Brown v. City of Grants Pass
“A statute displaces a local ordinance if it ‘unambiguously expresses an intention to preclude local government from regulating’ in the same area as that governed by the statutes.” Rogue Valley Sewer Services v. City of Phoenix, 357 Or. 437, 450, 353 P.3d 581, 588 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Municipal Law
Johnson v SAIF
Under OAR 436-035-0013, the compensation award for an injury may be reduced when a portion of the injury is attributable to a "legally cognizable preexisting condition" that has been accepted and denied by the insurer.
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
LandWatch Lane County v. Lane County
Under interpretation of the statutory text, “there is no more persuasive evidence of the intent of the legislature than the words by which the legislature undertook to give expression to its wishes.” State v. Branch, 362 Or 351 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Schroeder v. Clackamas County Bank
ORS 20.105 provides that a court can award reasonable attorney fees only if it determines that the nonprevailing party had “no objectively reasonable bases for asserting the claim.” A party’s claim is not objectively reasonable if it “is entirely devoid of legal or factual support, either at the time it is made or in light of additional evidence or changes in the law as litigation proceeds.” Williams v. Salem Women’s Clinic, 245 Or App 476, 482, 263 P3d 1072 (2011).
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
State v. Crider
“For a single criminal act or criminal episode to give rise to more than one statutory violation, 3 three requirements must be satisfied: ‘(1) defendant must have engaged in acts that are ‘the same criminal conduct or episode’; (2) defendant’s acts must have violated two or more ‘statutory provisions’; and (3) each ‘statutory provision must require proof of an element that the others do not.’” State v. Parkins, 346 Or 333, 348, 211 P3d 262 (2009) (quoting State v. Crotsley, 308 Or 272, 278, 779 P2d 600 (1989)).”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Thorson v. Bend Memorial Clinic
The standard for judgment as matter of law states for a moving party, “that standard is satisfied when, viewing the evidence in the record and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from it in favor of the nonmoving party, no reasonable factfinder could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Chapman v. Mayfield, 358 Or 196, 204, 361 P3d 566 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
Jones v. Four Corners Rod and Gun Club
Under ORS 20.077, a court must determine the prevailing party on a claim-by-claim basis. The prevailing party is entitled to attorney fees under ORS 653.055(4) or ORS 652.200(2).
Area(s) of Law:- Labor Law
SAIF v. Carlos-Macias
Diagnostic services necessary to determine the cause or extent of an already-accepted injury or condition are compensable as defined in ORS chapter 656. SAIF v. Carlos-Macias,262 Or App 629, 631, 325 P3d 827 (2014)
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
State v. Borba
“Article 1, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution guarantees a criminal defendant the right to counsel and the right to self-representation,” State v. Hightower, 361 Or. 412, 416, 393 P.3d 224, 266 (2017); however, “[a] criminal defendant may waive the right to be represented by counsel, but the waiver must be voluntarily or knowingly made.” State v. Meyrick, 313 Or. 125, 132, 831 P.2d 666, 670 (1992).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Bradford
"For police officers to make a stop, they must reasonably suspect-based on specific and articulable facts-that the person committed a specific crime or type of crime or was about to commit a specific crime or type of crime." State v. Maciel-Figueroa, 361 Or 163, 182, 389 P3d 1121 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. J.R.B.
In conducting a civil commitment hearing, the trial court, to comply with its obligation under ORS 426.100(1)(c), must advise the allegedly mentally ill person of all five possible results of the proceedings listed under ORS 426.130, or conduct an examination on the record to determine whether a valid waiver of the right to be advised has been knowingly and voluntarily made. State v. M.T., 244 Or App 299 (2011). See ORS 426.130.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
State v. Lantz
When two or more counts involve the same conduct or criminal episode, the counts merge unless one of the provisions of ORS 161.067 operates to preclude merger. State v. Nelson, 282 Or App 427, 431, 386 P3d 73 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Loving
“Touching separate parts of a victim’s body is not, by itself, sufficient to preclude merge of convictions under ORS 161.067(3).” State v. Nelson, 282 Or. App. 427, 436-42, 386 P.3d 73, 79-82 (2016). “Rather, the State must introduce evidence from which the trier of fact could draw a nonspeculative inference that there was a sufficient pause between the acts constituting sexual abuse.” Id. at 446-47.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Manning
Under Art. I, sec. 11 of the Oregon Constitution and Sixth Amendment, a defendant is guaranteed a right to make a closing argument based on evidence if it is not based on impermissible speculation that is “insufficient to support an inference when the conclusion to be drawn from it requires too great an influential leap”. State v. Bivins, 191 Or App 460 (2004).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Martin
Trial courts may refuse to give special jury instructions that "destroy the neutral form that instructions should have." St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Baughman, 61 Or App 534, 538, 657 P2d 1254, rev den, 295 Or 259 (1983).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Rhyne
When a Defendant challenges the validity of their subsequent statement or consent to search, “the State carries the burden of demonstrating that the consent was voluntary and not the product of police exploitation of an illegal search or seizure.” State v. Unger, 356 Or 59, 74-75, 333 P3d 1009 (2014).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Schmidtke
An officer’s statements amount to unlawful interrogation when “the substance of the [statements made] to defendant and the manner in which those [statements] were [made] demonstrated that they were likely to elicit some type of incriminating response”, where incriminating response refers to any “inculpatory or exculpatory response” that a prosecutor may seek to introduce in a trial. State v. Scott, 343 Or 195 (2007).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Townsend
“The right to confrontation is ‘satisfied when the defense is given a full and fair opportunity to probe and expose [the] infirmities [in the witness’s testimony] through cross-examination[.]’” State v. Quintero, 110 Or App 247, 254, 823 P2d 981 (1991) (en banc) (quoting United States v. Owens, 484 US 554, 558, 108 S Ct 838, 841, 98 L Ed 2d 951 (1988) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Van Osdol
A valid warrant to search a residence for evidence of "frequenting" in violation of ORS 167.222 has to establish probable cause that (1) someone with legal authority over the residence actually knew of the sale of drugs at the residence and authorized or consented to the use of the house to facilitate those sales, (2) the substantial purpose of the residence was the commercial sale or use of illegal drugs, and (3) evidence of the crime would be found. Lemery v. Leonard, 99 Or 670, 678, 196 P 376 (1921)
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Stewart and Stewart
To rebut the presumption of equal contribution regarding marital assets, a party must demonstrate that the other party’s contribution to that asset is less than equal. Hixson and Hixson, 235 Or App 217, 227, 230 P3d 946, clarified on recons, 235 Or App 570, 232 P3d 996 (2010).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Eugene Water & Electric Board v. Miller
The use of an easement is not necessarily limited to uses stated in the easement. Courts are to discern the nature and scope of the easement’s purpose and to give effect to that purpose in a practical manner. Bernards et ux v. Link and Haynes, 199 Or 579, 592-93, on reh’g, 199 Or 579, 263 P2d 794.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Halvorson v. Real Estate Agency
“If there is evidence creating a relevant fact issue, then no matter how ‘overwhelming’ the moving party’s evidence may be, or how implausible the nonmoving party’s version of the historical facts, the nonmoving party, upon proper request, it entitled to a hearing.” Watts v. Board of Nursing, 282 Or App 705, 714, 386 P3d 34 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
State v. Harrison
“[T]o prove contempt, the state must establish the existence of a valid court order, the defendant’s knowledge of that order, and the defendant’s willful noncompliance with that order.” State v. Beleke, 287 Or App 417, 421, 403 P3d 481, rev den, 362 Or 208 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Hobbs
"The phrase 'a place where unlawful activity involving controlled substances is maintained or conducted,' ORS 163.575(1)(b), refers to a place where a principal or substantial use of the place is to facilitate unlawful drug activity." State v. Gonzalez-Valenzuela, 358, Or. 451, 459, 365 P.3d 116, 120 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Miranda
Under ORS 164.225, to survive a motion for a judgment of acquittal for burglary, the State is required “to plead and prove the specific offense that defendant intended to commit when he unlawfully entered or remained in the house.” State v. Frey, 248 Or App 1 (2012), rev den, 354 Or 814 (2014).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Walls
In order for officers to seize property under Article I, section 9, a “police officer must obtain a warrant that is supported by probable cause unless an exception to the warrant requirement applies,” such as exigent circumstances. State v. Kosta, 304 Or 549, 553, 748 P2d 72 (1987). State v. Stevens, 311 Or 119, 126, 806 P2d 92 (1991).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Ciecko v. DLCD
Under ORS 196.471(3), the Land Conservation and Development Commission must return recommended Territorial Sea Plan amendments to the Ocean Policy Advisory Council, allowing 155 days for revision of the proposed amendments.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Dept. of Human Services v. J.M.T.M.
The party that proposes changing a permanency plan to adoption bears the burden of proving that there are no compelling reasons not to proceed with terminating the parent's parental rights. Dept. of Human Services v. S. J. M., 283 Or. App. 367, 392, 388 P.3d 417, 431, rev allowed, 361 Or. 350 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Garcia-Navarro v. State of Oregon
"A trial counsel's obligation is to advise clients that guilty pleas to almost any drug offense will result in 'presumptively mandatory' deportation." Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 369, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 1483 (2010).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Landwatch Lane County v. LCDC
A local government's "noncompliance" with local land use regulations is a pattern of decisionmaking that is representative of a class of decisions involving the same or related provisions of a land use regulation, the same geographic areas, and the same types of land use. OAR 660-045-0020(10).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Morgan v. Valley Property and Casualty Ins. Co.
In order for an exhibit to be admissible under the terms of the Oregon Evidence Code, the exhibit must be considered a business record which includes a “duty to report” requirement. 289 Or App at 455, 461 (citing State v. Cain, 260 Or App 626, 632-34, 320 P3d 600 (2014).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State of Oregon v. Hernandez-Zurita
"The 'reasonableness of a petitioner's failure to act on information that is available is simply not enough to trigger the escape clause of ORS 138.510(3).'" Fisher v. Belleque, 237 Or App 405, 411, 240 P3d 745 (2010), rev den, 349 Or 601 (2011).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
STATE OF OREGON v MANUEL PEREZ
ORS 138.071(1) provides a 30-day deadline to appeal and if the appeal is not filed within this deadline, a court has no jurisdiction over a case because it was not taken in conformity to statutory requirements. State v. Goodin, 1 Or App 559, 560, 465 P2d 487 (1970).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. Hubbard
ORS 163.115(5) grants the authority to parole “persons with life sentences for murder” regardless of when the crime happened. State v. Haynes, 168 Or. App. 623 (2000).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Meiser
Under ORS 174.120(3), when the last day by which a court may perform an act is a legal holiday, the act must be performed "on the next day that the court is open for the purpose of filing pleadings and other documents."
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Stavenjord
A variance in a charging document and submitted trial evidence is permissible when the variance is not a material element of the case and the variance will not prejudice the defendant’s trial. State v. Samuel, 289 Or App 618, 626-27 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Steele
Under the Oregon Constitution Article I, section 9, the inevitable discovery doctrine requires the state to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the evidence acquired in an unlawful search would have been discovered under proper police investigatory procedures. State v. Miller, 300 Or 203, 225 (1985). An inventory policy that requires law enforcement to open closed containers is overbroad. State v. Williams, 227 Or App 453, 457 (2009).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Wilda v. Roe
"ORS 471.565(1) does not prohibit a patron's claim that seeks contribution for payment of the damages of the plaintiff injured by the intoxicated patron."
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law