American Energy, Inc. v. City of Sisters
Under section 25 of the Oregon Jobs and Transportation Act, an ordinance is deemed enacted when it is adopted by it's governing body, rather than after it has been referred for a citizen's vote.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
Blunier v. Staggs
Attorney fees that are reasonably incurred while enforcing the terms of a trust deed are considered an expense of the trust.
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
Kollman v. Cell Tech International, Inc.
Claims for monetary damages are tried at law before a jury. A stockholder, asserting a breach of fiduciary duty, who suffered harm individually and will receive the benefit of the recovery, is entitled to a direct claim.
Area(s) of Law:- Corporations
Maguire v. Clackamas County
Procedural error by LUBA is not cause for reversal or remand unless the court finds that substantial rights of the petitioner were prejudiced thereby and LUBA review is preempted by ORS 195.318(1) which states a county's determination under Measure 49 is not a land use decision.
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
Muzzy v. Uttamchandani
An unrecorded deed is void as against a subsequent bona fide purchaser for value unless the purchaser can prove that he bought in good faith, for valuable consideration, and filed first for record.
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
Noble v. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife
An interpretation by an agency of its own rule will be upheld as long as it is plausible and consistent with the rule itself.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
State v. McMullen
The fleeting nature of a suspect’s blood alcohol level is an allowable exigent circumstance that will ordinarily permit a warrantless blood draw when an officer has probable cause to believe the defendant is under the influence of intoxicants.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Nguyen
A defendant who seeks to challenge a conviction under ORS 163.750 for violating a stalking protective order on free speech grounds must first successfully attack the underlying protective order.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Stalking Protective Order
State v. Rambo
Nonscientific expert opinion evidence based on independently admissible scientific evidence is admissible, as long as the expert is established as qualified through experience and training and does not use scientific language or suggest that his conclusion was based on a scientific method or data collection.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. West
A trial court properly denies a defendant’s request to exclude breath test results when there is an absence of satisfactory foundational requirements for scientific evidence; breath test results are admissible when the procedures of ORS 813.160(1) and associated rules have been followed.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Wirfs
An error is not harmless when a criminal defendant is precluded from rebutting the state's argument due to sustained objections to the defense's direct questions. Additionally, the scope of redirect examination cannot exceed that which was covered during cross examination.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Trees v. Ordonez
In medical malpractice cases, expert testimony must not only establish causation, but must also provide evidence of the applicable standard of care customarily used by a reasonably careful practitioner.
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
Berg and Berg
ORS 107.105(1) requires that the division of marital property be "just and proper in all circumstances," Spousal support awards should be based on the trial court's discretion and supported by evidence in the record.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Blachana, LLC v. Bureau of Labor and Industries
The administrative interpretation of "successor to the business of any employer" under the definition "employer" within ORS 652.310(1) should be interpreted as a party that has assumed or conferred upon it the legal rights and obligations of the predecessor.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Brown v. City of Eugene
Under section 44(3) of the Eugene City Charter, "water service" means the direct provision of water to end users, and is not so broad as to include the sale of water to other entities that will then distribute the water.
Area(s) of Law:- Municipal Law
Case v. Burton
Under common law and ORS 105.620, a claim for adverse possession fails if the claimant does not adequately identify the area that was allegedly adversely possessed.
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
Crothers v. Employment Dept.
Unavailability to work during avocation hours will not disqualify a recipient of unemployment benefits so long as the unavailability does not interfere with regular hours of primary employment.
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Department of Human Services v. C.M.M.
When determining the fitness of a parent, the test is at the time of termination and focuses on the detrimental effects of the parent's conduct on the child.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Gay and Gay
It is legally permissible and within the trial court's discretion to decide to not distribute shares to one spouse in a closely held corporation in exchange for an equalizing judgment.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
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
Krohn v. Hood River School District
A plaintiff does not need to exhaust administrative remedies if the claims for which she is seeking relief are not governed by a collective bargaining agreement, but rather are statutory in nature.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Mannex Corp. v. Bruns
To claim the tort of intentional interference of economic relations the plaintiff must show that the defendant is a third party to the contract. Communications made by an employee to protect the interests of their employer are qualifiedly privileged.
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
State v. Delaportilla
A court cannot convict on a charge for which the defendant was not indicted unless the conviction is for an offense that is a lesser-included offense within the offense charged in the indictment.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Gaskill
Special conditions of probation must be reasonably related to the crime of conviction or the needs of the probationer for the protection of the public or reformation of the probationer, or both. Moreover, the conditions cannot be more restrictive than necessary to achieve the goals of probation.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Hutton
Evidence of prior misconduct is admissible to show intent even where it is not a contested issue so long as mens rea is an element to a crime charged.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Taylor
For a police inventory procedure to be valid, it must limit the discretion of the officers in searching and opening containers seized from arrested individuals. If the procedure gives too much discretion, it is constitutionally invalid.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
DK Entertainment v. Oregon Liquor Control Commission
Under OAR 845-006-0347(3)(a), the Oregon Liquor Control Commission's interpretation of the word "permit" is consistent with it's application in previous cases where the unlawful actions of an employee are imputed to a licensee.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Goodsell v. Eagle-Air Estates Homeowners Assn.
Where homeowners association bylaws and statutory removal provisions are nonexclusive and Oregon law supplements them without contradiction, an action to remove defendant directors of the association may be rejected.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
Hoekstre v. DLCD
Remedies afforded by section 6 of Ballot Measure 49 (2007) allow a claimant to receive relief under sections 6(2) or 6(3), but these subsections cannot be combined to afford a cumulative remedy.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Kirsch v. Dep’t. of Consumer and Business Services
The Court will overturn an agency order only if the credible evidence apparently weighs overwhelmingly in favor of one finding and the board 'found' the other without providing substantial reason.”
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Lopez v. Mills
The post-conviction court's award of specific performance is an adequate remedy when the prosecutor breaches his agreement to provide a recommendation if it provides the defendant the benefit of the agreement that led to the plea.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. Kinney
Despite a defendant’s proffered stipulation, evidence may be admissible if it is relevant to prove a fact that is at issue notwithstanding the stipulation. Furthermore, evidence against a defendant is not unfairly prejudicial solely because it is graphic in nature.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Massey
Use of the Miles jury instruction is improper when there is insufficient evidence at trial to show that a defendant's physical condition made him more susceptible to the influence of intoxicants than he normally would be.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Moore
The Court of Appeals will not hear arguments that are not preserved at the trial court.
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
US Market #180, LLC v. Oregon Liquor Control Commission
Under OAR 845-006-0335(1), an employee selling alcoholic beverages is only required to visually verify a purchaser's age when the employee is not using age verification equipment under OAR 845-005-0335(5).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
C.L.C. v. Bowman
Terminating a Stalking Protective Order (SPO) involves considering all of the evidence, including internet evidence, to determine if the context that gave rise to the SPO still causes a subjective apprehension of a threat to their personal safety. If the context still exists and is otherwise objectively reasonable, the SPO should not be terminated.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Stalking Protective Order
Department of Consumer and Business Services v. Zurich American
The Department of Consumer and Business Services does not possess authority to compel payment from a private insurance company based on the failure of the insurance company's client to file notice of a working-leasing arrangement with the DCBS.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Nelson v. American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc.
Under ORCP 71B, a court must have personal jurisdiction over a party in order to render a judgment.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Oregon Shores v. Board of County Commissioners
In determining whether a landowner has a common law vested right to continue in developing his land, the court will use the “expenditure ratio” as a necessary starting point in evaluating whether the land owner has incurred substantial enough costs toward completion of the project.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
S.A.B. v. Roach
For a stalking protective order, ORS 30.866 requires two or more contacts that will cause objectively reasonable fear. If verbal, the contact must rise to the level of a threat, and if physical, the contact must both subjectively and objectively reasonably cause alarm or coercion.
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. J.L.C.
A juvenile court has jurisdiction over a youth when that youth commits harassing acts or offensively contacts another person. Evidence in the record may support this proposition.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Linn County
When determining vested rights expenditure ratios, dedications may be included in the numerator. For the denominator, a court must use a total project cost, not a hypothetical cost.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
State v. Torres
Under ORS 161.067(3), the public at large is considered a "victim" of a violation of ORS 166.270 and thus multiple offenses against the public can be merged into one conviction.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Young
When a court imposes a post-prison supervision term it cannot be for an indefinite period and dependent upon the amount of prison time the defendant actually serves. If the sentence is concurrent with a prison term, the sum of the two terms cannot exceed the statutory maximum indeterminate sentence.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing