Casebeer v. Krocker
Whether a deed is a mortgage is based on "consideration of the whole transaction, by the 'mutual intention of the parties at the time the transaction was consummated.'" Swenson v. Mills, 198 Or App 236, 242, 108 P3d 77 (2005).
Area(s) of Law:- Trusts and Estates
State v. Xiu-Chable
"ORS 811.706 does not authorize an award of restitution that includes 'speculative, uncertain, and open-ended amounts.'" State v. Hval, 174 Or App 164, 178, 25 P3d 958, rev den, 332 Or 559 (2001).
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
Baldwin v. Seida
The legislature’s intent can be understood by looking at the text of ORS 31.150(2)(a)-(b); in context, under State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160, 171-72, 206 P3d 1042 (2009), the Court examined “submitted” and “judicial proceeding,” determining the plain meaning according to the dictionary definitions was “statements that are sent for consideration or presented for use in a court proceeding or a proceeding initiated to procure an order, decree, judgment, or similar action.”
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
Nancy Doty, Inc. v. WildCat Haven, Inc.
“Persons listed in [ORS 656.018(3)] enjoy a broad grant of immunity for workplace injuries, even if they are acting in more than one capacity at the time of the injury.” Varland v. Smith, 112 Or App 271, 274, 828 P2d 1053, rev den, 313 Or 628 (1992). ORS 656.018(3)(d) excepts parties from immunity only where they acted “wholly outside the capacity of their immunity.”
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
State v. Link
"The susceptibility of juveniles to immature and irresponsible material is not as morally reprehensible as that of an adult," therefore, “[f]rom a moral standpoint, it would be misguided to equate failings of a minor with those of an adult, for a greater possibility exists that a minor's character deficiencies will be reformed." Roper v. Simmons, 543 US 551, 570, 125 S Ct 1183 (2005).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
State v. Reineke
"[A]ll evidence of whatsoever nature tending to throw light upon the relations existing between the accused and the deceased and the feeling between them is competent." State v. Finch, 54 Or 482, 488-89, 103 P 505 (1909); “Evidence that shows a hostile relationship existed between a defendant and his victim tends to shed light on a defendant’s mens rea” State v. Moen, 309 Or 45, 68, 786 P2d 111 (1990).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. S.E.R.
To civilly commit a person under ORS 426.005, “the evidence must supply a concrete and particularized ‘foundation for a predication of future dangerousness,’” to themselves or others, absent commitment. State v. S.R.J., 281 Or App 741, 748, 754-55, 386 P3d 99 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
State v. Walker
Pursuant to ORS 801.265, a "farm tractor" is "a motor vehicle designed and used primarily in agricultural operations for drawing or operating other farm machines, equipment, and implements of husbandry."
Area(s) of Law:- Traffic Infractions
Culver v. Deaver
“An evaluating court must look for clear and convincing evidence of whether the decedent intended the specific writing at issue to be his or her will at the time of its creation.” Estate of Whitlatch v. Richardson, 99 Or App 548, 553, 783 P2d 46 (1989).
Area(s) of Law:- Trusts and Estates
Fenimore v Blachly-Lane County C.E.A.
The court can “affirm on an alternative basis only if, (1) the facts of the record are sufficient to support the alternative basis for affirmance; (2) the trial court’s ruling is consistent with the view of the evidence under the alternative basis for affirmance; and (3) the record is materially the same as the one that would have been developed had the prevailing party raised the alternative basis for affirmance below.” Outdoor Media Dimensions, Inc. v. State of Oregon, 331 Or 634, 659-60, 20 P3d 180 (2001).
Area(s) of Law:- Disability Law
State v. Delp
Under Article I, section 16, of the Oregon Constitution, "all penalties shall be proportioned to the offense," and the courts assess this by considering "(1) a comparison of the severity of the penalty and the gravity of the crime; (2) a comparison of the penalties imposed for other, related crimes; and (3) the criminal history of the defendant." State v. Rodriguez/Buck, 347 Or 46, 58, 217 P3d 659 (2009).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Dodge
A suspect equivocally invokes their right to counsel, "when the suspect's statements or request is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation, one of which is that he or she is invoking the right to counsel. State v. Roberts, 291 Or App 124, 132, 418 P3d 41 (2018). "The question is whether a reasonable officer would have understood 'at least one plausible meaning' of the suspect's ambiguous statement or question 'to be that defendant was invoking the right to counsel.'" Id. at 133.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Williams
The Court of Appeals may only review the denial of a motion for a new trial if “the motion is based upon juror misconduct or newly discovered evidence.” State v. Sullens, 314 Or 436, 440, 839 P2d 708 (1992) (emphasis in original); see generally State v. Alvarez-Vega, 240 Or App 616, 619, 251 P3d 199, rev den, 350 Or 297 (2011) (concluding that the defendant's constitutional challenge was beyond the scope of our review because he failed to show how his claim fell within ORCP 64 B(4)).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
A. A. C. v. Miller-Pomlee
"Contact" does not require a "direct oral or visual connection between a petitioner and respondent;" it “is sufficient if the act, when learned, gives rise to an unwanted relationship or association between the petitioner and the respondent.” Boyd v. Essin, 170 Or App 509, 516-17, 12 P3d 1003 (2000), rev den, 331 Or 674 (2001).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Stalking Protective Order
Brown v. State Historic Preservation Office
“The interpretive amplification or refinement of an existing rule is a new exercise of agency discretion and must be promulgated as a rule under the APA to be valid.” Smith v. TRCI, 259 Or App 11, 25, 312 O3d 568 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Dillard v. Premo
Pursuant to ORS 138.525(4), “[a] dismissal is without prejudice if a meritless petition is dismissed without a hearing and the petitioner was not represented by counsel.”
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Hammel v. McCulloch
In order to prevail in a legal malpractice action, “[A] plaintiff must show, not only that the attorney was negligent, but also that the result would have been different except for the negligence.” Watson v. Meltzer, 247 Or App 558, 565, 270 P3d 289 (2011).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
Schwartz and Battini
A “judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceedings in which *** [t]he judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party***.” Oregon Code of Judicial Conduct, Rule 3.10(A)(1). “The rule governs both actual bias and perceived bias.” See In re Schneck, 318 Or 402, 407, 970 P2d 185 (1994).
Area(s) of Law:- Professional Responsibility
State v. Peirce
"The state may prove a defendant's knowledge with circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences," but the inferred fact "must be one that a rational factfinder can be convinced follows beyond a reasonable doubt from the underlying facts." State v. Korth, 269 Or App 238, 242, 344 P3d 491 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Perez-Cardenas
“Two guilty verdicts for sexual abuse, based on touching two of the victim’s body parts in a single incident, [should be] merged into a single conviction” State v. Dugan, 282 Or App 768, 769, 387 P3d 439 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Slaviak
Under State v. Ashkins, 357 Or 642, 659, 357 P3d 490 (2015), a defendant is entitled to a concurrence instruction when an indictment charges "a single occurrence of each offense, but the evidence permit[s] the jury to find any one or more among multiple, separate occurrences of that offense involving the same victim and the same perpetrator," unless the state "elect[ed] which occurrence it would prove." 357 Or at 659.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law