Oregon Court of Appeals

Opinions Filed in December 2019

Berrey v. Real Estate Agency

Having a partial ownership interest in the property one is managing does not negate the fact that the management is being done “for another” so as to qualify as professional real estate activity. ORS 696.010(14). The managing member exception only applies to individuals who are a managing member of an LLC managing the property. ORS 696.030(27).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Property Law

Dept. of Human Services v. V. A. R.

To change W’s permanency plan from reunification to placement with a fit and willing relative under ORS 419B.476, the juvenile court was required to determine (1) that DHS made reasonable efforts to reunify W with his mother, and (2) that mother’s progress was not sufficient to allow reunification. Dept. of Human Services v. L.L.S., 290 Or App 132, 137-138, 413 P3d 1005 (2018). “Reasonable efforts” for purposes of ORS 419B.476(2)(a) are “efforts that focus on ameliorating the adjudicated bases for jurisdiction, and that give ‘parents a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate their ability to adjust their conduct and become minimally adequate parents.’” Id.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

Simi v. LTI Inc.- Lynden Inc.

“Under ORS 656.267, a claimant is required to initiate a new or omitted medical condition claim [when]… (d) ‘an injured worker who believes that a condition has been incorrectly omitted from a notice of acceptance, or that the notice is otherwise deficient, first must communicate in writing to the insurer or self-insured employer the worker’s objections to the notice pursuant to ORS 656.267. The insurer or self-insured employer has 60 days from receipt of the communication from the worker to revise the notice or to make other written clarification in response.’… The claim is then required to be processed pursuant to ORS 656.262(7) [wherein] (c)… ‘If a condition is found to be compensable after claim closure, the insurer or self-insured employer shall reopen the claim for processing regarding that condition.’”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

State v. Clay

"The legislature did not intend ORS 163.670 to capture a person’s observation of his own sexual abuse of a child or observation of a child’s sexual or intimate parts while sexually abusing or preparing to sexually abuse the child." Rather, "the legislature intended to address conduct committed for the purpose of observation or visual recording."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Judd

“Except as provided in ORS 136.427, 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 also State v. Wenning, 282 Or App 21, 23, 386 P3d 1 (2016), rev den, 360 Or 852 (2017).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Waldorf v. Premo

"[C]ompetent counsel can make 'tactical choices that backfire, because, by their nature, trials often involve risk.'" Krumacher v. Gierloff, 290 Or 867, 875, 627 P2d 458 (1981).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Post-Conviction Relief

Walter v. Board of Education

"A law that neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class will be upheld so long as it bears a rational relation to some legitimate state interest." Romer v. Evans, 517 US 620, 631, 116 S Ct 1620, 134 L Ed 2d 855 (1996).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Business Development Dept. v. Huttenbauer

A negotiable instrument is defined for purposes of chapter 73 as a written order or promise of payment that is “(1) unconditional;...” ORS 73.0104(1); see UCC § 3-103 cmt 1 (2002). A party may avoid a contract under a fraud-in-the-inducement theory by proving that the other party to the contract made a false representation of material fact and that the person to whom the representation was made was induced to enter the agreement in reliance on that misrepresentation. See, e.g., Graves v. Tulleners, 205 Or App 267, 276-77, 134 P3d 990 (2006).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Contract Law

Dept. of Human Services v. T. D. G.

"[I]n order for a juvenile court to take jurisdiction over a child on the ground that the child is endangered, the state must establish both that the child is at risk of a certain severity of harm and that there is a reasonable likelihood that the risk will be realized." Dept. of Human Services v. S. D. I., 259 Or App 116, 121, 312 P3d 608 (2013).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

Dept. of Human Services v C.M.H.

Under ORS 419B.157, “the jurisdiction of the juvenile court of the county in which a child is taken into protective custody shall attach from the time the child is taken into custody.” "'Jurisdiction' in that statute is necessarily a reference to subject matter jurisdiction because, at the time a child is taken into custody, the court will not have had the opportunity to make the factual findings and legal determination required by ORS 419.310(3) to assert dependency jurisdiction over a child.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

Joseph Mill Property, LLC v. S&V Properties, LLC

Unlike most states, Oregon recognizes the possibility of an irrevocable license in certain circumstances. Brown v. Eoff, 271 Or 7, 10-11, 530 P2d 49 (1975). "A license that has been partially executed gives the licensee an irrevocable license for the limited purpose of removing the licensee's personal property that is located on the licensor's land."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Property Law

State v. Arevalo

"For most misdemeanors, the sentence is entirely a matter of trial court discretion." State v. Rice, 114 Or App 101, 105 (1992).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Basham

“[A]n instruction is appropriate if it correctly states the law and is supported by evidence in the record, when the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction,” in this case the state. State v. Ashkins, 357 Or 642, 648, 357 P3d 490 (2015); For a Miles instruction to be proper, “there must be evidence that [the defendant’s physical condition] made [the] defendant more susceptible to the effects of alcohol than he otherwise would have been[.]” State v. Huck, 100 Or App 193, 197, 785 P2d 785 (1990).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Bentley

For accomplice liability, “[a] person is criminally liable for the conduct of another person constituting a crime if: … [w]ith the intent to promote or facilitate the commission of the crime the person: … [a]ids or abets or agrees or attempts to aid or abet such other person in planning or committing the crime.” ORS 161.155(2)(b); A sentencing court could conclude that a defendant was disqualified from receiving a lesser sentence under ORS 137.712 if the victim suffered a significant physical injury in the course of a crime, regardless of whether or not the defendant being sentenced had personally inflicted that injury.” State v. Arnold, 214 Or App 201, 164 P3d 334 (2007); Three nonexclusive factors to determine whether a sentence is disproportionate, under Article I, section 16: “(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 58, 217 P3d 659 (2009).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Brooks

"The scope of the right to counsel encompasses those stages of a criminal proceeding 'when [a defendant] must take steps or make a choice which is likely to have a substantial effect on the prosecution against him.'" State v. Miller, 254 Or 244, 249, 458 P2d 1017 (1969). "When a defendant asks to represent himself, the court must determine, on the record, whether his decision is an intelligent and understanding one." Id. at 523 (citing State v. Davis, 110 Or App 358, 360, 822 P2d 736 (1991)).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Burris

Whenever the State is proceeding under the aid-and-abet theory, as well as the principle liability theory, "a trial court must charge the jury as to its concurrence obligation." State v. Phillips, 354 Or 598, 606, 317 P3d 236 (2013).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Chavez-Meza

"The burden is on the state to 'overcome [the presumption that confessions are involuntary] by offering evidence affirmatively establishing that the confession was voluntary.'" State v. Jackson, 364 Or 1, 21, 430 P3d 1067 (2018).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Glasby

A court may only deny an invocation of the right to self-representation if, on the record, the court states how it determined the court’s interests in denying the invocation outweighed the defendant’s right, and a court may deny an invocation for self-representation if it was made unknowingly, involuntarily, equivocally, unclearly, or if it would disrupt the conduct of the trial. State v. Hightower, 361 Or 412, 417, 393 P3d 224 (2017); State v. Fredinburg, 257 Or App 473, 481, 308 P3d 208 (2013), rev den, 354 Or 490 (2013); see also State v. Williams, 288 Or App 712, 713-14, 407 P3d 898 (2017).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Riekens

"The record must support a nonspeculative inference that there is a causal relationship between the defendant's criminal activities and the victim's economic damages." State v. Akerman, 278 Or App 486, 490, 380 P3d 309 (2016).  

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Rodriguez

The right against self-incrimination must be “invoked on a question-by-question basis,” and may only be waived by the court if the person testifying is given transactional immunity. Or Const, Art I, §12; State v. Tensbusch, 131 Or App 634, 640, 886 P2d 1077 (1994).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Rogers

To establish the mental state of knowingly, the State must show “when defendant made the relevant statements, [he/she/they] knew that [he/she/they] were creating a risk of public inconvenience, annoyance and alarm.” State v. Nelson, 367 or App 621, 626 (2014).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Senin

A warrantless search for the purpose of discovering evidence of the crime of arrest "may be justified even if the defendant has been removed from the area in which an officer believes that evidence may be located" so long as the "evidence reasonably could be found in that area and the search is otherwise reasonable in time, scope, and intensity." State v. Krause, 281 Or App 143, 146 (2016)

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Back to Top