Dept. of Human Services v. D. L. G.
Under ORS 419B.476(5)(d), "the person or entity seeking to assert one of the exceptions in ORS 419B.498(2) bears the burden of proving that an exception to the prompt filing of a termination petition applies." Dept. of Human Services v. S.J.M., 283 Or App 367, 393-94, 388 P3d 417(2017), rev'd, 364 Or 37, 430 P3d 1021 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Craigen
"[A] defendant’s 'personal characteristics' are appropriately considered as part of the defendant’s 'situation' for purposes of the EED defense, whereas a defendant’s 'personality characteristics' or 'personality traits' are not permissibly considered as part of the defendant’s ‘situation.’” Zielinksi, 287 Or App at 780 (citing State v. Ott, 297 Or 375, 686 P2d 1001 (1984)).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Sarmento
To demonstrate that an officer’s less intrusive measures are “reasonably related to a traffic investigation and reasonably necessary to effectuate it, the state must present evidence that (1) the officer perceived a circumstance-specific danger and decided that [the action taken] was necessary to address that danger; and (2) the officer’s perception and decision were objectively reasonable.” State v. Jimenez, 357 Or 417, 430, 353 P3d 1227 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Y. B.
"Ordinarily, it is the appellant’s burden to 'furnish a sufficient record to demonstrate that the trial court []' erred." State v. Lavert, 164 Or App 280, 283, 991 P2d 1067 (1999). "And '[t]he burden of creating and providing a record rests with the party seeking to alter the decision.'” Foust v. American Standard Ins. Co., 189 Or App 125, 134 n 8, 74 P3d 1111 (2003).
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
Cascade In Home Care, LLC v. Hooks
A fee award under ORS 656.382(2) is mandatory, while the filing of specific fee request is optional under OAR 438-015-0029, with the consequence that the board will award a fee that it considers reasonable even in the absence of a specific request. See, e.g., SAIF v. Wart, 192 Or App 505, 520-22, 87 P3d 1138 (2004).
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
Childers Meat Co., Inc. v. City of Eugene
A fee is “based on quantity” when “the quantity of hazardous substance used” is a “principal component of determining whether a user pays a fee” and Eugene Code 3.692 expressly establishes that connection by defining “hazardous substances user,” in part, as an entity that uses “any quantity of hazardous substance (above zero)” and the mere reference to quantity does not indicate that the fee is “quantity-based”. Advocates for Effective Regulation v. City of Eugene, 160 Or App 292, (1999) (Advocates I). Additionally, under Chapter II of the Eugene Charter, the city retains significant authority to adopt rules and ordinances that regulate entities also regulated by the charter itself and “all power of the city is vested in the city council,” except as expressly provided by the charter. Eugene Charter § 4(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Business Law
Dept. of Human Services v. P.W.
When reviewing an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the court has held "[i]f we conclude that the evidentiary record is insufficient for us to resolve on appeal an unpreserved claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we can, 'where appropriate,' remand to the juvenile court for an evidentiary hearing on the claim." Dept. of Human Services v. T.L., 358 Or 679, 703-04, 369 P3d 1159 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Halladay v. Board of Parole
“For offenders who committed their offenses between May 19, 1988 and April 4, 1990, it would violate the state and federal constitutional prohibitions on ex post facto laws for the board to rely on information other than a psychological evaluation in determining whether an offender’s parole release date should be deferred on the ground that the offender had a present severe emotional disturbance that made the offender dangerous to the health or safety of the community.” Peek v. Thompson, 160 Or App 260, 980 P2d 178, rev dismissed, 329 Or 553 (1999).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Martinez v. Delgado-Galban
A plaintiff in a personal injuries case can recover reasonable medical expenses but there must be some evidence that the charges are reasonable. Tuohy v. Columbia Steel Co., 61 Or 527, 532, 122 P 36 (1912).
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
Monfore v. Persson
"To establish . . . inadequate assistance for purposes of Article I, section 11, petitioner [is] required to prove . . . that trial counsel 'failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment’; and . . . 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:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. A. S.
Consent is not limited to consent given by the person against whom evidence is offered . . . valid consent can be given by a third party if that person has control over access to or use of the premises or effects to be searched. United States v. Matlock, 415 US 164, 170-171 (1974).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Endicott
“A conditional or restricted consent to enter land creates a privilege to do so only in so far as the condition or restriction is complied with.” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 168 (1965); Strandholm v. Barbey, 145 Or 427, 440-41, 26 P2d 46 (1933).
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
State v. Harrop
“Probable cause exists if, at the time of the stop, the officer subjectively believes that [an] infraction [has] occurred and if that belief is objectively reasonable under the circumstances.” State v. Isley, 182 Or App 186, 190, 48 P3d 179 (2002).
Area(s) of Law:- Traffic Infractions
State v. Jones
Questions that are necessary to secure an officer's safety or the safety of the public and are not designed solely to elicit testimonial evidence from a suspect are allowed as a public safety exception to the Fifth Amendment. New York v. Quarles, 467 US 649, 659, 104 S Ct 2626, 81 L Ed 2d 550 (1984).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. M. G.
“To justify continued commitment on the ‘danger to others’ ground, the state must do more than establish that [A]ppellant was dangerous to others at one time.” State v. D. S., 243 Or App 328, 333, 258 P3d 1250 (2011). “[I]t must establish a factual foundation to predict [A]ppellant’s future dangerousness based on his condition at the time of the hearing in the context of his history.” Id.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
State v. Olson
Fourth-degree assault is a felony, rather than a misdemeanor, if “[t]he person commits the assault knowing that the victim is pregnant.” ORS 163.160(3)(d).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Plueard
“[E]vidence about sexual grooming of children ‘was “scientific” evidence under OEC 702’ that could not be admitted ‘without first requiring the state to establish its scientific validity.’” State v. Henley, 363 Or 284, 422 P3d 217 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Roden
In analyzing evidence, the court needs to consider "the importance of the evidence to either party's theory of the case, noting evidence relating to a central issue - as opposed to a tangential one - will likely have a greater effect on the verdict." State v Basua, 280 Or App 339, 345, 380 P3d 1196 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. T.M.
A past violent act “must provide a foundation to predict future dangerousness,” not merely have occurred, to support a determination that a person is dangerous to others due to a mental disorder. State v. L.R., 283 OR App 618, 625, 391 P3d 880 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
State v. Totland
The court reviews “a trial court’s decision to overrule an objection to closing arguments for abuse of discretion.” State v. Logston, 270 Or App 296, 303, 347 P.2d 352 (2015). "In conducting this review, we review statements made by a party during argument in context, not in a vacuum.” State v. Purrier, 265 Or App 618, 621, 336 P3d 574 (2014).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Stavrum v. Tudor
"To preserve an argument, an appellant must 'provide the trial court with an explanation of his or her objection that is specific enough to ensure that the court can identify its alleged error with enough clarity to permit it to consider and correct the error immediately, if correction is warranted.'" State v. Wyatt, 315 Or 335, 343, 15 P3d 22 (2002).
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
Warren v. Washington County
Pursuant to ORS 197.307(4), the “clear and objective requirement applies broadly to local governments’ application of standards, conditions, and procedures 'regulating the development of housing' generally, including 'needed housing.'"”
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Myers v. Howton
"Whether there has been an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege will depend on the particular circumstances of each case, including the defendant’s age, education, experience, and mental capacity; the charge (whether complicated or simple); the possible defenses available; and other relevant factors." State v. Meyrick, 313 Or 125, 132, 831 P2d 666 (1992).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. Connolly
In determining whether a defendant had "control" over another inmates PIN, "[t]he state may properly rely on the circumstantial evidence in the record to conclude that a reasonable fact-finder could infer from that evidence that defendant had control over the PINs." See State v. F.R.S., 294 Or App 656, 660, 432 P3d 1149 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Travelers Ins. Co. v. Arevalo
Under ORS 656.382 and ORS 656.383, "attorney fees are contingent on achieving a favorable result," which cannot be “incurred” until a final order is issued, and a claimant finally prevails on a disputed issue. Travelers Ins. Co. v. Arevalo, 296 Or App 514, 521 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
Campos v. Jensen
The proper analysis under Neumann requires an examination of individual statements within the context of the review as a whole, a context which demonstrated in that instance that the statements were “not provably false” but, rather, statements of opinion or speculation. Neumann v. Liles, 358 Or 706 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
D. M. v. Oregon Health Authority
When an agency withdraws an order under ORS 183.482(6) and then files an order on reconsideration that does not merely “affirm[] *** or modif[y] the order with only minor changes,” a petitioner must file a timely amended petition for judicial review of the order on reconsideration if the petitioner seeks to proceed with the case” and failure to timely file an amended petition for judicial review means that the proceeding must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Haskell Corp. v. Filippi, 152 Or App 117 (1998).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Dept. of Human Services v. G. P. B.
“A party opposing a change of permanency plan to adoption has the burden of proving the presence of a compelling reason to forgo that plan change.” Dept. of Human Services v. S. J. M., 364 Or 37, 430 P3d 1021 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Dept. of Human Services v. S. J. K.
“The proponent of the plan change need prove only that DHS made reasonable efforts to reunify the family and that the parents made insufficient progress to permit reunification. To avoid a plan change under those circumstances, the opposing party bears the burden of proving the presence of compelling reason under ORS 419B.498(2) to forgo a plan change." Dept. of Human Services v. S.J.M., 364 Or 37, 430 P3d 1021 (2018) (S.J.M. II).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Hill v. City of Portland
"'Ripeness' refers to 'an aspect of the doctrine of justiciability, speficially, the requirement that there be an actual, as opposedto hypothetical, injury to the individiual invoking the judicial power.'" Beck v. City of Portland, 202 Or App 360, 366, 122 P3d 131 (2005).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Jimenez/Carlson v. Multnomah County
“[T]he text and context of the code . . . are the best indications of the code drafters’ intent." Polacek and Polacek, 349 Or 278, 284, 243 P3d 1190 (2010).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
M. A. B. v. Buell
Under FAPA, a petitioner seeking a restraining order has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent "(1) 'abused' petitioner in the 180 days preceding the filing of the petition, (2) presents an 'imminent danger of further abuse' to petitioner, and (3) 'represents a credible threat to the physical safety of the petitioner.'" Kargol v. Kargol, 295 Or App 529, 532 (2019) (quoting ORS 107.718(1)).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Abuse Prevention Act
State v. Fuller
The Court must evaluate whether “the specific and articulate facts known to [the deputy] give rise to a reasonable inference that the defendant was transporting firewood ‘away from harvest or collection site.’” State v. Maciel-Figueroa, 361 Or 163, 165, 389 P3d 1121 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Miller
“An indictment that charges more than one offense must allege one or more of the bases for joinder in ORS 132.560(1)(b)(A) to (C): that the charges are ‘[o]f the same or similar character,’ ‘[b]ased on the same act or transaction,’ or ‘[b]ased on two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan.’ If the indictment does not allege the basis for joinder, then the defendant may demur to the indictment.” State v. Warren, 364 Or 105, 121-22, 430 P3d 1036 (2018); ORS 135.630(2).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Schmidt
Unless the trial court abuses its discretion, a ruling that evidence is admissible will not be reversed. State v. Robinson, 244 Or App 368, 380, 260 P3d 671 (2011), rev den, 352 Or 33 (2012).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Stull
"In general, in presenting closing arguments to the jury, counsel has 'a large degree of freedom' to comment on the evidence submitted and urge the jury to draw any [and] all legitimate inferences from that evidence," but that freedom does not permit "making statements of facts outside the range of evidence." Cler v. Providence Health System-Oregon, 349 Or 481, 487-88 (quoting Huber v. Miller, 41 Or 103, 115, 68 P 400 (1902)).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Weaver
Under ORAP 5.45(4)(a), "each assignment of error must demonstrate that the question or issue presented by the assignment of error timely and properly was raised and preserved in the lower court."
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
State v. White
"Restitution is the ‘process to ask the criminal court to award damages that the victim would be able to obtain in a civil action.’” State v. Ramos, 358 Or 581, 368 P3d 446 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing