Griffin v. Dish Network Services
Pursuant to ORS 656.266(2), “for the purpose of ‘combine condition’ injury claims under ORS 656.005(7)(a)(B) only: ‘(a) Once the worker establishes an otherwise compensable injury, the employer shall bear the burden of proof to establish the otherwise compensable injury is not, or is no longer, the major contributing cause of the combined condition or the major contributing cause of the need for treatment of the combined condition.’”
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
Hammond v. Hammond
Pursuant to the discovery rule, "the period of limitation commences either when a plaintiff actually discovers his or her injury or when a reasonable person exercising reasonable care should have discovered his or her injury.” Rice v. Rabb, 354 Or 721, 725, 320 P3d 554 (2014). “To establish adverse possession, a claimant must show by clear and convincing evidence that his or her use of the property—or that of a predecessor in interest—was “actual, open, notorious, exclusive, hostile, and continuous” for a period of 10 years, that the claimant had an “honest belief” that he or she was the actual owner of the property throughout the vesting period, and that that belief was objective and reasonable under the circumstances.” Case v. Burton, 250 Or App 14, 22-23, 279 P3d 259 (2012).
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
Smith v. Central Point Pawn, LLC
When reviewing a trial court’s summary judgment ruling, courts review “the evidence in light most favorable to the nonmoving party, here plaintiff, to determine whether there is a genuine issue of material fact that precludes summary judgment. Rush v. Corvallis School District 509J, 291 Or App 252, 253, 419 P3d 746 (2018). There is no genuine issue of material fact if, “based upon the record before the court viewed in a manner most favorable to the adverse party, no objectively reasonable juror could return a verdict for the adverse party on the matter that is subject of the motion for summary judgment. ORCP 47 C.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
State v. Taylor
There are five factors, Jarnagin factors, that the courts apply in deciding "whether the breath test results [are] admissible because defendant's decision to take the breath test broke the causal chain between the prior Article I, section 12 violation and his breath test results." State v. Jarnagin, 251 Or 703, 277 P3d 535 (2012).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Hammond v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp.
“If a compensable injury combines with a preexisting disease or condition to cause or prolong disability or need for treatment, the resultant condition is compensable only to the extent that the compensable injury is and remains the major contributing cause of the disability or need for treatment.” ORS 656.005(7)(a)(B).
Area(s) of Law:- Insurance Law
Michaelson/NWDA v. City of Portland
The scope of LUBA’s review is to look at the whole record which is a direction “to evaluate the substantiality of supporting evidence by considering all the evidence in the record." ORS 197.835(9)(a)(C). Younger v. City of Portland, 305 Or 346 (1988).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Patton v. Mutual of Enumclaw Ins. Co.
Issue preclusion bars a party from relitigating an identical issue in a new proceeding if that issue has already been decided in another proceeding. Nelson v. Emerald People’s Utility Dist., 318 Or 99, 104, 862 P2d 1293 (1993). Additionally, “a trial court awards prejudgment interest when ‘the exact amount is ascertainable or easily ascertainable . . . and where the time from which interest should run is also ascertainable.’” Strader v. Grane Mutual Ins. Co., 179 Or App 329, 338 (2002).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Allen
“The defendant’s substantial step must be toward the crime that he intends personally to commit, not a crime that will be committed by someone else.” State v. Kimbrough, 364 Or 66, 84, 431 P3d 76 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Western States Petroleum Assn. v. EQC
Under ORS 468A.266(5), in order to adopt a rule, the EQC must evaluate a handful of factors ranging from technical studies to feasibility analysis, and the rule will be invalid under ORS 183.400(4)(c) if it was adopted without compliance with applicable rulemaking procedures.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Bice v. Oregon Board of Psychology
Remand is required "when an agency makes unidentified and unexplained changes to an order, including making additional factual findings, if those new findings change the basis of the order." See Robin v. Teacher Standards and Practices Comm., 291 Or App 379, 396-98, 421 P3d 385 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
City of Eugene v. Hejazi
In order for jurisdiction to be found, "the essential prerequisite of our jurisdiction under ORS 221.360 is that the appellant raise a cognizable facial or as-applied challenge to the constitutionality of an ordinance” that the appellant was convicted of violating. City of Lowell v. Wilson, 197 Or App 291, (2005).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
King v. Warner Pacific College
Under ORS 659A.006(4), a religious organization or institution may prefer an employee or an applicant of one religious sect over another if the employment is closely related with the primary purpose of the institution and is not connected with a commercial or business activity.
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
State v. H. H. J.
"Under ORS 426.301(1), if the court finds that the person is still a person with mental illness and in need of further treatment, it 'may order commitment to the authority for an additional indefinite period of time up to 180 days,' otherwise the person must be released." State v. T. Z., 287 Or App 8 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Keleman
“A probationer fails to ‘abide by the direction of the supervising officer’ within the meaning of that provision only when the officer’s direction relates to the requirement that the probationer ‘[r]eport as directed.’” State v. Harges, 294 Or App 445, 432 P3d 268 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Rhodes
When a trial court properly instructs the jury on the state’s burden to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, all elements of the charged crime, including mental states, “any error in failing to give an instruction on the issue of partial responsibility is not prejudicial”. State v. Booth, 284 Or 615, 620 (1978).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
D. R. S. v. Baker
“An elderly person who has been the victim of abuse within the preceding 180 days may petition the circuit court for relief, if the person is in immediate and present danger of further abuse from the abuse.” ORS 124.010.
Area(s) of Law:- Elder Law
Dept. of Human Services v. D.W.M.
The risk of harm when establishing jurisdiction must be “present at the time of the hearing and not merely speculative” and “a person’s status as a sex offender does not alone justify state intervention, nor does the fact that a sex offender is untreated create a presumption of risk to the child.” Dept. of Human Services v. E.M., 264 Or App 76 (2014); Dept. of Human Services v. G.J.R., 254 Or App 436 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Geddry v. Richardson
“Proposed initiatives may be evaluated before an election to determine whether they are of the type authorized by the Oregon Constitution to be placed on the ballot but may not be evaluated for ‘general questions of constitutionality, such as whether the proposed measure, if enacted, would violate some completely different portion of the constitution.’” Foster v. Clark, 309 Or 464, 469-70 (1990).
Area(s) of Law:- Election Law
State v. Jacobson
Under the Oregon Constitution, Article I, section 11, "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the right to public trial by an impartial jury in the county in which the offense shall have been committed; to be heard by himself and counsel."
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
State v. Rose
When determining whether a defendant has invoked his or her right to remain silent the court should view the “words that the defendant identifies as having amounted to an unequivocal invocation” and “view[] [them] in isolation before examin[ing] the context in which the statements were made.” State v. Nichols, 361 Or 101, 390 P3d 1001 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Dept. of Human Servives v. M. M. R.
A court has the inherent authority to set aside a judgment for extrinsic fraud only, which “consists of acts not involved in the fact finder’s consideration of the merits of the case." Wimber v. Timpe, 109 Or App 139 (1991).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Kasner and Kasner
“ORS 107.452 authorizes ‘relief from a dissolution judgment for the fraudulent concealment of the true ownership of a significant asset belonging to the parties or either of them, even if the existence of the asset was known before the entry of judgment.’” Conrad and Conrad, 191 Or App 283, 292, 81 P3d 749 (2003).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. Campbell
Under ORS 137.106(1)(a), "the court shall enter a judgment or supplemental judgment requiring that the defendant pay the victim restitution in a specific amount that equals the full amount of the victim's economic damages as determined by the court" upon a showing of evidence; and under ORS 31.710(2)(a), "economic damages" are the "objectively verifiable monetary losses including but not limited to reasonable charges necessarily incurred for medical, hospital, nursing and rehabilitative services and other health care services[.]"
Area(s) of Law:- Insurance Law
State v. Fulmer
“Property is ‘seized,’ for purposes of Article I, section 9, when there is a significant interference, even a temporary one, with a person’s possessory or ownership interests in the property.” State v. Juarez-Godinez, 326 Or 1, 6, 942 P2d 772 (1997).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Murillo-Bejar
Under OEC 403, "evidence of an expert's diagnosis of child sexual abuse is inadmissible . . . in the absence of physical evidence of abuse." State v. Southard, 347 Or 127, 218 P3d 104 (2009).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Walker
To determine whether a child was “unattended” in accordance with neglect the court must evaluate the totality of the circumstances, such as, “the age of the child, place where left, whether it was left alone in the company of others, period of time left and, finally, whether the sum of these circumstances are such as would endanger the health or welfare of the child.” Commentary to Criminal Law Revision Proposed Oregon Criminal Code, Final Draft and Report § 174, 176 (July 1997). Additionally, for there to be "reckless endangerment," the child must have been put in "possible or potential harm" and the defendant needs to have “only a conscious disregard of a substantial risk [of that] harm.” State v. Cervantes, 232 OR App 567, 582, 223 P3d 425 (2009) & State v. Harbert, 155 Or App 137, 141, 963 P2d 710, rev den, 327 Or 554 (1998).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure