’ one of the circumstances set out in ORS 132.560(1)(b)(A) to (C)… a common scheme or plan [occurs] when they are ‘logically related, ad there is a large area of overlapping proof between them’”. See State v. Dewhitt, 276 Or App 373, 383 (2016)
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Dearmitt
“A departure sentence is the particular sentence selected by the sentencing court that exceeds the presumptive sentence but is no more than the maximum sentence. And it is that particular sentence, not the abstract decision to depart, that must be supported by facts that the state alleges and proves.”... “Under Blakely, the Sixth Amendment entitles a defendant to have a jury determine any aggravating factor that a court may then use to justify a sentence that exceeds the presumptive range.” Upton, 339 Or at 681.”
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Northey
To determine if an omission of a mental-state instruction is harmless, the court asks whether “there is “some likelihood” that, had it considered the issue, the jury might not have been persuaded that the defendant was criminally negligent as to a substantial risk of physical injury to himself or the officers." State v. Stone, 324 Or App at 695.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Townsend v. Townsend
“An attorney remains an attorney for the adverse party for purposes of service of the notice of appeal, unless, prior to the service of the notice of appeal, written notice under ORS 9.390 that the attorney has withdrawn is received by the party serving the notice of appeal.”
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Department of Human Services v. A.S.
A permanency judgment that does not provide “all of the dots" in writing... undercuts the long line of cases that have required explicit written findings." Dept. of Human Services v. R. A. H., 299 Or App 215 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
M. E. v. Kirk
ORS 107.137 includes several factors a court must weigh in determining custody… “sibling relationships are important and must be considered in the custody determination—whether such relationships are of the half or whole blood. [b]ut sibling relationships are not dispositive of custody—whether of the half or whole blood”.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
1000 Friends of Oregon v. City of Portland
In this appeal, the issue is whether LUBA’s order to transfer the case to circuit court was “unlawful in substance or procedure” ORS 197.850(9)(a). Under judicial review, the Court found that the city approved the permit under “clear and objective land use standards” and was not subject to LUBA jurisdiction.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
State v. Juttner
If a defendant’s invocation is unequivocal, then the interrogation must cease immediately; however, if the invocation is equivocal, an officer is permitted to either “(1) stop the interrogation or (2) ask the defendant neutral follow-up questions intended to clarify the equivocal nature of the defendant’s statement.” State v. Joaquin, 307 Or App 314, (2020). Moreover, “any questioning not reasonably designed to clarify the equivocal nature of the statement is impermissible.” State v. Schrepfer, 288 Or App 429 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure