Baertlein and Stocks
"[W]hether, when a party seeks, pursuant to ORS 107.104, to enforce some stipulated term of the dissolution judgement in the context of modification proceedings under ORS 107.135, attorney fees incurred in those enforcement efforts can be recovered under ORS 107.135(8)." Berry and Huffman, 247 Or App 651, 271 P3d 128 (2012).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Dept. of Human Services v. L. C.
DHS bears the burden of persuasion to demonstrate the consequences asserted by Mother and Father were incorrect on the facts or insufficient legally. Dept. of Human Services v. A. B., 362 Or 412, 427, 412 P3d 1169 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Kelley v. Washington County
“For a discrimination claim, the inquiry is whether a jury could have reasonably found that defendant discriminated against plaintiff.” Herbert v. Altimeter, Inc., 230 Or App 715, 717, 218 P3d 42 (2009); “[W]e view the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, as the nonmoving party, affording him every reasonable inference that can be drawn from it.” Wheeler v. LaViolette, 129 Or App 57, 60, 877 P2d 665 (1994). “[The Court] must “deem plaintiff’s testimony to be true.” Crawford v. Cobbs & Mitchell Co., 121 Or 628, 643, 257 P 16 (1927).
Area(s) of Law:- Disability Law
State v. Camirand
"Oregon's constitutional test for affirmance despite error consists of a single inquiry: Is there little likelihood that the particular error affected the verdict?" State v. Davis, 336 Or 19, 32, 77 P3d 1111 (2003).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Estrella
“[W]hen the deportation consequence is truly clear… the duty to give correct advice is equally clear.” Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 US 369, 130 S Ct 1473, 176 L Ed 2d 284 (2010). “When the law is not succinct and straightforward … a criminal defense attorney need do no more than advise a non-citizen client that pending criminal charges may carry a risk of adverse immigration consequences.” Id.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. Fuller
“Civil stands for the proposition that, to prove an unauthorized taking, operating, riding in, or other use in violation of ORS. 164.135(1)(a), the state must present sufficient evidence to support a finding that the defendant did not come into possession of the vehicle in question through an agreement with the owner.” State v. Civil, 283 Or App 395, 388 P3d 1185 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
State v. Merrill
“In Hendricks [we held] “that a limited interruption of breathing can constitute a material impairment of physical condition for purposes of proving physical injury under the assault statute.” State v. Hendricks, 273 Or App 1, 359 P3d 294 (2015), rev den, 358 Or 794 (2016).”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Ortiz-Rico
For ORS 161.067(3), a “sufficient pause” is considered “a temporary or brief cessation of a defendant’s criminal conduct that occurs between repeated violations and is so marked in scope or quality that it affords a defendant the opportunity to renounce his or her criminal intent.” State v. Huffman, 234 Or App 177, 184, 227 P3d 1206 (2010).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Braun and Braun
“When a party seeks modification or termination of spousal support, the trial court ‘must determine whether there has been a substantial, unanticipated change in the economic circumstances since the time of the earlier award.’” Davis and Lallement, 287 Or App 323, 327-328, 401 P3d 1230 (2017). “If there has been, the trial court ‘must determine what amount of support is just and equitable under the totality of the circumstances.’” Id. at 328.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
M. D. O. v. Desantis
"Each contact 'must give rise to subjective alarm and that alarm must be objectively reasonably, and the contacts, cumulatively, must give rise to subjective apprehension regarding the petitioner's personal safety or the personal safety of a member of the petitioner's immediate family or household, and that apprehension must be objectively reasonably.'" Blastic v. Holm, 248 Or App 414, 418, 273 P3d 304 (2012).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Stalking Protective Order
NV Transport, Inc. v. V & Y Horizon, Inc.
"An interference in another party's contractual or other economic relations is tortious only if it is 'wrongful by some measure beyond the fact of the interference itself,' such as by improper means or improper motive." Northwest Natural Gas Co. v. Chase Gardens, Inc., 328 Or 487, 498, 982 P2d 1117 (1999).
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
State v. Adams
The Court ruled it would “…not presume an implicit finding where the record does not support it or shows that such a finding was not part of the trial court’s chain of reasoning forming the basis of its ultimate legal conclusion.” See Pereida-Alba v. Coursey, 356 Or 654, 671, 342 P3d 70 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Arnold
"To be 'within the immediate view and presence of the court' is to personally witness such conduct." State v. Blackburn, 283 Or App 843, 845, 391, P3d 929 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Davilla
Under Miller, when a juvenile faces a de facto life sentence, the sentencer is required to “take into account how children are different, and how those differences counsel against irrevocably sentencing them to a lifetime in prison.” Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 479–80 (2012). Failure to do so violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. James
Under the plain meanings of “reliable” and “authority,” the Court understood the phrase to mean a source, widely used within that community, whose propositions or opinions are trustworthy and deserving of the community’s reliance and acceptance.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. M. A. S.
Under ORS 419C.450, “adjudication” and “disposition” are distinct phases of delinquency proceedings and adjudication hearings are to determine jurisdiction, thus, presenting restitution evidence at a dispositional hearing is too late.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Rockett
"When a trial court is presented with a request to exclude evidence as unfairly prejudicial under OEC 403, the court should (1) consider the quantum of probative value of the evidence and consider the weight or strength of the evidence; (2) determine how prejudicial the evidence is and the extent to which the evidence may distract the jury from the central question whether the defendant committed the charged crime; (3) balance the prosecution's need for the evidence against the countervailing danger of unfair prejudice; and (4) consider whether to admit all the proponent's evidence, none, or some portion of it." State v. Anderson, 363 Or 392, 423 P3d 43 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Smith
Plain-error must be: (1) an error of law, (2) obvious; and, (3) “apparent on the record without requiring the court to choose among competing inferences.” State v. Vanornum, 354 Or 614 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Dept. of Human Services v. M. E.
“If the involvement of friends and family members sufficiently counters the risk to a child otherwise presented by a parent’s deficits so that the child is safe, dependency jurisdiction is not warranted.” Dept. of Human Services v. J. G. K., 298 Or App 398, 402, 449 P3d 531 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Dept. of Human Services v. T. J.
“‘Under ORS 419B.100(1)(c), jurisdiction is warranted if a child’s condition or circumstances are such as to endanger [that child’s] welfare’—that is, if they ‘give rise to a threat of serious loss or injury.’ DHS must prove that the threat is current, nonspeculative, and causally connected to the allegedly risk-causing conduct or circumstances.” Dept of Human Services v. D.W.M., 296 Or App 109, 117-18, 437 P3d 1186 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Fleming v. SAIF
Under ORS 656.289(4)(b), "[i]insurers or self-insured employers who are parties to an approved disputed claim settlement under this subsection shall not be joined as parties in subsequent proceedings under this chapter to determine responsibility for payment for claim conditions for which settlement has been made."
Area(s) of Law:- Insurance Law
Johnson v. Premo
"If the party arguing against mootness can identify practical effects or collateral consequences that flow from the underlying challenged decision, then the party advocating mootness must show that the effects and consequences identified are either legally insufficient or factually incorrect." Garges v.Premo, 362 Or 797, 802, 421 P3d 345 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. Brownlee
“A search incident to arrest is valid where an officer has probable cause to make an arrest, the search would likely uncover evidence of the crime of arrest, and the search is reasonable in time, scope, and intensity.” State v. Mazzola, 356 Or 804, 811-12, 345 P3d 424 (2015). “Whether a search incident to arrest is reasonable in scope and intensity is not dependent on an arrestee’s immediate possession, but whether the items searched was immediately associated with the arrestee at the time.” State v. Burgholzler, 185 Or App 254, 260, 59 P3d 582 (2002).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Phillips
To determine whether circumstances are compelling for purposes of Miranda warnings, the court asks “whether the questioning occurred in a police-dominated atmosphere.” State v. Turnidge, 359 Or 364, 402, 374 P3d 853 (2016), cert den, 137 S Ct 665 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Rieker
“…ORS 137.106 did not prevent the court from imposing restitution [beyond the 90-day deadline] in order to provide the victim a remedy by due course of law, after it was discovered that her constitutional right to restitution was violated.” State v. Wagoner, 257 Or App 749, 395 P3d 528 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing