Kutz v. Lee
When bringing an action under the Oregon Tort Claims Act, “No action arising from any act or omission of a public body or an officer, employee or agent of a public body within the scope of ORS 30.260 to 30.300 shall be maintained unless notice of claims is given as required by this section. For claims other than wrongful death, the notice period is 180 days. An action arising from any act or omission of a public body or an officer, employee, or agent of a public body within the scope of OTCA shall be commenced within two years after alleged loss or injury." ORS 30.275(1), (2)(b), (9).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Robles v. SAIF
Under ORS 183.482(a) and (c), a court may affirm, reverse, or remand orders if it finds that the agency erroneously interpreted the provision, or set aside orders that do not have substantial evidence supporting the finding of fact.
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
State v. Krieger
“When the trial court has excluded testimony, the proponent of the disputed evidence must make an offer of proof. State v. Affeld, 307 Or 125, 128, 764 P2d 220 (1988). . .Error is not always sufficient to warrant reversal. We will affirm a judgment of conviction notwithstanding the erroneous admission or exclusion of evidence if there is little likelihood that the error affected the verdict. State v. Davis, 336 Or 19, 32, 77 P3d 1111 (2003).”
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Murga
“Because punitive contempt is quasi-criminal in nature, an accusatory instrument is required. ORS 33.065(4), (5); see State v. Hauskins, 251 Or. App. 34, 39, 281 P.3d 669, 673 (2012). An accusatory instrument is a ‘grand jury indictment, an information or a complaint.’”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Engweiler v. Board of Parole
The United States Supreme Court's explicit statement prevails: “entitlement, if any, to eventual release will be to parole.” State v. Turner, 235 Or App 462, 466, 234 P.3d 993 (2010).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Metje/Parks v. PERS
“ORS 238.715(2) provides that recovery could be made by civil action or ‘other proceeding.’ The statute does not define ‘other proceeding,’ but an administrative proceeding plainly qualifies as an ‘other proceeding.’” Metje/Parks v. PERS, 291 Or. App. 338, 346 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Meyers v. SAIF
Under ORS 656.005(30), a "'worker' means any person who engages to furnish services for a remuneration, subject to the direction and control of an employer[.]"
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
Molette v. Nooth
Under ORS 137.719, adjudications that are not defined as sentences do not count as sentences for the purposes of imposing life imprisonment on defendants with at least two prior felony sentences for sex crimes.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Nesbit v. Bd. of Lic. Pro. Counselors and Therapists
In deciding whether a subject is proper for summary determination, “a discretionary sanction is not a proper subject for summary determination, because whether an agency should impose a particular sanction is not a question of law.” King v. Dept. of Public Safety Standards, 289 Or App 314, 412 P3d 1183 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
O’Hara v. Premo
“To prevail on a post-conviction claim of inadequate assistance of counsel, the burden is on the petitioner to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, facts demonstrating that trial counsel failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment and that the petitioner suffered prejudice as a result.” Lambert v. Palmateer, 182 Or App 130, 135, 47 P3d 907 (2002), adh’d to as modified on recons, 187 Or App 528, 69 P3d 725, rev den, 336 Or 125 (2003).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Payne v. Kersten
The granting of summary judgment based on issue preclusion happens only when, “it can be conclusively determined from the record that all of the requirements for issue preclusion are satisfied.” See Johnson & Lechman-Su, P.C., 272 Or App at 246.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
Robin v. Teacher Standards and Practices Comm.
Under ORS 183.650(2) and the implementing rule, OAR 137-003-0665(3), an agency must “identify the modifications and provide an explanation to the parties to the hearing as to why the agency made the modifications” if the agency “modifies the form of order issued” or “changes the outcome or the basis for the order”.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
SAIF v. Massari
An injury occurs in the course of employment if it takes place during a period of employment, at a place where the worker reasonably may be expected to be, and while the worker is fulfilling duties of the employment or doing something reasonably incidental to the employment. Fred Meyer, Inc. v. Hayes, 325 Or 592, 598, 943 P2d 197 (1997).
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
Shicor v. Board of Speech Language Path. and Aud.
It is “well established that due process does not require a formal separation of the investigative functions from the adjudicative or decision-making functions of an administrative agency, nor does it preclude those who perform the latter from participating in the investigative phase.” Fritz v. OSP, 30 Or App 1117, 1121, 569 P2d 654 (1977) (citing Withrow v. Larkin, 421 US 35, 95 S Ct 1456, 43 L Ed 2d 712 (1975)).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
State v. Bush
“To ensure that a person’s waiver is knowing and voluntary, article 1, section 12 of the Oregon Constitution requires that the police inform a person subjected to custodial interrogation that he has a right to remain silent . . . and any statements the person makes may be used against the person in a criminal prosecution.” State v. Vondehn, 348 Or. 462, 474, 236 P.3d 691, 699 (2010).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. O’Dell
The officer-safety exception to the warrant requirement applies when officers face an “objectively reasonable threat.” State v. Kennedy, 284 Or App 268, 272-73, 392 P3d 382 (2017). “To be objectively reasonable, the state must prove that ‘the officer’s safety concerns [are] 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. Smith, 277 Or App 298, 303, 373 P3d 1089, rev den, 360 Or 401 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
C.I.C.S. Employment Services v. Newport Newspapers
Under ORS 31.152(1), "Oregon’s anti-SLAAP statutes requires a defendant to file a special motion to strike within 60 days from service of the complaint, although the trial court may exercise its discretion to permit a late filing." See ORS 31.152(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Melissa Louise Stephens v. Rob Persson, Coffee Creek Correctional Facility
In order to establish that counsel provided inadequate counsel for purposes of Article I, section 11, one must prove two elements: (1) a performance element: that trial counsel “failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment”; and (2) a prejudice element: that “petitioner suffered prejudice as a result of counsel’s inadequacy.” Johnson v. Premo, 361 Or 688, 699, 399 P3d 431 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Rush v. Corvallis School Dist. 509J
“A public body that owes a particular duty of care (such as that owed by a school district to its students who are required to be on school premises during school hours) has wide policy discretion in choosing the means by which to carry out that duty.” Mosley v. Portland School Dist. No. 1J, 315 Or. 85, 92, 843 P.2d 415, 419 (1992).
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
State v. Apodaca
“Evidence of a defendant’s prior bad act that otherwise would be inadmissible under OEC 404(3) may be admissible under that rule for the non-character purpose of impeaching the defendant’s testimony” State v. Grey, 175 Or App 235, 250, 28 P3d 1195 (2001), rev den, 333 Or 463 (2002).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Mendoza-Lopez
Preservation is required to ensure that party positions are clearly presented and “it will turn on whether, given the particular record of a case, the court concludes that the policies underlying the rule have been sufficiently served.” State v. Parkins, 346 Or 333 (2009).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Mendoza-Sanchez
Excluding expert testimony that relates to facts presented that would raise doubt to the central issue in the case is not harmless error.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v S. F.
Under ORS 426.130(1)(a), "in order to justify an involuntary commitment, the state must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the individual is 'a person with mental illness.'"
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
Dept. of Human Services v. J. J. B.
When a juvenile court wants to establish jurisdiction over a child they must show “sufficient evidence” and “establish a nexus” related to the “conditions or circumstances that endanger the [child’s] welfare.” ORS 419B.100(1)(c). Dept. of Human Services v. A. W., 276 Or App 276, 278, 367 P3d 556 (2016). Dept. of Human Services v. C.J.T., 258 or App 57, 62, 308 P3d 307 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Dept. of Human Services v. S.A.B.O
To endanger the child's welfare, the circumstances must create a current threat of serious loss or injury to the child and there must be a reasonable likelihood that the threat will be realized." Dept. of Human Services v. S. P., 249 Or. App. 76, 84, 275 P.3d 979, 984 (2012).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Dixon v. Board of Nursing
The standard of proof set in ORS 183.450(5) is synonymous with the preponderance of evidence standard. Therefore, the standard of proof in agency proceedings is the preponderance of the evidence standard.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Gordon v. State Mortuary and Cemetery Board
“[W]hen a court’s decision or ruling is premised on alternative grounds, a party challenging that ruling generally must take issue with all independent and alternative grounds on which it is based to obtain relief.” Cf. Strawn v. Farmers Ins. Co., 350 Or 336, 366, 258 P3d 1199, adh’d to on recons, 350 Or 521, 256 P3d 100 (2011).
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
Kiltow v. SAIF
"A worker cannot be both ‘permanently’ and ‘temporarily’ disabled at the same time.” Gwynn v. SAIF, 304 Or 345, 351, 745 P2d 775 (1987), and SAIF v. Grover, 152 Or App 476, 480, 954 P2d 820 (1998),
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
Klamath Tribute Center v. Mortuary and Cemetery Bd.
When courts are required to interpret federal regulation, a federal court looks to the plain meaning of the wording or the administrative interpretation, if neither are present, “the court considers such factors as the overall purpose of the governing statute, the overall purpose of the regulation, the history of the regulation, and the practical consequences of suggested interpretations to determine the intent of the enacting body.” Hagan v. Gemstate Manufacturing., Inc., 328 Or 535, 545, 982 P2d 1108 (1999).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Service Employees International Union Local 503, Oregon Public Employees Union v. University of Oregon
“It is well settled that a public employer’s obligation to collectively bargain in good faith under ORS 243.672(1)(e) includes promptly providing and exlusive representative with requested information that has ‘some probable or potential relevance to a grievance or other contractual matter.’” Association of Oregon Corrections Employees v. State of Oregon, Department of Corrections, Case No. UP-7-98, 18 PECBR 64, 70 (1999).
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
South Valley Bank & Trust v. Colorado Dutch, LLC
Pursuant to ORS 18.165, “If a judgment with lien effect under ORS 18.150, 18.152 or 18.158 is entered or recorded in a county before a conveyance, or a memorandum of a conveyance, of real property of the debtor is recorded in that county, the conveyance of the judgment debtor’s interest is void as against the lien of the judgment unless: (a) The grantee under the conveyance is a purchaser in good faith for a valuable consideration . . .”
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
State v. Aguirre - Lopez
Under Article I, Section 9 of the Oregon Constitution, law enforcement officer inquiries during a traffic stop must be reasonably related to the traffic stop and to the duration of the stop. State v. Dawson, 282 Or App 335, 386 P3d 165 (2016)
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Davis
Out of court statements may be relevant, not for their truth, but to provide context, and therefore do not qualify as hearsay. State v. Chandler, 360 Or 323, 380 P3d 932 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. G. V. L.
Under ORS 419B.100(1)(c), juvenile courts have jurisdiction over children “[w]hose condition or circumstances are such as to endanger the welfare of the child.”
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Horton
Under ORS 165.800(1), intent to defraud requires that a defendant act with specific intent which looks at a “conscious objective of causing the injury to another’s legal rights or interest."
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Roberts
A trial court errs as a matter of law when it “fails to conduct OEC 403 balancing when requested to do so or if it fails to make a record that reflects that the court has conducted the requested OEC 403 balancing.” State v. Garcia-Rocio, 286 Or App 136 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Sawyer
For a trial court to show that it complied with Mayfield's OEC 403 balancing requirements, it must "(1) demonstrate that the court consciously conducted the required balancing and (2) allow for meaningful review of that balancing." Ydrogo, 289 Or App 488, 492 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Walker
“In determining whether a case presents a ‘proper occasion’ to give the instruction described in ORS 10.095(3), the court must ‘determine, from all the testimony, whether or not there has been sufficient evidence for the jury to decide that at least one witness consciously testified falsely.’” State v. Roman, 288 Or. App. 441, 445, 406 P.3d 1119, 1121-22 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Tressel v. Williams
When interpreting an express easement, the court must “look first to the words of the easement, viewing them in the context of the entire document.” Kell v. Oppenlander, 154 Or App 422, 426, 961 P2d 861 (1998).
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
Truong v. Premo
When a trial court’s exercise of discretion “flows from a mistaken legal premise, its decision may be legally impermissible because it was guided by the wrong substantive standard.” Lopez v. Nooth, 287 Or App 731, 734, 403 P3d 484 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief