McPherson v. Coos Bay-North Bend Water Board
The collection of a public-safety fee by the Coos Bay-North Bend Water Board as an intermediary for the City of North Bend does not violate the city’s charter. Under Western Radio Services Co. v. Verizon Wireless, LLC, 297 Or App 446 (2019), declaratory judgment actions must end in “a declaration as to the rights of the parties.”
Area(s) of Law:- Municipal Law
Rogers v. Corvel Enterprise Comp, Inc.
Under Knaggs v. Allegheny Techs., 223 Or App 91 (2008), a cause of an injury is a material contributing cause of an initial injury if it is “a substantial cause that is more than a minimal cause.”
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
Schaefer v. Marion County
The statutory definition of "airports" does not include the land adjacent to runways. ORS 836.605(2).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Smith v. Kelly
To be deficient, trial counsel must fail to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment and as a result of that performance the petitioner suffers prejudice.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Sound-Rite Plastics, Ltd. v. Wright
“Under Washington law, ‘an anticipatory breach occurs when one of the parties to a bilateral contract either expressly or impliedly repudiates the contract prior to the time of performance. A party’s intent not to perform may not be implied from doubtful and indefinite statements that performance may or may not take place.’” Wallace Real Estate Inv., Inc. v. Groves, 124 Wash 2d 881, 898, 881 P2d 1010, 1019 (1994).
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
State v. V. L.
“[T]he facts in a juvenile petition that must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt under ORS 419C.400(2) are the facts described in ORS 419C.255(1)(b), and that that set of facts is separate from, and does not include, facts about a youth’s age. Thus, ORS 419C.400(2) does not require facts about a youth’s age to be established beyond a reasonable doubt.” See State v. Stamper, 197 Or App 413, 420, 106 P3d 172, rev den, 339 Or 230 (2005).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Upham v. Hummel
ORS 192.329(2)(b) and (f) provide that a public body's response to a public record request is complete if it asserts that the requested records are exempt from disclosure with a statement that the requester may seek review of the exemption. ORS 192.324(4)(a) provides that if there is no exemption, a "public body may establish fees reasonably calculated to reimburse the public body for the public body's actual cost of making public records available."
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Wetzel v. Sandlow
When determining the adequacy of a corporation’s capitalization, a court evaluates whether capital is sufficient to cover anticipated liabilities. Klokke Corp. v. Classic Exposition, Inc., 139 Or App 399, 405, 912 P2d 929, rev den, 323 Or 690 (1996). As part of the issue of veil-piercing, plaintiffs have the burden of proof for showing insufficient capitalization. See Rowden v. Hogan Woods, LLC, 306 Or App 658, 680, 476 P3d 485 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Business Law
Dept. of Human Services v. B. F.
Failure to make the findings required by Dept. of Human Services v. W. C. T. is reversible error, even if the order was given before the decision in W. C. T. State v. Jury, 185 OrApp 132, 136 (2002).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Gastiaburu
Proof of how much is paid in medical bills by an insurer is not enough by itself to sufficiently prove that the amount paid is reasonable for determining restitution.
Area(s) of Law:- Remedies
State v. Gonzalez-Coria
"When the police have obtained valid consent from someone with actual authority to search a place, the fact that it is a shared space is irrelevant, unless, at a minimum, a cotenant is present, claims a privacy interest in the space, and expressly objects to the search or refuses consent." Or. Const. Art. I, § 9.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Greeley
"[T]he right to counsel under Article I, section 11, includes the right to be represented by counsel during all critical stages of a criminal proceeding, unless the defendant voluntarily and intelligently waives that right.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Jacoby
To establish probable cause, the officer, at the time of the stop, "must subjectively believe that a violation has occurred, and . . . that belief must be objectively reasonable under the circumstances." State v. Carson, 287 Or App 631, 634 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Krieger
An officer is limited to investigatory inquiries that are reasonably related to the traffic stop or must otherwise have an independent constitutional justification.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Laney
Under State v. Lien/Wilverding, 364 Or 750 (2019), it remains possible to abandon one’s privacy interest in an item based on the totality of the circumstances.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Rexroad
Under ORS 164.135, control must be actual and not merely constructive.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v Mashadda
Plain error review requires the error to be “apparent on the record without requiring the court to choose among competing inferences.” State v. Vanornum, 354 Or 614, 629, 317 P3d 889 (2013). “[W]here the prosecutor presents some evidence to support restitution of a particular amount, and the defendant does not raise an objection to the amount of restitution . . . the trial court does not plainly err in imposing restitution in that amount.” State v. West, 249 Or App 257, 258, 274 P3d 892 (2012) (summarizing State v. Gruver, 247 Or App 8, 17, 268 P3d 760 (2011)).
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
Mohabeer v. Farmers Ins. Exchange
Oregon’s anti-SLAPP statute provides “an expedited procedure for dismissal of certain nonmeritorious civil cases without prejudice at the pleading stage.” Neumann v. Liles, 358 Or 706, 723, 369 P3d 1117 (2016). In the context of a special motion to strike, it is not premature for the court to decide whether prima facie evidence of the elements of the claim has been presented before full discovery or for a party to raise the issue on appeal of the denial of a special motion to strike.
Myhre v. Potter
"[T]he 20-day time limitation on interposing an objection to vacate or modify an arbitration award under ORS 36.705 and ORS 36.710 is not a shield against certain purely procedural objections[.]" "[A] petition to confirm an award initiates a special statutory proceeding that does not contain a limitation on the time period, after an arbitration award, within which the petition must be filed." ORS 18.180.
Area(s) of Law:- Alternative Dispute Resolution
RLF Liquidating, LLC v. McDonald Brothers, Inc.
A motion for leave to amend should be granted if it "would neither change nor add a claim or defense" and "it would not prejudice plaintiff[.]" Ramsey v. Thompson, 162 OrApp 139 (1999).
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
State v. Avila
For a Miles instruction, the State is required to present evidence that a physical condition makes a defendant more susceptible to the influence of intoxicants. State v. Huck, 100 Or App 193, 197, 785 P2d 785 (1990).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Banks
The exclusion of lay witness testimony is not harmless when it is admissible under OEC 701 and provides otherwise unavailable information, provides for expert witness impeachment, or provides “evidence from which a jury could infer the defendant’s mental state or level of intoxication.”
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Jackson
Under ORS 810.420(2), an officer must be trained on the type of speed measuring device used.
Area(s) of Law:- Traffic Infractions
State v. Melecio
Under State v. Barnes, 66 Or App 896 (1984) and ORS 135.748(1)(e)(B), whether the state has unreasonably delayed the execution of a warrant and trial turn on whether the state has knowledge of or could reasonably found with minimal effort or sufficient due diligence, the defendant’s location.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Peltier
Under State v. Jacobson, 296 Or App 87 (2019) and State v. Guerrero, 277 Or App 837 (2016), in order to waive a constitutional right, the record must reflect a defendant’s intent to waive the right in question, as well as the defendant’s understanding of the right and consequences of waiver.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. R. J. S.
Juvenile delinquency proceedings are not criminal trials. State v. N. R. L., 249 Or App 321, 324, 277 P3d 564 (2012), aff’d, 354 Or 222, 311 P3d 510 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Soprych
A prosecutor’s reference to or comment on a defendant’s invocation of a constitutional right, such as the right to counsel, the right to remain silent, or the right to a trial, may prejudice a defendant’s ability to have a fair trial if the jury is likely to draw a negative inference from the exercise of that right. State v. Smallwood, 277 Or 503, 505-06, 561 P2d 600, cert den, 434 US 849, 98 S Ct 160, 54 L Ed 2d 118 (1977).
Evans v. Nooth
To obtain relief under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution, a post-conviction petitioner must show “that counsel failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment, and that the petitioner suffered prejudice as a result of counsel’s inadequacy.” Johnson v. Premo, 361 Or 688, 699, 399 P3d 431 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. Alcaraz
A defendant who is approached by a law enforcement officer and asked to produce a fishing license cannot reasonably believe that they are free to leave and are therefore stopped. State v. Almahmood, 308 OrApp 795 (2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. S. R.-N.
"[A] constitutionally significant deprivation of due process requires an assessment of the risk that a procedural failure resulted in the commitment." See Mathews v. Elridge, 424 US 319, 335 (1976).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
Boyd v. Legacy Health
Under Henderson v. Jantzen Inc., 79 Or App 654 (1986), the mere assertion of a non-discriminatory reason for termination does not destroy a prima facie case for retaliation and wrongful discharge.
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Hernandez v. Berger
When the record supports a lower court's finding that there was an inconsistency between a petitioner's testimony and that of their trial counsel, the Court of Appeals is bound by that factual finding. Davis v. Cain, 304 OrApp 356, 358 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Lewis v. Worley
A settlor of a trust is entitled to attorney’s fees under ORS 20.105(1) if someone brings a claim against the trust without an objectively reasonable basis. "Although [ORS 130.815] says that the court may award fees 'to any party' in an action involving administration of a trust, it cannot justify an award of fees to a party that had no objectively reasonable basis for bringing the claims it did."
Area(s) of Law:- Trusts and Estates
Moody v. Dept. of Human Services
“By running a period of a specified number of days from a date of mailing, the legislature indicates its intention that the period extend exactly that number of days from the date of mailing and no more.” See Quillen, 159 Or App at 9-10.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Sedgwick CMS, Inc. v. Dover
“[T]he third-party statutes, understood together, require that a paying agency is an insurer that is responsible for paying benefits on a compensable claim at the time of settlement with a third-party tortfeasor.” Sedgwick CMS, Inc. v. Dover, 318 Or App 38, 50 (2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
State v. Baker
Under State v. Williams, 49 Or App 893 (1980), where there is strong evidence that the defendant engaged in the conduct of conviction and the fact-finder acquits the defendant of charges related to a purportedly prejudicial statement, prejudice is minimal.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. J. R.
“‘[A]djudication’ and ‘disposition’ of the allegations are understood to refer to distinct phases of delinquency proceedings,” M. A. S., 302 Or App at 701, and that, had the legislature intended the phrase detention “before adjudication on the merits” to mean detention before both the adjudication and the disposition stages, it would not have chosen to omit the term “disposition” from ORS 419C.145. Cf. PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606, 611, 859 P2d 1143 (1993).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Merritt
“From the fact that the legislature made arrival of the protected party a prerequisite to the enforcement of a foreign restraining order that has not been presented to a sheriff or filed in the circuit court, we infer that the legislature intended that such an order would not be enforceable absent arrival.” See ORS 24.190.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Polezhaev
An officer has objective probable cause to arrest someone for possession of heroin if the facts known to the officer make it objectively reasonable to believe that it is more likely than not that the person possesses some amount of heroin. State v. Madden, 315 Or App 787, 795, 502 P3d 746 (2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Stone v. CCXL, LLC
The common law elements of adverse possession are codified by ORS 105.620, requiring that claimants show that they and their predecessors in interest have maintained actual, open, notorious, exclusive, hostile, and continuous possession of the property for a period of at least 10 years.
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law