Oregon Court of Appeals

Opinions Filed in August 2020

Daniels v. Johnson

Attorney fees under ORS 20.105(1) are awarded only when the moving party defeats a claim which has a record entirely devoid of supporting evidence.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Golik v. CBS Corp.

Under ORCP 64 B(2), “[a] former judgment may be set aside and a new trial granted in an action where there has been [jury trial] on the motion of the party aggrieved for [...] causes materially affecting the substantial rights of such party: [m]isconduct of the jury or prevailing party.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Morris v. Dental Care Today, P. C

A claim under the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act must “commence within one year” of discovery of “the unlawful method, act or practice;” the statute of limitations “begins to run when the plaintiff knows or should have known of the allegedly unlawful conduct.” ORS 646.638(6); Pearson v. Philip Morris, Inc., 358 Or 88, 137, 361 P3d 3 (2015). “Once a defendant moves for summary judgment,” the plaintiff must “produce evidence showing she can” meet her burden of proof. Sternberg v. Lechman-Su, 299 Or App 450, 456, 450 P3d 37 (2019).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

Sander v. Nicholson

Under Oregon case law a “party who suffers interference with the right to use an easement may bring a tort claim;” “equitable claim, seeking an injunction;” or an “equitable action to enforce those obligations as servitude that run with the land to bind successors in interest.” See Landauer v. Steelman, 275 Or 135, 141, 549 P2d 1256 (1976); Andrews v. North Coast Development, 270 Or 24, 36, 526 P2d 1009 (1974); Fitzstephens v. Watson, et al, 218 Or 185, 206-10, 344 P2d 221 (1959).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Property Law

State ex rel Select Reform Com. v. City of Jefferson

To distinguish that which is legislative from that which is administrative, the court must determine “whether the ordinance was one making a law or one executing a law already in existence.” Monahan v. Funk, 137 Or 580, 585, 3 P2d 778 (1931). Under ORS 222.127, once certain requirements are met, a city “shall” annex the property without a vote.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Property Law

State v. N. S.

A court may commit someone to the Oregon Health Authority if, due to mental illness, the person is “unable to provide for basic personal needs that are necessary to avoid” physical harm serious enough to require treatment in the near, but not immediate, future. ORS 426.130(1)(a)(C); ORS 426.005(1)(f)(B); State v. M. A. E., 299 Or App 231, 239-240, 488 P3d 656 (2019).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Commitment

State v. Nichols

“A person who through the tort of another has been required to act in the protection of his interests by bringing or defending an action against a third person is entitled to recover compensation for the reasonably necessary loss of time.” Restatement § 914.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Remedies

State v. Rapp

Under Oregon law, a person acts knowingly with respect to criminal conduct described by statute if the person “acts with an awareness that the conduct of the person is of a nature so described.” ORS 161.085(8).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Case v. Cain

During sentencing, there’s a substantive requirement to consider the offender’s youth before imposing the most severe sentences. Hardegger v. Amsberry, 305 Or. App. 726, 734 (2020).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

Dept. of Human Services v. N. L. B.

"ORS 419B.100(1)(c) grants a juvenile court jurisdiction over a child '[w]hose condition or circumstances are such as to endanger the welfare of the person or of others[.]' Whether the “conditions or circumstances” warrant jurisdiction requires us to consider if, under the totality of the circumstances, there is a reasonable likelihood of harm to the welfare of the child." In re N.S., 258 Or App 624, 633-34 (2013).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

Dorn v. Three Rivers School Dist.

Under State v. Wright, a party may not challenge an adverse for-cause ruling on appeal if the party could have used an available peremptory challenge to cure any prejudice flowing from that ruling. 294 Or App 772 (2018).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

State v. C.H.

“The state must prove a causal connection between appellant’s mental disorder and her inability to provide for her basic needs.” State v. M. G., 147 Or App 187, 192, 935 P2d 1224 (1997).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Commitment

State v. Granberg

“Jurisdiction [over a defendant] does not attach until there is an indictment, preliminary hearing, or knowing waiver.” State v. Keys, 302 Or App 514, 526 (2020).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Krieger

"Under Article I, section 10, [the Court] consider[s] three factors in evaluating a speedy trial claim: (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; and (3) the resulting prejudice to the defendant." State v. Mende, 304 Or 18, 21, 741 P2d 496 (1987).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Kumenaker

Under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, as interpreted in State v. Atkinson, an inventory policy is constitutional if it is “conducted pursuant to a properly authorized administrative program, designed and systematically administered so that the inventory involves no exercise of discretion by the law enforcement person directing or taking the inventory. 298 Or 1, 10, 688 P2d 832 (1984).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Monger

"[A] search warrant shall be executed between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. and within five days from the date of issuance." ORS 133.565(3).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Nobles

Significant differences in sentencing under statute versus sentencing according to sentencing guidelines extend only towards the length of the term of incarceration, and not the length of the post-prison supervision term. State v. Morgan, 316 Or. 553, 560 (1993).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

Tarr v. Multnomah County

Under ORS 215.441, “[t]he legislature intended to require counties to allow the reasonable use of land for customary religious activities, if the land is located in an area in which state law and local zoning law allow for a place of worship."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Baker v. Board of Parole

The Coding Rules allow prior offenses to be counted as both “non-sexual violence” and a “sexual offense” when the same victim is effected in both convictions. Coding Rules at 60.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Parole and Post-Prison Supervision

Gist v. Zoan Management, Inc.

When the determination of unconscionability concerns the arbitration provisions of a contract, the court is the proper forum. A challenge to the validity of the contract as a whole, and not specifically to the arbitration clause, must go to the arbitrator. Vasquez-Lopez v. Beneficial Oregon, Inc., 210 Or App 553, 562, 152 P2d 940 (2007).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution

Hardegger v. Amsberry

The possibility of a murder review hearing by the parole board [...] years in the future is not a constitutionally adequate substitute for the consideration of youth at the time of sentencing. State v. Link, 27 Or App 126, 158 (2019)

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

J. S. E. v. Cubic

It is a respondent’s burden to demonstrate “that the concerns that underlay the issuance of the original SPO have sufficiently abated that the order should be set aside.” Benaman v. Andrews, 213 Or App 467, 476, 162 P3d 280 (2007).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Stalking Protective Order

Smith v. Board of Parole

“[I]n order to prevent a case from being considered moot, a collateral consequence must be something beyond mere speculation,” that is, “a collateral consequence must have a significant probability of actually occurring; a speculative or merely possible effect is not enough.” Johnson v. Premo, 302 Or App 578, 592, 461 P3d 985, rev den, 366 Or 569 (2020).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Parole and Post-Prison Supervision

State v. Kini

If business records are ever admitted without implicating a defendant’s confrontation rights, the admissibility will be limited to those records that reflect only facts and not any types of opinions, exercises of judgment, or investigative facts that trigger the confrontation right.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Ryan

“[S]erious intellectual disability that has been determined requires evaluation of defendant’s relative culpability as part of the gravity of the offense in determining proportionality.” See Or Cont, Art I, sec 16.

Fanagyon v. State of Oregon

"[A] judgment denying claims for post-conviction relief must, at a minimum: (1) identify the claims for relief that the court considered and make separate rulings on each claim; (2) declare, with regard to each claim, whether the denial is based on a petitioner's failure to utilize or follow available state procedures or a failure to establish the merits of the claim; and (3) make the legal bases for denial of relief apparent." Datt v. Hill, 347 Or 672, 685 (2010)

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

State v. Colpo

"A person commits the crime of criminal mistreatment in the first degree if: The person, in violation of a legal duty to provide care for a dependent person or elderly person, or having assumed the permanent or temporary care, custody or responsibility for the supervision of a dependent person or elderly person, intentionally or knowingly: Causes physical injury or injuries to the dependent person or elderly person." ORS 163.205(1)(b)(A).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. McCarthy

“If in determining that a person is financially eligible for appointed counsel under ORS 151.485 . . . the court shall enter a limited judgment requiring that the person . . . the amount that it finds the person is able to pay without creating substantial hardship in providing basic economic necessities to the person or the person’s dependent family.” ORS 151.487(1).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Swint v. City of Springfield

“OAR 436-060-0150(5)(h) and (6) establish specific time frames for the payment of temporary disability benefits generally, and following an ALJ’s order. . . . Therefore, we evaluate each obligation separately in determining which of the multiple issues raised by claimant's hearing request are timely and may be addressed.” Armando Morin, 68 Van Natta 1760, 1764 (2016).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

Back to Top