Int. Assn. Machinist, Woodworkers Local W-246 v. Heil
"When determining whether the offer of judgment under ORCP 54(E) was more favorable than the judgment, the court must compare both amounts." Mulligan v. Hornbuckle, 227 Or App 520, 523, 206 P3d 1078 (2008).
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
Menten and Deatherage
"ORS 107.105(6) explicitly authorizes parties who have an undivided interest in real property pursuant to a dissolution judgment to maintain a proceeding for the 'partition' of the property." See Abrahram v. Goff, 85 Or App 595, 597, 737 P2d 971 (1987).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
OR-OSHA v. A & B Sheet Metal Works
"As set forth by a leading treatise, federal law dictates that the agency must show, in the absence of proof of actual exposure, that it is reasonably predictable that employees, by 'operational necessity' or otherwise (including inadvertence) in the course of their work or associated activities (e.g., going to rest rooms) will be in the zone of danger created by the cited condition." OR-OSHA v. Moore Excavation, Inc., 257 Or App 567, 577, 307 P3d 510 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Porter v. Veenhuisen
If an action is first filed within the statute of limitations and then “involuntarily dismissed without prejudice on any ground not adjudicating the merits of the action,” a new action based on the same claim or claims may be filed within 180 days of the trial court’s entry of the judgment of dismissal of the original action, notwithstanding that the statute of limitations has run during the interim. ORS 12.220.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Portland Fire Fighters' Assn. v. City of Portland
“’Collective bargaining’ means the performance of the mutual obligation of a public employer and the representative of its employees to meet at reasonable times and confer in good faith with respect to employment relations for the purpose of negotiations concerning mandatory subjects of bargaining…” ORS 243.650(4). “Mandatory subjects of bargaining are those that affect employment relations.” ORS 243.650(4). “Employment relations ‘includes, but is not limited to, matters concerning direct or indirect monetary benefits, hours, vacations, sick leave, grievance procedures and other conditions of employment.’” ORS 243.650(7)(a).
Area(s) of Law:- Labor Law
State v. Colman-Pinning
“[T]he automobile exception is a subcategory of the warrant exception for exigent circumstances, necessitated by the fact that a vehicle that is mobile can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought.” State v. Brown, 301 Or 268, 275, 721 P2d 1357 (1986). “The mobility of the vehicle creates a per se exigency, meaning that there is no need to establish other exigencies or that a warrant could not have been quickly obtained.” Id. at 276.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Formby-Carter
“Evidence of defendant’s previous criminal convictions and the underlying facts was relevant and admissible to prove ‘defendant’s mental state, as well as * * * absence of mistake or accident.’” State v. Johns, 301 Or 535, 725 P2d 312 (1986); OEC 404(3).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Keys
"In the absence of indictment, preliminary hearing, or waiver, the circuit court lacks jurisdiction to try the defendant and any judgment rendered in that case is void.” Huffman v. Alexander, 197 Or 283, 301, 251 P2d 87 (1952); OR Const, Art VII (Amended), section 5.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Oxford
To determine whether the trial court abused its discretion, the Court took the context of the case into consideration along with other factors. See State v. Evans, 211 Or App 162, 166-68 (2007), aff’d, 344 Or 358 (2008) (Whether the prejudice was so great a mistrial was the only legally acceptable alternative, whether the prejudice was cured by jury instruction, and whether the incident was sufficiently isolated).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Snelgrove
“If the defendant does not comply with the conditions of the release agreement, the court having jurisdiction shall enter an order declaring the entire security amount to be forfeited. [...] If, within 30 days after the court declares the forfeiture, the defendant does not appear or satisfy the court having jurisdiction that appearance and surrender by the defendant was, or still is, impossible and without fault of the defendant, the court shall enter judgment for the state, or appropriate political subdivision thereof, against the defendant…” ORS 135.280(3).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Spieler
“The ‘court’s speaking verdict and other comments must be considered in context, taking into account the circumstances in which the court made its observations.’” State v. Reed, 299 Or App 675, 689, 452 P3d 995 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Stacey
Plain-error review has three requirements: (1) the error was one of law; (2) the error was apparent and not reasonably in dispute; and (3) the error appeared on the record. State v. Coverstone, 260 Or App 714, 715, 320 P3d 670 (2014).
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
Dept. of Human Services v. P. W.
“ORS 419B.387 authorizes the juvenile court to order a parent to submit to a psychological evaluation, but only after ‘the establishment of a need for treatment or training at the evidentiary hearing.’” Dept of Human Services v. D.R.D., 298 Or App 788, 799, 450 P3d 1022 (2019); see also Dept. of Human Services v. T.L.H., 300 Or App 606, 453. P3d 556 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Growing Green Panda v. Dept. of Human Services
“When an agency has interpreted its own rules, ‘we give significant deference to that interpretation and are required to affirm it if it is “plausible,” [as long as it’s consistent with itself, its context or other source of law].’” Boatwright v. Dept. of Human Services, 293 Or App 301, 304-305 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
State v. Middleton
“The test for whether an encounter is a ‘seizure’ is whether the officer ‘intentionally and significantly restricts, interferes with, or otherwise deprives an individual’s liberty or freedom of movement,’ or whether ‘a reasonable person under the totality of the circumstances would believe that [that] has occurred.’” State v. Fair, 353 Or 588, 594, 302 P3d 417 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Stau v. Taylor
Under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution, a party may prove that trial counsel rendered inadequate assistance if they prove (1) a performance element, or a failure to exercise reasonable professional judgement, and (2) a prejudice element, that the party suffered prejudice as a result of the inadequacy. See Johnson v. Premo, 361 Or 688, 699, 399 P3d 431 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Anantha v. Clarno
The proposed measures must satisfy the two-part framework: 1) whether a “unifying principle” can be identified, embracing a single subject, and if so 2) whether “other matters” contained within are “properly connected” to that principle. State ex rel Caleb v. Beesley, 326 Or 83, 91-93, 949 P2d 724 (1997).
Area(s) of Law:- Ballot Titles
Dayton v. Jordan
“In order to subdivide or partition any property, the declarant shall include on the face of the subdivision or partition plat, if a partition plat is required, a declaration […] stating that the declarant has caused the subdivision or partition plat to be prepared and the property subdivided or partitioned in accordance with the provisions of this chapter […] any public or private easements created, or any other restriction made, shall be stated in the declaration.” ORS 92.075(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
Miller v. Elisea
"[T]he inquiry into the admissibility of evidence of medical causation focuses on the differential diagnosis and whether the particular use of the differential diagnosis to determine causation has met the general test of scientific validity." Jennings v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 331 Or 285, 307, 14 P3d 596 (2000).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Drew
"A wound on the forehead and scalp that is four to six inches in length and half an inch wide after five staples had been used to close it is a 'disfigurement' as the term is ordinarily used," and, if it is "readily apparent to others, qualifies as 'serious.'" State v. Kinsey, 293 Or App, 208, 213, 426 P3d 674 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Vukanovich v. Kine
When neither party requests a de novo review, and the case does not appear to warrant doing so due to exceptional circumstances, the court reviews a trial court's legal conclusions for errors of law and its factual findings to determine whether the findings are supported by evidence in the record. ORAP 5.40(8)(c); Vukanovich v. Kine, 268 Or App 623, 633, 342 P3d 1075 (Vukanovich II), adh'd to as modified on recons, 271 Or App 133, 349 P3d 567 (2015 (Vukanovich III).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Dept. of Human Services v. L. J. W.
“ORS 419B.337(2) grants the court the authority to order a parent to submit to a psychological evaluation to help design services needed, if there is ‘a rational connection between the service to be provided and the basis for jurisdiction.’” State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. G. L., 220 Or App 216, 223, 185 P3d 483, rev den, 345 Or 158 (2008).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
M & T Partners, Inc. v. Miller
Under ORS 197.829, LUBA "'shall affirm a local government interpretation of its comprehensive plan and land use regulations,' unless LUBA finds that specified conditions are satisfied."
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Reister v. City of Portland Bureau of FPDR
“An ‘FPDR Two Member whose employment with the Bureau of Fire or Police terminates after completing five Years of Service shall be eligible to receive the benefit on vested termination.’ That benefit ‘shall be the FPDR Two Member’s retirement benefit accrued […] to the date of the FPDR Two Member’s termination of employment’ and ‘shall be payable monthly for the life of the FPDR Two Member commencing on Earliest Retirement Date.’" Portland City Charter § 5-305(b), (c).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
State v. Gallegos
“Plain error is an error that is (1) one of law; (2) obvious, i.e., not reasonably in dispute; and (3) apparent on the record.” State v. Vanornum, 354 Or 614, 629, 317 P3d 889 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Remedies
State v. Simmons
“A confession or admission of a defendant, whether in the course of judicial proceedings or otherwise, cannot be given in evidence against the defendant when it was made under the influence of fear produced by threats.” ORS 136.425(1). "Any communication made with the idea of some 'temporal benefit or disadvantage' for the criminal defendant is enough to run afoul with the statute." State v. Linn, 179 Or 499, 504-07, 173 P2d 305 (1946); State v. Bell, 281 Or App 208, 383, P3d 327 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure