Oregon Court of Appeals

Opinions Filed in July 2022

A. B. v. The Oregon Clinic

Covered entities may disclose protected health information (PHI) without a patient’s consent to other covered entities where it is “necessary to prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat” to a person or the public. 45 CFR § 164.512(j); see also ORS 192.558(2)(b) (allowing disclosure of PHI otherwise permitted or required by state or federal law).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

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

In determining whether terminating a child’s legal relationship with a parent is in the child’s best interest, the following considerations are to be made: (1) the strength of the bond between the parent and child; (2) whether severing that bond will help or harm the child; (3) the benefits to the child of terminating parental rights; and (4) the risk of harm to the child posed by termination. Dept. of Human Services v. T. M. D., 365 Or 143, 163-66 (2019). The burden of proof as to what is in a child’s best interest is clear-and-convincing evidence. Id.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

Golden Rule Farms v. Water Resources Dept.

Where an agency provides a process for raising issues to it, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies requires a party to present the issue to the agency through that process before a court will consider it. Tuckenberry v. Board of Parole, 365 Or 640, 646 (2019).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution

State v. Cave

Whether evidence is admitted as propensity evidence under OEC 404(4) or nonpropensity evidence under OEC 404(3) has a “significant effect” on the OEC 403 balancing test, as 404(4) propensity evidence’s prejudicial effect generally substantially outweighs its probative value. State v. Baughman, 361 Or 386, 405 (2017).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Wagner

“On appeal, defendant does not challenge the scientific validity and reliability of Dorsey’s testimony. The only issue on appeal related to Dorsey’s testimony is her qualification to offer proffered expert testimony under OEC 702.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Meyers

"A statute is not vague simply because the state can choose to prosecute a person under different statutes with different penalties." United States v. Batchelder, 442 US 114, 123-26, (1979).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

State v. Zielinski

“[E]vidence is relevant so long as it increases or decreases, even slightly, the probability of the existence of a fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.” State v. Barone, 329 Or 210, 238, 986 P.2d 5 (1999).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Williams v. Laney

“Another witness’s description of the complaining witness as a ‘victim’ conveys an opinion that the complaining witness is telling the truth.” State v. Sperou, 442 P.3d. 581 (2019).

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

Dept. of Human Services v. R.C.

“When the permanency plan at the time of a permanency hearing is reunification, the juvenile court is authorized to change the plan away from reunification only if DHS proves that (1) it made reasonable efforts to make it possible for the child to be reunified with his or her parent and (2) notwithstanding those efforts, the parent’s progress was insufficient to make reunification possible.” ORS 419B.476(2)(a); Dept. of Human Services v. R. B., 263 Or App 735, 745 (2014).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

Frost v. State of Oregon

“After the response of the defendant to the petition, the court shall proceed to a hearing on the issues raised. If the defendant’s response is by demurrer or motion raising solely issues of law, the circuit court need not order that petitioner be present at such hearing, as long as petitioner is represented at the hearing by counsel. At the hearing upon issues raised by any other response, the circuit court shall order that petitioner be present.” ORS 138.620(1).

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

State v. McWoods

“To bring a Batson challenge,” defendant must first “make a prima facie showing that a peremptory strike was based on race or gender.” State v. Curry, 298 Or App 377, 381, (2019), adh’d to on recons, 302 Or App 640, 461 P3d 1106 (2020). “Once the defendant makes a prima facie showing, the burden shifts to the State to come forward with a neutral explanation for challenging . . . jurors within an arguably targeted class.” Id. at 382 (quoting Batson v. Kentucky, 476 US 79, 97 (1986)).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Moscote-Saavedra

ORS 161.067(3) states that the criminal acts “. . . must be separated from other such violations by a sufficient pause in the defendant’s criminal conduct to afford the defendant an opportunity to renounce the criminal intent.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

State v. Williams

Based on the factors in State v. Jarnagin, 351 Or 703, 716, 277 P3d 535 (2012), the State did not meet its burden to prove that Defendant’s consent to a DNA sample was not the result of the Miranda violation.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Central Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes County

ORS 215.284(2) “In counties not [within the Willamette Valley] a single-family residential dwelling not provided in conjunction with arm use may be established, subject to approval of the governing body or its designee, in any area zoned for exclusive farm use upon a finding that: (c) The dwelling will be sited on a lot or parcel created before January 1, 1993.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Dept. of Hum. Servs v. J. H.

ORS 419B.498(1)(a) requires DHS to file a petition to terminate parental rights and proceed with adoption when a child or ward has been in substitute care under the responsibility of the department for 15 months of the most recent 22 months unless some exception applies.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

Back to Top