Oregon Court of Appeals

Opinions Filed in November 2021

Dept. of Human Services v. V.M.

UTCR 5.030(1) "pertains only to time limits for responding to motions" and "does not address time limits for filing motions." "If a fact cannot be fairly implied by the original jurisdictional bases, the juvenile court errs if it relies on that fact to continue dependency jurisdiction." See Dept. of Human Services v. G. E., 243 Or App 471, 479 (2011).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

Moyer v. Columbia State Bank

If a trial court deems a reply memorandum to be a motion for summary judgement, and the opposing party fails to file a response within 20 days, the court may make its summary judgement ruling without the benefit of the opposing party's response. ORCP 47 C.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

SAIF v. Lynn

Under ORS 656.005(7)(a), “[i]f a person is injured at work, that injury is compensable if it “aris[es] out of and in the course of employment.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

State v. Lile

“ORS 137.106 authorizes a trial court to order restitution ‘[w]hen a person is convicted of a crime that has resulted in economic damages.’”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Madden

Physical restraint without an officer safety justification, regardless of duration, coupled with circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to understand they were not free to leave, convert a stop into an arrest.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Tate

Unless, during a continuous transaction relating to the search in question, a defendant indicates verbally or by conduct that they wish for their voluntary consent to no longer be valid, it is presumed to continue. State v. Luther, 63 Or App. 86, 89, 663 P2d 1261 (1983).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Bondick v. Lane County Circuit Court

When an application for a fee waiver under ORS 21.682 demonstrates a person is eligible, the court must develop the record or provide an explanation if it denies the request. Stanwood v. Multnomah County, 135 Or App 58, 61, 898 P2d 196 (1995).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Central Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes County

Goal 6, or OAR 660-015-0000(6), is to “maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Dept. of Fish and Wildlife v. Crook County

While a mitigation plan prepared for ORS 215.446 approval must be “concordant with the Mitigation Policy and not show any substantive conflicting elements,” the plan “need not follow the submittal requirements set out in OAR 635-415-0020(8).”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

N. F. M. v. Khalidi

ORS 107.716(3)(a) permits continuation of a restraining order if “petitioner reasonably fears for the petitioner’s physical safety” and “respondent represents a credible threat to the physical safety of the petitioner or the petitioner’s child.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

Ragaway v. City of Portland

Under ORS 30.265(6), “[e]very public body and its officers, employees and agents acting within the scope of their employment or duties . . . are immune from liability for . . . [a]ny claim based upon the performance of or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty, whether or not the discretion is abused.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Preemption

State v. Taylor

To admit other acts evidence as evidence of a spurious plan, the State must show (1) “not merely a similarity” in results, but concurrence of “common features” that are naturally explained “as caused by a general plan” and (2) “something more than the similarity required for other crimes evidence to be admissible to prove intent.” State v. Leistiko, 352 Or 172, 181, 188–89, 282 P3d 857 (2012).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Dept. of Human Services v. D.E.P.

Termination of parental rights must be shown by clear and convincing evidence that it is highly probable that doing so is in the best interest of the child. Dept. of Human Services v. T.L.M.H., 294 Or. App. 749, 750 (2018).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

Interiano v. SAIF

Under ORS 656.005(7)(a)(B), two separate conditions must be identified; a “preexisting condition and its symptoms are not separate conditions.” Carrillo v. SAIF, 310 Or App 8, 12, 484 P3d 398, rev den, 368 Or 560 (2021).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

Wilsonville Subaru v. City of Wilsonville

Under Wilsonville City Code 11.040(5)(e), developers may request alternative calculations of system development charges based on special or unique factors while the development is “in the process of receiving city approval.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Municipal Law

SAIF Corporation v. Coria

Termination of benefits is reasonable if the insurer has “legitimate doubt” about its obligation to pay the claimant, and reasonableness is determined through the evidence accessible to the insurer at the time it terminated the benefits.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Disability Law

State v. McCall

A warrantless arrest requires the arresting officer to have “probable cause to believe that the person committed” a crime. State v. Owens, 302 Or 196, 211, 729 P2d 524 (1986). A warrantless arrest for UUV requires an officer to have an objective basis to believe a suspect, knowing the vehicle was stolen, “exercise[d] control over or otherwise used the vehicle.” 164.135(1); see State v. Gibson, 268 Or App 428, 433, 342 P3d 168 (2015). A warrantless arrest for PSV requires an officer to have an objective basis to believe a suspect was in possession of a vehicle when the suspect had “reason to believe” the vehicle was stolen. ORS 819.300; State v. Noe, 242 Or App 530, 532, 256 P3d 166 (2011).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Back to Top