Albany & Eastern Railroad Company v. Martell
Under Halperin v. Pitts, 352 Or 482 (2012) and the statute’s structure, ORS 20.080(2) permits attorney fee awards to defendants prevailing on equitable counterclaims, provided other requirements of the statute are met.
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
Clark v. University of Oregon
Unless the parties invoke a status, a relationship, or a particular standard of conduct that creates, defines, or limits the defendant’s duty, the issue of liability for harm actually resulting from defendant’s conduct properly depends on whether that conduct unreasonably created a foreseeable risk to a protected interest of the kind of harm that befell the plaintiff. Fazzolari v. Portland School Dist. No. 1J, 303 Or 1, 17, 734 P2d 1326 (1987).
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
I.R.S. v. Hanington
The definition of abuse in the Elderly Persons and Persons with Disabilities Abuse Prevention Act is not constitutionally overbroad and does not require construction applying a heightened standard as in State v. Rangel, 328 Or 294 (1999).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Santoro v. Eagle Crest Estate Homesite Owners Assn.
“When one party to a contract is given discretion in the performance of some aspect of the contract, the parties ordinarily contemplate that that discretion will be exercised for particular purposes. If the discretion is exercised for purposes not contemplated by the parties, the party exercising discretion has performed in bad faith.” Best v. U. S. National Bank, 303 Or 557, 563, 739 P2d 554 (1987).
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
State v. Actkinson
A person is not eligible for a downward departure sentence if they were on parole, probation, or post-prison supervision for a crime as listed in ORS 137.717(1)–including first degree theft–at the time of committing the crime at issue. ORS 137.717(6)(a).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Bostwick
Under ORS 162.355, a person falsely simulates the legal process when they intentionally transmit "fake, imitation, counterfeit, or pretend document that appears to be, in both form and substance, a genuine legal document."
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Davis
To determine whether to admit evidence of uncharged acts of sexual misconduct in trials for sex crimes, the court must use the LeMay factors test, which considers: “(1) the similarity of the uncharged misconduct; (2) the temporal proximity of the uncharged acts to the charged acts; (3) the frequency of the prior acts; (4) the existence or nonexistence of intervening circumstances; and (5) the need for the evidence in addition to the testimony.” State v. Terry, 309 Or App 459, 465 (2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Jackson
With an Alford plea, a defendant does not admit guilt “but admits that sufficient evidence exists to convict him of the offense.” United States v. Ramirez-Gonzalez, 755 F3d 1267, 1273 (11th Cir 2014).
Area(s) of Law:- Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
State v. Nees
Article I, section 11, guarantees a criminal defendant the right to counsel. However, a defendant may waive that right if they do so knowingly and intentionally. State v. Langley, 351 Or 652, 669, 273 P3d 901 (2012).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Nolen
Under OEC 404(3), “the use of other-acts evidence ‘to prove that a person has a propensity to engage in certain types of behavior and that the person acted in conformance with that propensity on a particular occasion,’” is barred.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Waterman
Under ORS 164.365(1)(a)(A), a conviction of first-degree criminal mischief requires proof, among other elements, that Defendant "[d]amage[d] ... property of another***[i]n an amount exceeding $1,000[.]"
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Wedemeyer v. Nike Ihm, Inc.
ORCP 68 C(2)(a) provides: “A party seeking attorney fees shall allege the facts, statute, or rule that provides a basis for the award of fees in a pleading filed by that party. Attorney fees may be sought before the substantive right to recover fees accrues."
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
Atkinson v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
The mere possibility that petitioner’s parole status could have changed from active to inactive at an earlier date is not a legally sufficient collateral consequence that would prevent dismissal of the case. Smith v. Board of Parole, 305 Or App 773, 776, rev den, 367 Or 387 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Dept. of Human Services v. C. A. C.
The relevance threshold is “very low,” State v. Hampton, 317 Or 251, 855 P2d 621 (1993), and that the juvenile court may consider historical medical records, including mental health records, along with all the evidence as it determines whether to assert dependency jurisdiction.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Frehoo, Inc. v. Bureau of Lab. and Indus. of Oregon
To show a hostile workplace, an employee who is subjected to verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature which was unwelcome and resulted in severe or pervasive conditions which alter their employment create an abusive work environment. The court looks at the totality of circumstances.
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Hofer v. OHSU
Absolute privilege, a complete bar to liability for defamation, generally applies in governmental settings to statements made by public officials in the course of their public duties. Lowell v. Medford School Dist. 549C, 313 Or App 599, 604-05 (2021); Johnson v. Brown, 193 Or App 375, 380 (2004). To recover damages from one’s physician for emotional harm absent a physical injury, the physician’s standard of care must include a “specific duty to be aware of and guard against particular adverse psychological reactions or consequences to medical procedures.” Curtis v. MRI Imaging Services II, 327 Or 9, 14-15 (1998).
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
Jaynes v. Cain
Under the Oregon Constitution, to be entitled to post-conviction relief based on a claim of inadequate assistance of counsel, “a petitioner must prove two elements: first, that trial counsel failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment, and second, that the petitioner suffered prejudice as a result of counsel’s inadequacy.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Lankford v. Cain
To receive relief, trial counsel’s failure to investigate must result in more than a mere possibility that the proceeding would have ended in a different result.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Rojo-Garfias v. State
“When the law is not succinct and straightforward a criminal defense attorney need do no more than advise a noncitizen client that pending criminal charges may carry a risk of adverse immigration consequences.” See Padilla, at 559 US at 369.
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
State v. Abbott
In the absence of a Meyrick colloquy, a trial court’s acceptance of a defendant’s waiver of counsel is proper if, when considering the totality of the circumstances, the record reflects that the defendant “substantially appreciates the material risks of self-representation in [their] case.” State v. Jackson, 172 Or App 414, 423 (2001).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Buchnoff
Under ORS 162.205(1)(a), “a person commits the crime of failure to appear in the first degree if the person knowingly fails to appear as required after having by court order been released from custody or a correctional facility under a release agreement or security release upon the condition that the person will subsequently appear personally in connection with a charge against the person of having committed a felony.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Carr
The Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial requires a unanimous jury verdict to convict a defendant for a serious offense. Ramos v. Louisiana, ___ US ___ (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Chemxananou
The “witness false in part” instruction provides “[t]hat a witness false in one part of the testimony of the witness may be distrusted in others[.]” ORS 10.095(3).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Haley
Under State v. Macon, 249 Or App 260 (2012), whether a particular space is a “building” under ORS 164.215 depends “on whether the area was self-contained from its parent building, including secure physical access, separate function, and separate occupation."
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Houston
Evidence is relevant if it has “any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence,” and information about the purpose and interest of an organization associated with a testifying interviewer is relevant to the jury’s evaluation. OEC 401; State v. Valle, 255 Or App 505, 809 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Marks
ORS 161.067(1) provides, “When the same conduct or criminal episode violates two or more statutory provisions and each provision requires proof of an element that the others do not, there are as many separately punishable offenses as there are separate statutory violations.” See ORS 161.067(1).
Loss of reputation is considered “economic damages,” when the damages are objectively verifiable. See ORS 137.103(2); ORS 31.705(2)(a).
- Criminal Law
Taylor v. State Hospital
OAR 309-114-0010(1)(b)(C) authorizes “[i]nvoluntary administration of significant procedures with good cause.” OAR 309-114-0010(2)(a) provides that the Oregon State Hospital may consider a person incapable of consenting to significant procedures "only if the person currently demonstrates an inability to reasonably comprehend and weigh the risks and benefits of the proposed procedure…or no treatment at all.”
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Underwood v. City of Portland
“At the summary judgment stage, issue preclusion applies as a matter of law only if it can be conclusively established from the record that “all the Nelson requirements [are] sat-isfied.” Barackman v. Anderson, 338 Or 365, 372 (2005).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Aung v. Cain
If “a defendant is restrained in a manner that is not visible to the jury, prejudice will not be presumed.” Sproule v. Coursey, 276 Or App 417, 425 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Harmon v. Oregon Medical Board
Under ORS 676.175(1), the OMB is required to keep confidential and not disclose to the public “any information obtained by the board as part of an investigation of a licensee or applicant, including complaints concerning licensee or applicant conduct and information permitting the identification of complainants, licensees or applicants[.]”
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
McNeil v. Geico Casualty Company, Inc.
In safe harbor provisions for UM/UIM claims, “damages due the insured” “refers to the type of damages that would be payable in that type of case, namely, the damages that the insured would be ‘legally entitled to recover’ from the uninsured or underinsured motorist.” Spearman v. Progressive Classic Ins. Co., 361 Or 584, 593 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Insurance Law
State v. Bryars
A verbal encounter rises to the level of a seizure “when the content of the questions, the manner of asking them, or other actions that police take (along with the circumstances in which they take them) would convey to a reasonable person that the police are exercising their authority to coercively detain the citizen[.]” State v. Backstrand, 354 Or 392, 412 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Parkerson
Whether a defendant “comes within *** ORS 161.735 is a question of fact to be determined by the court upon consideration of the presentence report, the psychiatric report, the evidence in the case or any evidence produced at the presentence hearing.” State v. Nickell, 302 Or 439, 443 (1986).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Preston-Mittasch
Under ORS 137.545 (5)(a), the court may revoke probation and either (A) impose the suspended sentence, or (B), “[i]f no other sentence has been imposed,” impose any other sentence that originally could have been imposed.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Thomas v. Dillon Family Limited Partnership II
ORS 90.360(2) provides a tenant the right to damages and injunctive relief for a landlord’s noncompliance with the habitability requirements in ORS 90.320 and narrowly describes express and specific limitations for recovery of damages.
Area(s) of Law:- Landlord Tenant
Verardo v. Dept. of Transportation
To qualify for the application of discretionary immunity, the discretionary decision must: (1) be the result of a choice involving the exercise of judgment; (2) involve public policy as opposed to the routine day-to-day decision-making of public officials; and (3) be exercised by a body or person that has the responsibility or authority to make it. Turner v. State of Oregon, 359 Or 644, 652 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Qualified Immunity
State v. Jackson
“[T]he doctrine of chances, standing alone, is insufficient to make evidence * * * relevant[,]” and requires separate linkage that does not rely on prohibited inferences to the State’s proof of a material fact.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence