Oregon Supreme Court (2 summaries)
State v. Quebrado
“When a motion for mistrial is not made immediately following the objectionable act, such a motion may nevertheless be timely and preserved if ‘no significant lapse of time, no additional testimony, no recess, and no discussion of another issue’ took place.” State v. Larson, 325 Or 15, 22 (1997).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Umatilla County v. Dept. of Energy
“For an energy facility or a related or supporting facility that must be evaluated against the applicable substantive criteria pursuant to subsection (5) of this section, that the proposed facility does not comply with one or more of the applicable substantive criteria but does otherwise comply with the applicable statewide planning goals, or that an exception to any applicable statewide planning goal is justified under subsection (2) of this section”. ORS 469.504(1)(b)(B).
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
Oregon Court of Appeals (32 summaries)
Dept. of Land Conservation v. Clackamas Co.
“After October 4, 2000, a local government’s requirements for minimum lot or parcel sizes in rural residential areas shall not be amended to allow a smaller minimum for any individual lot or parcel without taking an exception to Goal 14 pursuant to OAR chapter 660, division 14, and applicable requirements of this division.” OAR 660-004-0040(7).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Pricewaterhousecoopers, LLP v. Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt P.C.
“In no event shall any action for negligent injury to person or property of another be commenced more than 10 years from the date of the act or omission complained of”. ORS 12.115(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
Roberts v. City of Cannon Beach
“We review LUBA’s order to determine whether it is ‘unlawful in substance or procedure’, ORS 197.850(9)(a), and for ‘whether LUBA correctly applied the substantial evidence standard. A LUBA order is unlawful in substance if it represents a mistaken interpretation of the applicable law”. Tylka v. Clackamas County, 330 Or App 247, 248 (2024).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
State v. Pozos
“ORS 10.095(3) requires an instruction when, ‘viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction, the evidence is sufficient for the jury to decide that at least one witness consciously testified falsely concerning a material issue’”. State v. Howard, 325 Or App 696, 714.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Whitelock
“To be objectively reasonable, ‘the officer’s safety concerns must be based on facts specific to the particular person searched, not on intuition or a generalized fear that the person may pose a threat to the officer’s safety’”. State v. Davis, 282 Or App 660, 667 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Creekside Valley Farms v. Dept. of Agriculture
“Implicit in the requirement that orders be supported by substantial evidence is an additional requirement that they be supported by substantial reason. An order is supported by substantial reason when it articulates a rational connection between the facts and the legal conclusions it draws from them…”. SAIF v. Coria, 371 Or 1, 12 (2023).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
State v. Wilson
“There are three prerequisites for the imposition of restitution as part of a defendant’s criminal sentence: (1) criminal activities, (2) economic damages, (3) a causal relationship between the criminal activity and the economic damages”. State v. Kirkland, 268 Or App, 420, 424 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Central Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes Cty.
“ORS 197.015(10)(e)(B) provides that the term land use decision ‘does not include any local decision or action taken on an application subject to ORS 215.427 or 227.178 after a petition for a writ of mandamus has been filed under ORS 215.429 or 227.179”. ORS 197.015(10)(e)(B).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
State v. Fudge
“The court in Davidson expressly relied on ORS 137.669 and ORS 137.637 for the proposition that the guidelines ‘determine the sentence for any offense not otherwise provided for by a statute that calls for a longer sentence’”. State v. Davidson, 369 Or 480, 486 (2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Schay-Vivero
“We remanded for resentencing because … the trial court ‘did not address per diem fees at the sentencing hearing’. In doing so in Barr, we rejected arguments by the state that any error in the imposition of per diem fees was harmless or moot.” State v. Barr, 331 Or App 242, 244 (2024).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Soto-Sarabia
“Probable cause exists when the facts, as set forth in the affidavit, along with any reasonable inferences, could ‘permit a neutral and detached magistrate to determine that seizable evidence probably would be found at the place to be searched”. State v. Castilleja, 345 Or 255, 269 (2008).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Julien 2012 Irrev. Trust v. Tillamook Cty. Bd. of Comm.
“If a public entity enacts one or more land use regulations that restrict the residential use of private real property or a farming or forest practice and that reduce the fair market value of the property, then the owner of the property shall be entitled to just compensation from the public entity that enacted the land use regulation or regulations as provided in ORS 195.310 to 195. 314”. ORS 195.305(1). “Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply in land use regulations: … (b) that restrict or prohibit activities for the protection of public health and safety”. ORS 195.305(3)(b).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Majhor and Majhor
“When both parties’ testimony suggests that a party considered an asset to be separate property, and the trial court specifically addressed whether that party had rebutted the presumption of equal contribution, that argument has been sufficiently preserved”. Davis and Davis, 268 Or App 679, 685 n 4 (2025). “On its own, the length of a marriage ‘is not an equitable consideration’ on which to award separate property to the other spouse in the ‘just and proper’ property division”. Brush and Brush, 319 Or App 1, 11 (2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Maloney v. Bryant
“Redirect may extend to the facts elicited on cross examination; matters that tend to limit, explain, or qualify them; or matters that tend to rebut or modify any inference resulting from the cross-examination – provided that the inquiries are directly connected with the matter stated in cross-examination”. State v. Wirfs, 250 Or App 269, 275 (2012). “A personal representative has ‘a fiduciary duty to the beneficiaries of the estate’ and ‘must be in a position to act indifferently in matters of the estate’”. Wharff v. Rohrback, 152 Or App 68, 72 (1998). “An order in action that affects a substantial right, and that effectively determines the action so as to prevent judgement in the action, may be appealed in the same manner as provided in this chapter for judgements.” ORS 19.205(2).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
McGeehan v. Cunningham
“To show that circumstances detrimental to the child exist if relief is denied, the nonparent must demonstrate that the circumstances of living with the legal parent post a serious present risk of psychological, emotional, or physical harm to the child”. G.J.L. v. A.K.L., 244 Or App 523, 532.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. Butterfield
“For defendant to have lawfully used deadly force against the victims in self-defense, he must have reasonably believed that the person harmed was committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened the use of physical force against him, ORS 161.219(1), and that the degree of force that defendant used was necessary to defend himself, ORS 161.209”. State v. Cox, 329 Or App 228, 234.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Butterfield
“For defendant to have lawfully used deadly force against the victims in self-defense, he must have reasonably believed that the person harmed was committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened the use of physical force against him, ORS 161.219(1), and that the degree of force that defendant used was necessary to defend himself, ORS 161.209”. State v. Cox, 329 Or App 228, 234.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Mello
“A trial court has sua sponte duty to exclude clearly scientific testimony regarding FSTs when it is presented without a proper foundation”. State v. Ortiz, 325 Or App 139. “Erroneously admitted evidence that relates to a central factual issue is more likely to have affected the jury’s determination”. State v. Whitmore, 257 Or App 664.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Mello
“A trial court has sua sponte duty to exclude clearly scientific testimony regarding FSTs when it is presented without a proper foundation”. State v. Ortiz, 325 Or App 139. “Erroneously admitted evidence that relates to a central factual issue is more likely to have affected the jury’s determination”. State v. Whitmore, 257 Or App 664.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
McClusky v. City of North Bend
“Proof of a causal connection between protected conduct and a materially adverse action can be established (1) indirectly, by showing that the protected activity was closely followed by discriminatory treatment***or (2) directly, through evidence of retaliatory animus directed against a plaintiff by the defendant”. Meyer v. Oregon Lottery, 292 Or App 647, 681-82. “An employee has engaged in protected activity under ORS 659A.199 if that employee has reported information that they subjectively believe is a violation of a state or federal law, rule, or regulation and has a good faith basis for that belief”. Boyd v. Legacy Health, 318 Or App 87, 98-99.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
McClusky v. City of North Bend
“Proof of a causal connection between protected conduct and a materially adverse action can be established (1) indirectly, by showing that the protected activity was closely followed by discriminatory treatment***or (2) directly, through evidence of retaliatory animus directed against a plaintiff by the defendant”. Meyer v. Oregon Lottery, 292 Or App 647, 681-82. “An employee has engaged in protected activity under ORS 659A.199 if that employee has reported information that they subjectively believe is a violation of a state or federal law, rule, or regulation and has a good faith basis for that belief”. Boyd v. Legacy Health, 318 Or App 87, 98-99.
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Trent v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.
“ORCP 71 reserves the trial court’s inherent power to entertain an independent action to relive a party from a judgment. Generally a trial court has inherent authority to correct or set aside a judgement, provided that it does so both (1) within a reasonable time and (2) for good and sufficient reason.” Patrick v. State of Oregon, 178 Or App 97, 104 (2001).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Trent v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.
“ORCP 71 reserves the trial court’s inherent power to entertain an independent action to relive a party from a judgment. Generally a trial court has inherent authority to correct or set aside a judgement, provided that it does so both (1) within a reasonable time and (2) for good and sufficient reason.” Patrick v. State of Oregon, 178 Or App 97, 104 (2001).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Crook
“Downloading files from the internet goes beyond mere possession and instead creates a copy of the file, which itself amounts to the type of proliferation of child pornography that ORS 163.684 was intended to stop.” State v. Pugh, 255 Or App 357 (2013). “A conviction does not count toward a defendant’s criminal history score if, for double jeopardy purposes, it arose out of the same criminal episode as the crime for which the defendant is being sentenced.” State v. Dulfu, 363 Or 647, 496 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Wilson v. Mack
“No matter claimed as error will be considered on appeal unless the claim of error was preserved in the lower court.” ORAP 5.45(1). “An unpreserved error is reviewable as plain error when (1) the error is one of law; (2) the legal point is obvious, meaning it is not reasonably in dispute; and (3) to reach the error, we need not go outside the record or choose between competing inferences to find it.” State v. Nickerson, 272, Or App 155, 156 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
Wilson v. Mack
“No matter claimed as error will be considered on appeal unless the claim of error was preserved in the lower court.” ORAP 5.45(1). “An unpreserved error is reviewable as plain error when (1) the error is one of law; (2) the legal point is obvious, meaning it is not reasonably in dispute; and (3) to reach the error, we need not go outside the record or choose between competing inferences to find it.” State v. Nickerson, 272, Or App 155, 156 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Herring
“OEC 404(3) precludes admission of evidence if the proponent’s theory of relevance requires the factfinder to employ ‘propensity reasoning,’ which requires the factfinder ‘to rely on an inference about the defendant’s bad character and resultant propensity to commit criminal acts at any link in the chain of logical relevance.” State v. Jackson, 368 Or 705, 716 (2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Swafford
“Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution requires a closer connection between the purpose of the stop and the questions an officer poses.” State v. Bradley, Or App 736, 741-43 (2023).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Continental Casualty Co. v. Argonaut Ins. Co.
“The insurer’s duty to defend is determined by comparing the complaint to the insurance policy”, West Hills Development Co. v. Chartis Claims, 360 Or 650, 653 (2016), and “the construction of the insurance policy requires ascertaining the parties’ intent”, which is revealed by the terms and conditions”. Groshong v. Mutual of Enumclaw Ins. Co., 329 Or 303 (1999).
Area(s) of Law:- Insurance Law
Continental Casualty Co. v. Argonaut Ins. Co.
The “insurer’s duty to defend is determined by comparing the complaint to the insurance policy”, West Hills Development Co. v. Chartis Claims, 360 Or 650, 653 (2016), and the “construction of the insurance policy requires ascertaining the parties’ intent”, which is revealed by “the terms and conditions”. Groshong v. Mutual of Enumclaw Ins. Co., 329 Or 303 (1999).
Area(s) of Law:- Insurance Law
State v. Carachuri
“Restitution is to be imposed when ‘a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would have foreseen that some-one in the victim’s position could reasonably incur damages of the same general kind that the victim incurred,’ and such losses resulted from the defendant’s criminal conduct.” State v. Ramos, 358 Or 581, 594 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Dietrich
“[T]he rules of accretion and avulsion are straightforward: ‘[I]f the change be gradual, the boundary of the upland will follow the water; if it be sudden, the boundary remains as before.’ State Land Board v. Sause et al, 217 Or 52, 80 (1959). “ORS 93.310(2) provides that ‘permanent and visible or ascertained boundaries or monuments’ prevail over conflicting ‘measurement[s], either of lines, angles or surfaces.’”
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law