Oregon Supreme Court (1 summary)
State v. Rogers
An empaneling of an anonymous jury requires a finding that there are strong and particular grounds for jury identity protection. When the State relies on a defendant's history as a basis for its decision to impose capital punishment, it must demonstrate a close link between that history and defendant's future dangerousness.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Oregon Court of Appeals (11 summaries)
Pine Ridge Park v. Fugere
When a superdeas undertaking is filed per ORS 19.335(2), the 60-day limit on issuance of process to enforce a judgment under ORS 105.159(3) is tolled.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Wentworth
Under ORS 811.370, a state police trooper has probable cause to believe an infraction has been committed when a motorist crosses a road’s white fog line with his or her vehicle’s tire.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
SAIF Corp. v. Otwell
ORS 656.268 authorizes a board to modify the effective date of TTD benefits when reconsidering the notice of closure.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Catt v. Dept. of Human Services
When there is a question of fact about the occurrence of a claimant’s knowledge of his or her injury, summary judgment is not appropriate if such knowledge, or lack thereof, will affect timely notice as required under ORS 30.275.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Hites-Clabaugh
First, timeliness of one’s disclosure of the need to elicit testimony from an expert witness about particular subject matter is different from timeliness of one’s intention to call an expert witness. The latter must comply with ORS 135.865. Second, ORS 418.747(1),(3), and (4) indicate that “all law enforcement personnel in a county shall conduct child abuse investigations pursuant to the protocols developed by the county’s multidisciplinary team.” Third, expert testimony about child sexual abuse that a layperson usually is unfamiliar with is admissible.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Spainhower
ORS 33.096 requires a court to impose sanctions for contempt at or before the defendant’s trial in which the contempt was held unless there is an overriding interest for delay.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Cruz-Renteria
Marion County Sheriff’s Office Policy 3315 requires that “when taking custody of a prisoner’s property for temporary storage,” deputies are required to “open closed containers designed to typically carry identification, cash, valuables, medications or contraband,” and not open those that merely could contain such items.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Witherspoon
Two criminal counts which arose from continuous, uninterrupted conduct that were joined in time, place, and circumstances are not separate criminal episodes for the purpose of calculating defendant's criminal history score.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
J.L.B. v. K.P.B.
Under ORS 30.866, taking numerous photographs of a person's home does not meet the standard of causing that person reasonable apprehension regarding his personal safety.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Stalking Protective Order
State v. Clatsop County
When calculating the expenditure ratio to determine whether there is a common law vested right to complete a residential subdivision in compliance with county and state waivers issued pursuant to Ballot Measure 37, a court must include the cost of building homes on the property as of the effective date of Measure 49.
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
State v. Hicks
A court need not apply the “shift to I” rule to consecutive sentences that are “statutorily mandated” because they are outside the scope of OAR 213-012-0020.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure