Bialostosky v. Cummings
“‘Public body’ includes every state officer, agency, department, division, bureau, board and commission; every county and city governing body, school district, special district, municipal corporation, and any board, department, commission, council, or agency thereof; and any other public agency of this state.” ORS 192.311(4).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
County of Linn v. State of Oregon
When it has been determined that a particular statutory scheme contains a contractual promise, the “standard of clear and unmistakable intent * * * focuses only on whether the legislature intended a particular * * * provision to be part of that promise.” Moro v. State, 357 Or 167, 203 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
Donahue v. Nagel
“A promise to convey an interest in real property, no less than the conveyance itself, is subject to the statute of frauds.” Parthenon Construction & Design, Inc. v. Neuman, 166 Or App 172 (2000).
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
Henretty v. Lewis
“[A] trial court legally errs when it fails to determine which parent is entitled to the statutory primary caregiver preference and then account for that preference in its custody determination.” Dickson and Schwartz, 313 Or App 616, 617-18 (2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Monica v. Myers
It is a petitioner’s burden to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that (1) counsel failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment; and (2) petitioner was prejudiced as a result. See Trujillo v. Maass, 312 Or 431, 435 (1991).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. De Leon Say
In State v. Skillicorn, the Supreme Court clarified that sexual-predisposition evidence is not propensity evidence. State v. Skillicorn, 367 Or 464 (2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Donaldson
“A person commits the offense of failure to yield to an emergency vehicle or ambulance if an ambulance or emergency vehicle that is using a visual or audible signal in a manner described under ORS 820.300 and 820.320 approaches the vehicle the person is operating and the person does not do all of the following: (a) yield the right of way to the ambulance or emergency vehicle; (b) immediately drive to a position as near as possible and parallel to the right-hand edge or curb of the roadway clear of any intersection; (c) stop and remain in such position until the emergency vehicle or ambulance has passed.” ORS 811.145.
Area(s) of Law:- Traffic Infractions
State v. Murphy
If a witness unambiguously vouched, it is plain error not to have stricken the testimony, even absent an objection; however, it is a matter of discretion whether to correct this error. See State v. Corkill, 262 Or App 543, 552-53 (2014); State v. Vanornum, 354 Or 614, 629 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Renard
When a court properly admits challenged testimony as nonscientific expert opinion, the court need not decide whether the testimony was also admissible as lay opinion. State v. Rambo, 250 Or App 186, (2012).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Smith
“If the law focuses on the forbidden effects, and the proscribed means of causing those effects include expression, then the law is analyzed under the second Robertson category,” determining whether it “appears to reach communication privileged by Article I, section 8, or whether the law can be interpreted to avoid such overbreadth.” State v. Robertson, 293 Or 402, 412 (1982); State v. Rangel, 328 Or 294, 300 (1999). The government cannot discriminate against kinds of speech based on the “ideas or opinion it conveys”. Iancu v. Brunetti, 139 S Ct 2294, 2499 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
State v. Wagner
A witness testifying as an expert must have “the necessary skill and knowledge to arrive at an intelligent conclusion about the subject matter in dispute,” and a dangerous weapon is “any weapon, device, instrument, material or substance which under the circumstances in which it is used, attempted to be used or threatened to be used, is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury.” Burton v. Rogue Valley Medical Center, 122 Or App 22, 26 (1993); ORS 161.015(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Dept. of Human Services v. L.M.K.
“Reasonable efforts” before a permanency hearing must allow enough time for a meaningful assessment of a parent’s progress toward reunification. Dept. of Human Services v. W. M., 310 Or App 594, 598-99, 485 P3d 316 (2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Durocher and Durocher
An expert witness’ testimony may be excluded when the witness’s evaluation was not conducted in compliance with the trial court’s order on the subject, even if the testimony is otherwise admissible.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
R.S.R. v. Dept. of Human Services
In absence of physical injury, a party may recover emotional and psychological damages if they establish that they have a “special relationship” with the other party. See Lowe v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 207 Or App 532, 551, 142 P3d 1079 (2006).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. Aranda
Under OEC 609(1), “[f]or the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted…”
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
State v. B.Y.
Juvenile courts lack the authority to impose consecutive commitments. Juvenile courts, like adult courts, do not possess the unlimited authority to impose consecutive commitments.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Lee
“[N]o warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath, or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized.” Ore. Const. Art. I, § 9.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. McBean
ORS 162.325(1), A person commits the crime of hindering prosecution if they assist a person who has committed a crime punishable as a felony.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Moore
The amendments made to ORS 131.125 were intended to extend the limitations period in the case of incidents of sexual abuse that had not yet been barred under the previous statute.
Under ORS 161.067(3), a court can enter multiple convictions for criminal conduct involving the same conduct or criminal episode, same victim, and same statutory provision only if the violations are separated from one another by a “sufficient pause” in the defendant’s criminal conduct. State v. Bradley, 307 Or App 374, 380, 477 P3d 409 (2020).
- Criminal Law
State v. Newkirk
The Fourteenth Amendment right to due process was not intended to encompass the same right to a grand jury encompassed by the Fifth Amendment. Hurtado v. California, 110 US 516, (1884).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Tardie
Search warrant expiration applies to execution, not search completion, and an Officer’s training linked to case facts establishes probable cause for a search warrant. See State v. Monger, 306 Or App 50, 472 P3d 270, rev den, 367 Or 291 (2020); see also State v. Cazee, 308 Or App 748, 482 P3d 140 (2021). Jury is improperly instructed when statutory definition of “knowingly” under ORS 161.085(1) is embellished.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Townsend
A person commits second-degree forgery when, "with intent to injure or defraud, the person utters a written instrument which the person knows to be forged,” ORS 165.007(1)(b), and in that context, “utter” means “to issue, deliver, publish, circulate, disseminate, transfer or tender a written instrument or other object to another,” ORS 165.002(7).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Wirth v. Wirth
ORS 107.105(1)(d)(C) sets forth a nonexclusive list of factors, including earning capacity, that the court considers when awarding spousal maintenance support. In “assessing earning capacity, the court considers a range of considerations other than actual current income.” Crump and Crump, 138 Or App 362, 366, 908 P2d 839 (1995).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Brush and Brush
A trial court’s “just and proper” division of marital property requires consideration of both the statutory factors in ORS 107.105(1)(f) and equitable factors. Kunze and Kunze, 337 Or 122, 135, 92 P3d 100 (2004).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. Edwards
Under the Oregon Constitution,“the fact of arrest does not grant an unqualified right to search an arrestee’s person for crime evidence,” State v. Owens, 302 Or 196, 201, 729 P2d 524 (1986), and requirements must be met for the exception to apply.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Farr
Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. OEC 801(3). To establish first-degree criminal mischief under ORS 164.365(1)(a)(A), the state must prove that the defendant damaged another’s property “[i]n an amount exceeding $1,000.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Miller
Article I, Section 9, prohibits “unreasonable” searches and seizures. A “stop” is a type of seizure that amounts to a “temporary detention” conducted “for investigatory purposes.” Maciel-Figueroa, 361 Or at 169-70. A stop must be justified by a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. State v. Rodgers/Kirkeby, 347 Or 610, 621, 227 P3d 695 (2010).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Sullivan v. SAIF
For a board's order to be supported by substantial evidence, it must point out “what findings the board made and how those findings led the board to its ultimate conclusion—that is, it must be supported by substantial reason.” Armstrong v. Asten-Hill Co., 90 Or App 200, 206, 752 P2d 312 (1988).
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
Griffin Oak Prop. Invest. v. City of Rockaway Beach
No city official can bind a city to a smaller setback by incorrectly approving a site plan showing a smaller setback. Doney v. Clatsop County, 142 OrApp 497 (1996).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
State v. Azar
When determining the legislature’s intent when enacting a statute, courts examine the text, context, and legislative history of the statute. State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160, 171–72, 206 P3d 1042 (2009). A statute that provides a “reasonable degree of certainty” as to the prohibited conduct is not unconstitutionally vague. State v. Graves, 299 Or 189, 195, 700 P2d 244 (1985).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Brown
Mere proximity to suspected criminal activity, or association with a suspected or known criminal, is insufficient to support reasonable suspicion. State v. Kingsmith, 256 Or App 762, 772, 302 P3d 471 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Dunn
The “preferred means of assuring that the defendant understand[s] the risks of self-representation” is a colloquy on the record. State v. Meyrick, 313 Or 125, 133, 831 P2d 666 (1992). A defendant’s request for self-representation may not be summarily denied by a trial court. State v. Miller, 254 Or App 514, 524, 295 P3d 158 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Storm
ORS 137.106 requires (1) criminal activity; (2) economic damages; and (3) a causal relationship between the two. The trial court has "the authority to make [their] own, independent, factual findings as to two of the three elements but "the restitution statute does not grant [a trial court] similar authority to make its own independent factual findings about the criminal act that the defendant committed." State v. Andrews, 295 Or App 195 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Wilkins and Wilkins
ORS 107.105(1)(d) provides that the trial court "shall designate one or more categories of spousal support and shall make findings of the relevant factors in the decision.” The factors for the court to consider include but are not limited to health and age of the parties; the standard living established during the marriage; work skills and experience of the parties; and any other factors that the court deems just and equitable. ORS 105(a)(d)(C).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law