Deep Photonics Corporation v. LaChapelle
“[T]he right to jury trial must depend on the nature of the relief requested and not on whether, historically, a court of equity would have granted the relief had the legal issuer been joined with a separate equitable claim.” Foster v. Miramontes, 352 Or 401, 425 (2012). Under Equitable Life Assurance v. McKay, 306 Or 493, 497 (1988), “matters concerned primarily with judicial administration are governed by the law of the forum state.”
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Meyer v. Sugahara
“The absolute immunity accorded to government prosecutors encompasses not only their conduct of trials but all of their activities that can fairly be characterized as closely associated with the conduct of litigation or potential litigation.” Barrett v. United States, 798 F2d 565, 571-72 (2d Cir 1986) (interpreting U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence on “absolute immunity”).
Area(s) of Law:- Qualified Immunity
NAES Corp. v. SCI 3.2, Inc.
The standard of proof for a claim under the last injurious exposure rule is reasonable medical probability; medical certainty is not required to show an employer was the sole cause of an injury. Liberty Metal Fabricators v. Lynch Co., 295 Or App 809, 813, 435 P3d 810 (2019), adh’d to as modified on recons, 302 Or App 110, 456 P3d 691 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
Rodrigues and Gerhards
When a judgment is unambiguous, the judgment is given force by its “clear terms.” Anderson and Anderson, 65 Or. App. 16, 19, 670 P.2d 170 (1983); see Tough and Tough, 259 Or. App. 259, 270, 313 P.3d 326 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. Beckner
“[T]o prove that a particular sexual contact was first-degree sexual abuse, the state must prove not only that the defendant subjected the victim to an act of forcible compulsion, but also that that act resulted in the sexual contact that is the focus of the charge, in the sense that it compelled the victim to submit to or engage in the contact.” State v. Marshall, 350 Or 208, 227 253 P3d 1017 (2011).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Goacher
ORS 163A.140 does not violate Article I, section 20 of the Oregon Constitution because, when certain sex offenders are required to register as opposed to similarly situated sex offenders, there is no separate group benefiting from such unequal treatment.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Madison
Oregon appellate courts have “authority under [article VII, section 3, of the Oregon Constitution to direct entry of a lesser-included offense that we determine should have been entered by the trial court.” State v. Pittman, 276 Or App 491, 495, 369 P3d 99 (2016); see Or. Const. art. VII, § 3.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Nygard
“[T]he force that is sufficient to ‘compel’ one person to submit to or engage in a sexual contact against his or her will may be different from that which is sufficient to compel another person to do so.” State v. Marshall, 350 Or 208, 226, 253 P3d 1017 (2011).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Wright v. Turner
Under ORS 742.504(7)(a) and ORS 742.502(2), uninsured motorist protection is part of coverage under an insurance policy; the burden of proof is on the insured to prove coverage. FountainCourt Homeowners v. FountainCourt Develop., 360 Or 341, 360, 380 P3d 916 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Insurance Law
State v. Sherriff
Under State v. Arreola-Botello, 365 Or 695 (2019) and for the purposes of Article I, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution, all activities conducted during a traffic stop are part of an ongoing seizure and must be reasonably related to the purpose of the traffic stop or grounded in an independent constitutional justification.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
The Bank of New York Mellon v. Brantingham
In the enforcement of a note, “[a] person may be a person entitled to enforce the instrument even though the person is not the owner of the instrument or is in wrongful possession of the instrument.” ORS §73.0301 (UCC § 3-301). “[T]o be entitled to enforce a negotiable instrument as a holder, a party must simply demonstrate that it is in possession of the instrument and that the instrument is payable either to the bearer or to the party itself.” Deutsche Bank and Trust Co. Americas v. Walmsely, Or App 690, 695-96 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Business Law
Dept. of Human Services v. M. A. N.
"The juvenile code does not permit decisions to terminate parental rights to hinge on abstract notions of permanency. . . [r]ather, the juvenile code demands a persuasive factual showing that termination of parental rights to a particular child is in that child's best interest, in view of the particular needs and circumstances of the child." Dept. of Human Services v. T. L. M. H., 294 Or App 749, 750, 432 P3d 1186 (2018), rev den, 365 Or 556 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Rudnitskyy v. State
“[P]etitioner has the burden of both production and proof to ‘establish that his or her counsel did not make all significant decisions in the exercise of reasonable professional judgment.’” Pereida-Alba v. Coursey, 356 Or 654, 672 n 14.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Sherman v. Dept. of Human Services
"ORS 12.117 allows plaintiffs to bring claims based on child abuse that are potentially decades old, and the statute of ultimate repose in ORS 12.115 has no bearing on the timeliness of those claims;" and "the exception to the statute of ultimate repose is not a 'limitation on the commencement of an action' under ORS 30.275(9)."
State v. Dennis
“A criminal defendant has a right to be present at sentencing. We have repeatedly held that a trial court errs when it imposes fines or fees in a written judgment that it did not pronounce at sentencing.” State v. Baccaro 300 Or App 131, 137, 452 P3d 1022 (2019); State v. Coghill, 298 Or App 818, 819, 448 P3d 1195 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Fry
“We may affirm a trial court ruling on an alternative basis that was not raised in the trial court when certain conditions are met. Outdoor Media Dimensions Inc. v. State of Oregon, 331 Or 634, 659-60, 20 P3d 180 (2001). However, even when those conditions are met, affirming on an alternative basis that was not raised in the trial court “is a matter of prudential discretion and not compulsion.” Biggerstaff v. Board of County Commissioners, 240 Or App 46, 56, 245 P3d 688 (2010).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Laune
“The primary purposes of the preservation rule are to allow the trial court to consider a contention and correct any error, to allow the opposing party an opportunity to respond to a contention, and to foster a full development of the record.” Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209, 219-20, 191 P3d 637 (2008).
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
State v. Mayo
A prosecutor is permitted to comment on a defendant’s failure to meet the burden of production or persuasion when an affirmative defense has been raised, State v. Spieler, 269 Or App 623, 641-42, 346 P3d 549 (2015); To establish a defense, the burden of producing evidence rests on the defendant. State v. McCoy, 17 Or App 155, 162, 521 P2d 1074, aff’d on other grounds, 270 Or 340, 27 P2d 725 (1974); ORS 161.055. The prosecutor may comment on a defendant’s failure to present evidence when the defense raises matters, such as alibi, on which, as a practical matter, the defendant bears the initial burden of production, but fails to present any evidence.” Spieler, 269 Or App at 642; see State v. Abram, 273 Or App 449, 456, 359 P3d 431 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Schmidt
“[I]n light of the first two of the three principal purposes justifying the court-created inventory exception to the warrant requirement - to protect the owner’s property while in policy custody and to reduce and tend to prevent the assertion of false claims against police - before conducting an inventory of a vehicle in a noncriminal and nonemergency context, where vehicle occupants are present and not under arrest police must ‘give occupants who are present and not under arrest notice that they may retrieve readily removable personal belongings before an inventory is conducted.’” State v. Fulmer, 366 Or 224, 234-35 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Strasser
Excluding evidence is harmless if the finder of fact “would have regarded the evidence as duplicative or unhelpful to its deliberations.” State v. Blaylock, 267 Or App 455, 456 n 1, 341 P3d 758 (2014), rev den, 357 Or 299 (2015) (quoting State v. Perkins, 221 Or App 136, 143, 188 P3d 482 (2008) (internal quotation marks, citations, and ellipses omitted)).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Dept. of Human Services v. C.S.C.
"If DHS advocates for a change in the child's permanency plan, DHS must establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, both that it has made reasonable efforts towards safely reunifying the family and that the child's parents have nonetheless made insufficient progress for that to occur." Dept. of Human Services v. S.M.H., 283 Or App 295, 305, 388 P3d 1204 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Dept. of Human Services v. M.C.C.
"Reasonable efforts 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."'" Dept. of Human Services v. L.L.S., 290 Or App 132, 138, 413 P3d 1005 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Dept. of Human Services v. M. F.
“A juvenile court cannot assert jurisdiction . . . simply because it is concerned that a parent might not be sufficiently attentive . . . DHS must [provide] evidence sufficient to establish that the parent in fact has parenting deficits that create a current threat of serious loss or injury to the child that is reasonably likely to be realized.” Dept. of Human Services v. M. F., 294 Or App 688, 699 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. Belden
“Reliance by the state on out-of-court statements in lieu of live testimony is only permitted when offered out of necessity, that is, after the state has ‘exhausted all reasonably available means of producing the witness.’ The state bears the burden to establish unavailability of the witness.” State v. Nielsen, 316 Or 611, 623, 853, P2d 256 (1993); State v. Harris, 362 Or 55, 65, 404 P3d 926 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Omar
Under State v. Smith, 190 Or. App. 576 (2003), when a motion for substitute counsel has been denied, the proper disposition is to vacate the conviction and remand for a hearing. If it is found that the defendant should have received substitute counsel, then the defendant should receive a new trial; if not, the defendant’s conviction should be reinstated.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v Marmon
An affidavit requires facts be included to show more likely than not that: “(1)…a crime has been, or is currently being, committed, and that (2) evidence of that crime (3) will be found in the place to be searched.” State v. Cannon, 299 Or App 616, 626-27, 450 P3d 567 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v Pouncey
The denial of the motion for mistrial is reviewed for abuse of discretion, “asking whether the prosecutor’s unremedied misstatement so affected the jury’s consideration as to deny defendant a fair trial.” Citing State v. Davis, 345 Or 551, 582-83, 201 P3d 185 (2008), cert den, 558 US 873 (2009).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Summa Real Estate Group, Inc. v. Horst
A directed verdict is to be granted only when the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, is insufficient to allow a factfinder to find the facts necessary to establish each element of the claim at issue. Miller v. Columbia County, 282 Or App 348, 349, 385 P3d 1214 (2016), rev den, 361 Or 238 (2017); The party seeking to recover lost profits bears the burden to prove them. Peterson v. McCavic, 249 Or App 343, 354, 277 P3d 572, rev den, 352 Or 564 (2012). Specifically, the party “must establish with reasonable certainty the existence and amount of lost profits.” Id.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
Davis v. Kelly
To establish that counsel rendered inadequate assistance, it must be proven that (1) the trial counsel "failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment, and (2) a prejudice element - in this context, that counsel's failure had 'a tendency to affect the result of his trial.'" Johnson v. Premo, 361 Or 688, 699, 399 P3d 431 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Dept. of Human Services v. D. L.
“ORS 419B.100(1)(c) authorizes a juvenile court to take dependency jurisdiction over a child where the evidentiary record before the court allows for the determination that the ‘child’s condition or circumstances expose child to a current threat of serious loss or injury that is likely to be realized.’” Dept. of Human Services v. C. D. B., 299 Or App 513, 514, 450 P3d 1032 (2019). ORS 419B.340(1) requires DHS “to make ‘reasonable efforts’ to make possible a child’s safe return home while the dependency case is pending.” Dept. of Human Services v. J. F. D., 255 Or App 742, 747, 298 P3d 653 (2013). “’Reasonable efforts’ for purposes of ORS 419B.340 are ones that assist parents in making the adjustments needed to become minimally adequate parents.” State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Williams, 204 Or App 496, 506-07, 130 P3d 801 (2006).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Miser
“The circumstances of a case may give rise to probable cause to search several different locations at the same time, particularly where, as here, the evidence sought may be at once in more than one location.” State v. Villagran, 294 Or 404, 413, 657, P2d 1223 (1983).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Stockert
A reviewing court must examine “the language of the pertinent statutes in context and, where necessary, [they] consider legislative history and other aids to construction. PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606, 610-12, 859 P2d 1143 (1993), as modified by State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160, 170-72, 206 P3d 1042 (2009).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Strickland
“The legal standard for assessing the reasonableness of a person’s belief about the need for force or the extent of force necessary turns on an objective evaluation of the circumstances in which physical force has been used or threatened, and not on the perceptions of the individual defendant.” State v. Bassett, 234 Or App 259, 228 P3d 590 (2010).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence