State v. Cunningham
"If the other requirements of ORS 137.542(2) are satisfied--that is, if a person holds a registry identification card and is sentenced to probation--the probation conditions related to the use of usable marijuana and specified cannabinoid products must comply with the statute.” State v. Jerscheid, 294 Or App 564, 566 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Decleve
"[A] sentence that comports with the 'shift-to-I' rule, but violates the '200% rule, must be adjusted to comply with the latter." State v. Worth, 274 Or App 1, 26, 360 P3d 536 (2015), rev den, 359 Or 667 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Concienne v. Asante
Under ORS 12.110(4), “a medical malpractice action accrues ‘when the injury is first discovered or in the exercise of reasonable care should have been discovered.’” Kastle v. Salem Hospital, 284 Or App 342, 347, 392 P3d 374 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Bankruptcy Law
Day v. Day
"No estate or interest in real property, other than a lease for [a] term not exceeding one year, nor any trust or power concerning such property, can be created, transferred or declared otherwise than by operation of law or by a conveyance or other instrument in writing." ORS 93.020(1)
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
Fuller v. Dept. of Public Safety Standards
In a substantial reason review, the courts look to whether the agency has “articulate[d] a rational connection between the facts and the legal conclusions it draws from them.” Jenkins v. Board of Parole, 356 Or 186, 195, 335 P3d 828 (2014). An agency order regarding a contested case that lacks such reasoning requires the Court to reverse and remand for the agency to correct the deficiency. Id.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
O'Kain v. Landress
“In the absence of an express agreement, a putative client’s subjective belief that there is a lawyer-client relationship must be accompanied by objective facts that make that belief reasonable.” Lahn v. Vaisbort, 276 Or App 468, 477, 369 P3d 85 (2016)
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
State v. J. M. E.
“For hospital or medical expenses to qualify as recoverable economic damages, the state must prove that the cost of such services was reasonable.'” See State v. Campbell, 296 Or App 22, 27, 438 P3d 448 (2019). "Submission of a hospital bill, without more, is insufficient proof for recovery of 'reasonable' hospital or medical services. Some additional testimony or evidence is required to support the reasonableness of the bill for the hospital or medical services." State v. McLelland, 278 Or App 138, 144, 372 P3d 614 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Remedies
Sternberg v. Lechman-Su
Under ORCP 47 G, "a court 'shall order' a party who presented an ORCP 47 affidavit or declaration in bad faith 'to pay to the other party the amount of the reasonable expenses that the filing of the affidavit or declaration caused the other party to incur, including reasonable attorney fees." "The phrase 'attorney's fees,' when used in the context of an attorney fee award, means the reasonable value of an attorney's services, whether or not the client was required to pay for those services." Menasha Forest Products Corp. v. Curry County Title, 50 Or 81, 89, 249 P3d 1265 (2011).
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
Walker v. Oregon Travel Information Council
To be protected from wrongful-discharge due to whistleblowing, one must have had “an objectively reasonable belief” that the conduct violated some law or regulation so as to make the conduct an important public-duty. Love v. Polk County Fire District, 209 Or App 474, 492, 149 P3d 199 (2006). Mere disagreements about practices and procedures that don’t actually violate the law are not protected by this public-duty exception. Id. at 493-94.
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Bank of New York Mellon v. Owen
“ORS 86.797 cannot provide finality in a fundamentally flawed nonjudicial foreclosure sale” Troubled Asset Solutions v. Wilcher, 291 Or App 522, 530-31, 422 P3d 314 (2018), rev’d in part on other grounds, 365 OR 397, 445 P3d 881 (2019) (citing DiGregorio v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, 281 Or App 484, 490-91, 381 P3d 961 (2016), rev den, 361 Or 100 (2017)).
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
Dept. of Human Services v. A. M. B
“An administrative search is a recognized exception to the warrant requirement. In general, a search qualifies for the exception if it is conducted for a purpose other than law enforcement… typical examples include health and safety inspections and certain inventory searches of lawfully seized automobiles.” State v. B.A.H., Or App 203, 206, 263 P3d 1047 (2011)(quoting State v. Anderson, 304 Or 139, 141, 743, P2d 715 (1987)).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Deyette v. Portland Community College
Pursuant to ORS 174.117(1)(e), "a community college district or community college service district established under ORS chapter 341 is a 'special government body' [but] is not an 'officer authorized by law to make rules'" under ORS 183.310(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Gardner v. OHSU
For a medical malpractice claim, "findings of comparative fault can be based on the plaintiff's failure to take reasonable measures which might have prevented or reduced the injury caused by the defendant's negligence." Son v. Ashland Community Healthcare Services, 239 Or App 495, 509, 244 P3d 835 (2010).
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
Lane County v. Employment Department
“The issue depends. . . on whether a reasonable person facing that prospect of discharge would consider the prospect so grave a circumstance that resigning was the only reasonable option. McDowell v. Employment Dept., 348 Or 605, 619 (2010).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Otnes v. PCC Structurals, Inc.
Pursuant to UTCR 21.080(5)(a), "A filer who resubmits a document under this subsection must include: '(i) [a] cover letter that sets out the date of the original submission and the date of rejection and that explains the reason for requesting that the date of filing relate back to the original submission.'" (emphasis omitted).
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
Sky Lakes Medical Center, Inc. v. Klamath Falls
Pursuant to ORS 197.829(1), "LUBA is required to accept a local government’s interpretation of its own land use ordinance if that interpretation ‘plausibly accounts for the text and context’ of the ordinance.” Siporen v. City of Medford, 349 Or 247, 262, 243 P3d 776 (2010).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
State v. Hoseclaw
It is appropriate for the court to correct an error if the "plain error [is] based on the defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence given the gravity of the error and intervening change in the law." See State v. Inloes, 239 Or App 49, 54-55, 243 P3d 862 (2010).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Keith
“Improper joinder can prejudice a defendant in several ways, including if the defendant would testify regarding some charges but not others, if the defendant’s defenses to the charges could be viewed as inconsistent, if the evidence of one charge might improperly influence the jury’s verdicts on other charges, or if the evidence could confuse the jury. Therefore, if the disallowance of a demurrer allows charges to be tried together improperly and the joint trial affects the defense in any of those ways, the disallowance may be prejudicial.” State v. Warren, 364 Or 105, 430 P3d 1036 (2018)
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Lafountain
To prove that a party is living somewhere else, the state must both prove that defendant was no longer living at his former residence and that defendant established a new residence. State v. Hiner, 269 Or App 447, 452, 345 P3d 478 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Reyes
"A person is not a victim within the meaning of [ORS 137.103(4)(a)] unless the person (1) is the one against whom defendant committed the crime and (2) incurred economic damages as a result." State v. White, 299 Or App 165, 168-169 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co. v. Sulejmanagic
“[T]here is nothing in the plain language of ORS 100.450(7)(c) that requires such an action to be pending . . . rather the operative language in ORS 100.450(7)(c) turns on whether the lender has or has not ‘initiated judicial action.’”
Area(s) of Law:- Consumer Credit
State v. Chisholm
Under ORS 161.155, Criminal Liability for Conduct of Another, "A person is criminally liable for the conduct of another person constituting a crime if: .... (2) With the intent to promote or facilitate the commission of the crime the person: .... (b) Aids or abets or agrees or attempts to aid or abet such other person in planning or committing the crime."
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. M.A.E.
"A person meets the 'basic needs' definition of a '[p]erson with mental illness' under ORS 426.005(1)(f)(B) if the person is unable to provide for his or her basic personal needs in a way that leaves that person at nonspeculative risk of 'serious physical harm' - meaning that the person's safe survival will be compromised - in the near future, even though that risk is not imminent." State v. M. A. E., 299 Or App 231, 240 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
State v. McNutt
If there is “little likelihood that an error affected . . . [a] verdict,” then it was a “harmless error” and any conviction in question because of it must be affirmed. State v. Davis, 336 Or 19, 32, 77 P3d 1111 (2003); OEC 103(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Tajipour
“[A] court must (1) determine which offense is the offense for which a consecutive sentence is contemplated; (2) compare the harms—real or potential—that arose from that offense with those that arose from the offense to which it will be sentenced consecutively; (3) determine whether the offense for which a consecutive sentence is contemplated caused or risked causing any harm that the other did not; and, if so, (4) determine whether the harm that is unique to that offense is greater than or qualitatively different from the harms caused or threatened by the other.” State v. Rettmann, 218 Or App 179, 178 P3d 333 (2008).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Providence Health Plan v. Allen
Under ORS 750.005(4)(a), an entity is a health care service contractor when it is “‘intimately connected with a group of doctors [and hospitals] licensed by this state’ and provides all the medical benefits to the plan’s participants.”
Area(s) of Law:- Insurance Law
State v. Ventris
The 1999 legislative amendment to ORS 138.083 granted the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision the same authority it had to parole persons convicted of murder that it had to parole persons convicted of aggravated murder. State v. Giles, 254 Or App 349-50, 293 P3d 1086 (2012). ).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. White
“A person is not a ‘victim’ within the meaning of that provision unless the person (1) is the one against whom the defendant committed the crime and (2) incurred economic damages as a result.” State v. Moreno-Hernandez, 365 Or 175, 442 P3d 1092 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Remedies
Yarbrough v. Viewcrest Investments, LLC
"ORCP 71 A codified Oregon case law, which had previously given the court power to correct 'clerical, as contrasted with judicial errors, in order to make the record speak the truth and conform it to what actually occurred.'" Hubbard v. Hubbard, 213 Or 482, 487, 324 P2d 469 (1958).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure