Brooks v. Tube Specialties - TSCO International
Under OAR 436-060-0140(1)(a), "[a] reasonable investigation is whatever steps are a reasonably prudent person with knowledge of the legal standards for determining compensability would take in a good faith effort to ascertain the facts underlying a claim, giving due consideration to the cost of the investigation and the likely value of the claim."
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
Evans v. Nooth
Claims of inadequate counsel are reviewed on a case-by-case basis, subject to the judge’s discretion, regarding the reasonableness of the counselor’s representation from the counselor’s “perspective at the time of the alleged error and in light of all the circumstances.” Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 US 365, 381, 106 S Ct 2574 (1986). Some evidence of the “broader objectives of [the] litigation” is required to perform this assessment. Evans, at 338.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
King v. SAIF
The “going and coming” rule applies when “injuries sustained while an employee is traveling to or from work do not occur in the course of employment.” See SAIF v. Massari, 291 Or App 349, 420 P3d 659 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
Simi v. LTI Inc.-Lynden Inc.
“ORS 656.802(1)(a) defines an occupational disease as ‘any disease or infection arising out of and in the course of employment . . . including: (c) [a]ny series of traumatic events or occurrences which requires medical services or results in physical disability or death.”
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
State v. C. K.
"A person meets the 'basic needs' definition of a '[p]erson with a mental illness' . . . if the person is unable to provide for his or her basic personal needs in a way that leaves the 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, 448 P3d 656 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
State v. Carpenter
“The legislature did not intend the term ‘conceals’ in ORS 162.325(1)(a) to include denying knowledge about a wanted person or his or her whereabouts. Rather, ‘conceals’ for hindering prosecution requires conduct by the defendant that hides the statutory object of concealment—a person who committed a crime punishable as a felony—from ordinary observation.” State v. Carpenter, 365 Or 488, 446 P3d 1273 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Davis-McCoy
“The appellate court has no authority to review any part of a sentence resulting from a stipulated sentencing agreement between the state and the defendant." ORS 38.105(9).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Ham
Pursuant to ORS 161.067(2), "when the same conduct or criminal episode, though violating only one statutory provision involves two or more victims, there are as many separately punishable offenses as there are victims.’’
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Lawson
"To have probable cause, an officer must subjectively believe that a violation has occurred, and that belief must be objectively reasonable under the circumstances." State v. Stookey, 255 Or App 489, 491, 297 P3d 548 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Lobue
ORS 162.205(1)(a) makes it a crime to knowingly fail to appear only after “[h]aving by court order been released from custody or a correctional facility under a release agreement or security release upon the condition that the person will subsequently appear personally in connection with a charge.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Smith
“When the record does include a written waiver, and the parties dispute whether the waiver was effective for the convictions a defendant challenges on appeal, the question before us on plain-error review is whether the record allows competing inferences about the ‘defendant's intent when he signed (the document in the record).’ State v. Akers, 221 Or App 29, 188 P3d 417 (2008).”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Vandruff
To determine if a trial court erred, there must be a record on appeal with sufficient facts to make such a determination. C.P. v. N.L., 274 Or App 180, 181, 359 P3d 1248 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Wiggins v. SAIF
The standard in the form ("more than 2/3 of the time") was not the same as the WCD interpretation because under that interpretation, “a person is significantly limited in the repetitive use of a body part if the person ‘can use the body part repetitively for up to, but no more than, two-thirds of the time.’” Broeke v. SAIF, 300 Or App 91 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
Broeke v. SAIF
Under OAR 436-035-0230(14), so long as there is substantial evidence in the record to support that a worker may not be able to work exactly two hours in an eight-hour period, they may be entitled to “15% of the leg” recovery. Garcia v. Boise Cascade Corp., 309 Or 292, 294, 787 Pd 884 (1990). Under OAR 436-035-0019, a worker is entitled to a chronic condition impairment value if there is substantial evidence and reason to show use of the afflicted body part is restricted one-third, or more, of the time.
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
Dept. of Human Services v. C. M. D.
If a compelling reason exists to determine that filing a petition to terminate parental rights would not be in the child’s best interest, a plan of adoption cannot be continued. Dept. of Human Services v. M.H., 258 Or App 83, 85, 308 P3d 311 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Dept. of Human Services v. T. S. J.
“[F]or the juvenile court to have jurisdiction over a child pursuant to ORS 419B.100 (1)(c), the child’s condition or circumstances must give rise to a threat of serious loss or injury to the child. The threat must be current. And, there must be a reasonable likelihood that the threat will be realized.” Dept. of Human Services v. A. F., 243 Or App 379, 386, 259 P3d 957 (2011).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Sanders v. Brown
"[Adequate assistance] of counsel is particularly important when a defendant is called upon to waive fundamental rights, as by a guilty plea or waiver of jury trial[.]" Krummacher v. Gierloff, 290 Or 867, 874-75, 627 P2d 458 (1981).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. Baccaro
A trial court erred by imposing a probation violation fee pursuant to statute in the written judgment when the fee was not announced in defendant’s presence. State v. Hillman, 293 Or App 231, 426 P3d 249 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Brown
“In [State v.] Jackson, we explained that, when the trial court’s ruling was anticipatory and merely revealed the trial court’s inclinations, the ruling could not be challenged on appeal; counsel needed to do something more to give rise to a final appealable ruling, such as offer or object to specific evidence at trial. 68 Or App at 513.”
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Clarke
Because defendant expressly acknowledged to the court that his argument did mischaracterize the evidence, his contention on appeal is not preserved. See State v. Craigen, 296 Or App 772, 777, 439 P3d 1048 (2019); An error is “plain” if it is (1) of law, (2) “obvious and not reasonably in dispute,” and (3) it appears on the record such that there is no need to “choose among competing inferences.” ORAP 5.45 n 1; Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or 376, 381-82, 823 P2d 956 (1991).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Gatewood
The Court followed its approach in State v. Moncada, “[t]o determine the identity of the ‘victim’ for consecutive-sentencing purposes, we refer to the substantive statute defining the relevant criminal offense.” 241 Or App 202, 250 P3d 31 (2011), rev den, 351 Or 546 (2012).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Pittman
“If the existence, location, and authenticity of documents is a foregone conclusion, then compelling a person to assemble those documents for production does not reveal the person’s mental processes and therefore is not sufficiently testimonial to trigger Fifth Amendment protection. However, if the government has minimal information about what documents exists or what they contain, the act of locating and selecting the documents to produce may require the subpoena recipient to use his or her own mental processes in a way that renders the resulting response testimonial in nature.” See Fisher v. United States, 425 US 391, 411, 96 S Ct 1569, 48 L Ed 2d 39 (1976).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
State v. Rossiter
"[I]t is not this court's function to speculate as to what a party's argument might be. Nor is it our proper function to make or develop a party's argument when that party has not endeavored to do so itself." Beall Transport Equipment Co. v. Southern Pacific, 186 Or App 696, 700 n2, 64 P3d 1193, adh'd to on recons, 187 Or App 472, 68 P3d 259 (2003).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Sassarini
"Where a proponent has made that prima facie showing [that evidence is what the proponent claims it to be], the matter of authenticity is one for the ultimate factfinder at trial, not a preliminary ruling by the court." See OEC 104(2); Legislative Commentary on OEC 901, reprinted in Oregon Evidence § 901.02 at 946.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Smith
If a detective’s testimony is determined to be scientific evidence, the evidence requires a foundation to show its scientific validity. State v. Plueard, 296 Or App 580, 439 P3d 556, adh’d to as modified on recons, 297 Or App 592, 443 P3d 1195 (2019), and State v. Evensen, 298 Or App 294, 315, 447 P3d 23 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. South
“Law enforcement may constitutionally extend a traffic stop as long as the officer’s inquiries are ‘reasonably related’ to the traffic stop.” State v. Aguirre-Lopez, 291 Or App 78, 84-85, 419. P3d 751 (2018). In State v. Miller, two issues were addressed: "(1) whether an officer’s circumstance-specific perception of danger can be based entirely on circumstances that are not particular to the determined person; and (2) what a reviewing court considers to determine whether the state has proved that the officer’s perception and decision were objectively reasonable.” State v. Miller, 343 Or 374, 383, 422, P3d 240 adh’d to as modified on recons, 363 Or 742, 428 P3d 899 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Wyant
The confrontation clause only applies to hearsay evidence; text messages between a victim and Defendant give context to Defendant’s admissible texts and are not hearsay. State v. Moore, 334 Or 328, 334, 49 P3d 785 (2002); State v. Davis, 291 Or App 146, 419 P3d 730, 363 Or 481 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Trent v. Connor Enterprises, Inc.
ORS 652.200(2) requires reasonable attorneys’ fees when the court rules for the plaintiff, except if “the court finds that the plaintiff’s attorney unreasonably failed to give written notice of the wage claim to the employer before filing the action.” ORS 652.200(2).
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
Barkers Five, LLC v. LCDC
The “best achieves” standard is “a balance in the designation of urban and rural reserves that, in its entirety, best achieves livable communities, the viability and vitality of the agriculture and forest industries and protection of the important natural landscape features that define the region for its residents.” OAR 660-027-0005(2)
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Dept. of Human Services v. K. S. W.
Under the relevant ICWA provisions, “any party seeking to effect a foster care placement of an Indian child shall satisfy the court that ‘active efforts’ have been made to provide services to prevent the breakup of the Indian family, and that those efforts have failed.” 25 USC 1912(d). Under Dept. of Human Services v. J.G., the court explained that when a party seeking placement “has satisfied the court at a prior [permanency] hearing on the placement at issue that active efforts were made and failed . . . the court is not required to make the finding again at a later proceeding. Dept. of Human Services v. J.G., 260 Or App 500, 521, 317 P3d 936 (2014).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
P.K.W. v. Steagall
"[I]t is appropriate to continue FAPA restraining orders when there is evidence of post-separation events that established a continuing threat to petitioner's safety." Hubbell v. Sanders, 245 Or App 321, 263 P3d 1096 (2011).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Abuse Prevention Act
State v. Baker
“The corroborative evidence must connect the Defendant with the charged crime, however, and it must do so in a way that does not depend on reference to the accomplice’s testimony.” State v. Riley, 365 Or 44, 48, 443 P3d 610 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Dowty
In order to reverse, a judgment revoking probation is based on whether an error in the course of the revocation proceedings may have been “prejudicial,” as opposed to whether the error was “harmless” under constitutional standards. State v. Milnes, 256 Or App 701, 711, 301 P3d 966 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Garrett
A waiver to the right to counsel may be valid if “under the totality of the circumstances, the record reflects that the defendant understood the risks of proceeding without counsel--that is, a defendant substantially appreciates the material risk of self-representation of his or her case.” State v. Borba, 290 Or App 787, 417 P3d 430 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
State v. L. M.
“In a continued-commitment proceeding of the kind involved here, the trial court’s task is to “determine whether the person is still a person with mental illness and is in need of further treatment.” ORS 426.307. A ‘person with mental illness’ is defined to include a person who, because of a mental disorder, is “[u]nable to provide for basic personal needs that are necessary to avoid serious physical harm in the near future, and is not receiving such care as is necessary to avoid such harm.” ORS 426.005(1)(f). "We recently explained that the term ‘serious physical harm,’ as used in that statute, “means bodily harm that is serious enough that a person who suffers that harm is unsafe in the absence of commitment, treatment, or other amelioration of the physical condition.” State v. M.A.E., 299 Or. App 231, 239, __ P3d __ (2019). The risk of serious physical harm need not be ‘imminent’ or “immediate”; all the statute requires is that the person be unable to provide for such basic needs that are necessary to avoid such harm ‘In the near future.’” State v. M.A.E., 299 Or. App 240, P3d __ (2019) (quoting ORS 426.005(1)(f)).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
State v. Ramoz
"ORCP 64 B(6) provides that a new trial may be granted following a jury trial where the party's substantial rights were materially affected by '[e]rror in law occurring at the trial and objected to or excepted to by the party making the application.'"
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Reed
A defendant asking, "[d]o I need one?" is not an invocation of the right to counsel. State v. Roberts, 291 Or App 124, 133, 418 P3d 41 (2018). Erroneous admission of evidence may be harmless if the court's speaking verdict did not cite the challenged evidence, or if it did, the record shows "the court would have found the Defendant guilty" without it. State v. Klontz, 257 Or App 684, 702, 308 P3d 214 (2013); State v. Montgomery, 217 Or App 139, 174 P3d 1040 (2007).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. S.T.
The question to ask is "whether the evidence described . . . viewed in the light most favoring the state, provides 'a concrete and particularized foundation for a prediction of future dangerousness absent commitment.” State v. S. E. R., 297 Or App 121, 122, 441 P3d 254 (2019) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
State v. Z. W. Y. (A167562)
The court may determine whether a party's mental disorder makes them "highly likely to engage in future violence towards others, absent commitment." See State v. S. E. R., 297 Or App 121, 122, 441 P3d 254 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
Crown Property Management, Inc. v. Cottingham
"The provision must also designate an address where the tenant can mail notices to the landlord and a location where the tenant can affix notices, 'which shall be described with particularity in the written rental agreement, reasonably located in relation to the tenant and available at all hours.'" ORS 90.155(1)(c)(B).
Area(s) of Law:- Landlord Tenant
Dept. of Human Services v. R. A. B.
"Because . . . it is OEC 403 and OEC 702 that make a diagnosis of sex abuse inadmissible when it is not based on physical evidence, it is logical to conclude that it also is those rules of evidence that make testimony about the criteria used in such a diagnosis inadmissible." State v. Black, 364 Or 579, 592-94, 437 P3d 1121 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Field v. Myrick
“In Bogle, the court indicated that when faced with a church motion, a post-conviction court is being asked for one of two possible remedies—‘to either replace counsel or instruct counsel to raise those grounds for relief.’” Bogle v. State of Oregon, 363 Or 470-71, 423 P3d 715 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. Cannon
Search warrants which authorize the search of electronic devices are overbroad and invalid unless there is probable cause to support the search of each device. State v. Burnham, 287 Or App 661, 403 P3d 466 (2017); State v. Friddle, 281 Or App 130, 381 P3d 979 (2016). Officer training and experience may go towards creating the requisite probable cause if they are connected to “the facts of . . . [the] particular case.” Fridde, 281 Or App at 140.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Gibson
“Generally, a trial court has broad discretion in determining whether to reconsider its earlier rulings, and may revisit a pretrial ruling when events at trial unfold that call for adjustments to that ruling.” State v. Langley, 363 Or 482, 521, 424 P3d 688 (2018), adh’d to as modified on recons, 365 Or 418, 446 P3d 542 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Hernandez
"Officers may conduct a warrantless search incident to a defendant’s arrest when (1) the search relates to the crime for which the officer has arrested the defendant or a crime for which the officer has probable cause to believe that the defendant has committed and (2) the search is reasonable under the totality of the circumstances." State v. Owens, 302 Or 196, 204, 729 P2d 524 (1986).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Nickles
“[A] confession alone is not sufficient to warrant the conviction of the defendant without some other proof that the crime has been committed.” ORS 136.425(2); see, e.g., State v. Hauskins, 251 Or App 34, 40, 281 P3d 669 (2012).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Zaldana-Mendoza
"[W]e focus on 'the possible influence of the error on the verdict rendered, not whether this court, sitting as a factfinder, would regard the evidence of guilt as substantial and compelling.'" State v. Scott, 265 Or App 542, 335 P3d 1283 (2014).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Windmill Inns of America, Inc. v. Cauvin
“To make out a case of waiver of a legal right there must be a clear, unequivocal, and decisive act of a party showing such a purpose.” Assn. of Oregon Corrections Emp. v. State of Oregon, 353 Or 183, 295 P3d 46 (2013) (quoting Metropolitan Edison Co. v. NLRB, 460 US 693, 708, 103 S Ct 1467, 75 L Ed 2d 387 (1983)).
Area(s) of Law:- Corporations