Atkinson v. Board of Parole
Under Janowski/Fleming v. Board of Parole, an inmate is not entitled to immediate release if a release date has not been set, even if it should have been set for a date that has already passed. The only relief an inmate is entitled to is a release hearing.
Area(s) of Law:- Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
Austin v. Premo
In a post-conviction appeal, Petitioner must raise a substantial question of law as to both elements in order to avoid summary affirmance. A substantial question of law is a question of law that is important, having solid or firm foundation being soundly based or presenting probable facts or circumstances sufficient to support a reasonable legal hypothesis.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Bishop v. Waters
Under ORS 105.475, buyers have a right to revoke an agreement for the sale of land until the sale closes. The sale often closes when the parties sign the contract, but never until the title is transferred.
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
DiNicola v. State of Oregon
For purposes of issue preclusion, where the issue in both proceedings requires the application a particular legal standard to the same set of facts, the issue is identical when the legal standard in both proceedings is the same or similar.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Goings v. CalPortland Co.
Under ORS 656.156, an employee may sue their employer for an injury covered under workers’ compensation law if the injury resulted from a deliberate intent of the employer to produce the injury.
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
Goodsell v. Eagle-Air Estates Homeowners Assn.
ORS 94.719 establishes attorney fee entitlement for the prevailing party of legal proceedings involving a homeowner’s association. ORS 94.719 is a compulsory fee statute that applies if there is a single prevailing party on each claim at the end of litigation.
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
K.L.D. v. Daley
Under ORS 107.718(1), “a FAPA restraining order will be upheld only if the evidence established that the alleged conduct create[d] an imminent danger of further abuse and a credible threat to the physical safety of the petitioner.”
Area(s) of Law:- Family Abuse Prevention Act
LDS Development, LLC v. City of Eugene
When cities require bonds in order to shape the development of land, the city has an option to enforce the bond but is not required to do so.
Area(s) of Law:- Municipal Law
Lennar Northwest, Inc. v. Clackamas County
The Clackamas County Comprehensive Plan’s seven factor test for zoning (CCCP Policy 4.R.2) must be applied giving equal weight to each factor.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Mann v. DeCamp
Under State v. McDonnell, a judgment from a judge who lacks authority to render the judgment is voidable, but is not automatically void if the court has subject matter jurisdiction.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. Anderson
ORS 811.706 does not make a distinction between owners and insurers of property damaged in the hit and run for the purposes of ordering restitution payments.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
State v. Bowen
Under ORS 165.800(1), a “transfer” means the selling or giving possession or control of another person’s personal identification to a third person for fraudulent or deceptive purposes, and is distinct from appropriation of another’s credit card for one’s own use.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Buyes
Defendants must show substantial prejudice in order to request that a trial court sever separate counts for different victims that are similar in nature.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Gore
When a defendant asserts a "defense of property" defense, the jury must be instructed on the State's duty to disprove the defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Orcutt
Under ORS 137.717, a trial court may impose up to the maximum presumptive prison term that would be allowed at the time of initial conviction and is not bound by the presumptive terms available at the time of a probation revocation sanction.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Rock
A court can order restitution to the victim of a crime when the State proves a causal connection between the defendant’s criminal activity and the victim’s economic loss. If proven, the defendant has the burden to prove that the victim could have avoided the loss through reasonable conduct.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Voyles
Proper search of real property requires a separate and independent analysis of the search of the real property and seizure of the personal property within it, and the different interests they implicate.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Stonecrest Properties, LLC v. City of Eugene
An incidental beneficiary has no standing to enforce bond. The Court will look at the intent of the parties to determine whether a nonparty is an incidental beneficiary.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
Vanlaningham and Vanlaningham
When awarding spousal support, trial courts must consider the full amount of spouse’s income, including income in probate.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Clackamas County Oregon v. Clackamas River Water
Under ORS 258.046, an election contest proceeding should have a prevailing party, even if a claim does not exist, and the prevailing party should be entitled to a mandatory fee award.
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
Finney-Chokey v. Chokey
If a particular factual finding was not necessary to the trial court’s determination, and the trial court did not expressly make the finding on the record, an appellate court will not presume that the finding was made.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Basua
Under OEC 404(2)(a), evidence of a defendant’s character for sexual propriety is admissible if (1) the evidence concerns a “trait of character”; (2) that trait is “pertinent” to the crime charged; (3) the evidence is offered in the proper form under OEC 405, and (4) the evidence was not of specific instances of conduct.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Conrad
A court’s decision to admit evidence after conducting OEC 403 balancing meets the Mayfield requirements even if the court does not expressly follow the Mayfield analysis, so long as the record shows the court considered the substantive matters prescribed in Mayfield.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Wilson v. Premo
Petitioner received inadequate assistance of counsel where Attorney failed to request a Boots instruction and the jury convicted Petitioner of 2 counts, and acquitted Petitioner of 2 counts, of the same crime without identifying the occurrence that formed the basis for each count.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Code and Code
A trial court's determination of property division is just and proper in all the circumstances based on the courts discretion, unless a legal error has occurred.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. Cazarez-Hernandez
When analyzing the legitimacy of a Miranda warnings, the Court’s inquiry is whether the concepts have been expressed rather than whether the words have been accurately translated. The warning must convey that the Defendant has the right to remain silent and to consult with counsel and that any statements that the person makes may be used against the person in a criminal prosecution.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Gray
Under ORS 137.540, probation may be revoked if an individual fails to abide by all general and special conditions of probation and the court is not required to prove that it was a willful failure.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Keller
In order to establish probable cause for an arrest for possession of controlled substances, an officer must show more facts than merely presence in the proximity of a controlled substance.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. L. P. L. O.
Under ORS 419B.100, the court’s exclusive jurisdiction attaches as soon as any case involving a person under 18 years old is initiated and continues until the case is disposed of as provided by statute. In determining whether the court has jurisdiction, the court's objective is to “determine whether the child needs the court’s protection, not to determine the nature or extent of that protection.”
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Ritter
Under ORS 165.800, in order to convert the personal identification of another person to one’s own use via “appropriation,” a Defendant must take, acquire, or claim that personal identification by possessing or controlling it without the consent or permission of the person it identifies.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Wright
As an exception to the warrant requirement, exigent circumstances "require the police to act swiftly to prevent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall a suspect's escape or the destruction of evidence."
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
122nd Group, LLC v. DCBS
ORS 646A.620(1)(c)'s phrase "make available to the public" does not include throwing an evicted tenants belongings in the dumpster and thus exposing them to dumpster divers.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Dayton v. Jordan
Under Cheney v. Mueller, evidence of prior use of real property is one of many factors to be considered in determining whether an implied easement exists, and “cannot of itself establish an easement.”
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
Heroff v. Coursey
State v. Parker established that it is improper for counsel to interject personal appraisal of a witness’s credibility in a way, which would suggest to the jury that the appraisal is based upon counsel’s own knowledge of facts not introduced into evidence.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. Davis
Under ORS 138.222(2), a “presumptive sentence” that is unreviewable applies only to sentences imposed under the sentencing gridlock guidelines.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Hanson
An error does not qualify for plain error review if the record contains a competing inference that the party may have a strategic purpose for not objecting and the competing inference is plausible.
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
State v. Webster
An issue of law reasonably in dispute is not an apparent error that satisfies the second prong of the test for "plain error" stated in State v. Brown, 310 Or 347 (1990) (to qualify as “plain error,” an asserted error must be (1) one of law; (2) it must be apparent, i.e., the point must be obvious, not reasonably in dispute; and (3) it must appear on the face of the record).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Hessel v. Dept. of Corrections
It is within the general statutory policy given to the Department of Corrections to govern, manage, and administer prisons.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Hinman v. Silver Star Group, LLC
Under ORS 36.600 to 36.740, a trial court has the power to determine both whether claims fall under an arbitration clause and whether the contract as a whole is unconscionable, but must engage in factfinding to make these determinations rather than relying solely on the allegations of the parties.
Area(s) of Law:- Alternative Dispute Resolution
Johnson and Price
Under ORS 107.105, courts are not authorized to award property or attorneys fees as spousal support. In addition, when a court is rendering a judgment of dissolution, the court may provide for “the division or other disposition between the parties of the real or personal property as may be just and proper."
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Kennison v. Dyke
Under ORS 109.119(3)(b), before granting visitation rights to a person who has an ongoing personal relationship with a child, a court is required to determine whether that person rebutted, by clear and convincing evidence, the statutory presumption found in ORS 109.119(2)(a) that the child’s guardian acted in the best interest of the child in initially denying visitation rights to that person.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Lopez-Becerra v. State of Oregon
Under ORS 138.640(1), a post-conviction judgment requires that the court: identify the claims for relief considered and make separate rulings on each claim; declare whether the denial is based on petitioner’s failure to utilize or follow available state procedures or a failure to establish the merits of the claim; make the legal bases for denial of relief apparent.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Shriners Hospitals for Children v. Woods
A default judgment cannot be enforced in a later proceeding in the face of a motion to set aside the judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction, which would make the judgment void, regardless of how long after the default judgment the motion is made.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Bevil
Under ORS 163.205(1)(b)(D), the first-degree criminal mistreatment statute makes it a Class C felony for any person who has assumed the care of an elderly person to take the elderly person’s money or property for any use or purpose not in the due care and lawful execution of the person’s responsibility.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Davilla
In determining whether a factor constitutes a substantial and compelling departure, aggravating factors that were not included in the state's notice to defendant and that were not proved beyond a reasonable doubt before a jury may not be used by the sentencing court as a substantial and compelling reason to impose an upward departure sentence.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Hawkins
ORS 166.025(1)(f) is intended to apply when a defendant's sensory conduct cause the people exposed to experience unpleasant physical, sensory effects.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Henderson-Laird
Erroneously admitted hearsay evidence is not prejudicial if it is cumulative of evidence that is not otherwise objected to.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Jones
When considering whether a defendant abandoned a protected interest in property prior to a police search, affirmatively claiming an interest in certain items is insufficient by itself to support an inference, by negative implication, that the defendant abandoned his or her interests in other items.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Musalf
Where a criminal defendant gives limited consent to a search, a police officer violates his right against unreasonable search and seizure under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, if the police officer's search extends outside that limited consent. A police officer must make a particularized explanation as to the nature of a threat to his safety in order for a warrantless search to comport with the officer safety exception of Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Vicente v. Nooth
In order to comply with ORS 138.640(1), a judgment denying claims for post-conviction relief must, at minimum, (1) identify the claims for relief that the court considered and make separate rulings on each claim; (2) declare, with regard to each claim, whether the denial is based on a petitioner’s failure to utilize or follow available state procedures or a failure to establish the merits of the claim; and (3) make the legal bases for denial of relief apparent.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Yankee v. Oregon Medical Board
OAR 137-003-0670(2) provides that if a party fails to appear at a hearing and the agency finds that the party had good cause for the failing to appear, then the agency may not issue a final order by default. If the reasons for the party’s failure to appear are in dispute, the agency shall schedule a hearing on the reasons for the party’s failure to appear.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law