Bush v. City of Prineville
In order to designate an appellant as the prevailing party for purposes of awarding costs, ORAP 13.05(3) requires that "the court reverses or substantially modifies the judgment . . . Otherwise, the respondent is the prevailing party."
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
Champion v. Employment Dep't
A board’s order will be remanded if the “order is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.” ORS 183.482(8)(c).
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Denning v. Board of Parole
Similarly to how the Fifth Amendment does not permit a witness to fail to comply with a subpoena to appear as a witness but rather requires them to invoke their privilege on a question-by-question basis, a sex offender subject to random polygraph examinations may not disregard such examinations based on the Fifth Amendment.
Area(s) of Law:- Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
Manning v. Kelly
The prohibition on vouching ensures “that the jury’s role in assessing witness credibility is not usurped by another witness’s opinion testimony.” State v. Chandler, 380 P.3d 932, 936 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Martin v. Dept. of Human Services
A circuit court’s role in reviewing a founded disposition under ORS 183.484(5) is to determine “whether substantial evidence in the record ‘viewed as a whole’ supports the agency’s determinations and that the standard is based on whether that record ‘would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.’” Querbach v. Dept. of Human Services, 369 Or 786, 789-90 (2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. Champagne
The court’s balancing fell within the permissible range of the court’s discretion, particularly in light of the state’s need to cross-examine Bourg, the limitations imposed on B’s testimony, and the use of a limiting instruction. See Powers, 323 Or App at 567-68 (holding that, in light of the LeMay factors, the court acted within its discretion to admit evidence of past abuse to show sexual purpose).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Leake
“Firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed within the meaning of [statute for unlawful possession of a firearm].” ORS 166.250(3). However, holsters that are concealed by clothing can be considered concealed weapons.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Perez
A trial court has discretion to order physical restraint of a defendant if there is sufficient evidence of a substantial risk of dangerous or disruptive behavior including the risk of assaultive conduct toward other persons and the risk of an attempted escape from custody. State v. Washington, 355 Or 612, 628, 330 P.3d 596 (2014).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Sunny Oaks, Inc. v. Dep’t of Hum. Servs.
The court may remand for further agency action only “when the petitioner demonstrates that the agency’s failure to adhere to the rule or rules compromised the petitioner’s ability to have a fair hearing.” Gleason v. Oregon Racing Comm., 233 Or App 164, 169, 225 P3d 123 (2010).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Hoover v. Industrial Scrap Corp.
In determining attorney fees, a court should review the factors in ORS 20.075(1) and (2) which includes conduct of parties during the transaction and reasonableness of claims and defenses asserted by parties.
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
State v. Copeland
[T]he less-satisfactory evidence instruction must be supported by a showing that (1) the evidence the state did not present was reasonably available, and (2) the evidence was stronger than other evidence the state offered. State v. Hendershott, 131 Or App 531, 535-36, 887 P2d 351 (1994), rev den, 320 Or 587 (1995).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Hall
Article I, section 9, is implicated if a private person under-takes a search or seizure at the state’s behest. [T]he state asks a private person to search “‘a particular place or thing, and if the private person acts because of and within the scope of the state’s request,’” the private person’s actions implicate Article I, section 9. State v. Sines, 359 Or 41, 50, 379 P3d 502 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Halvorson
“Economic damages” do not include attorney fees that a victim chooses to incur in order to obtain restitution in a criminal matter. Fox II, 370 Or 456, 469-70 (2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
State v. Johnson
A case becomes moot when the Court’s decision “will no longer have a practical effect on the rights of the parties.” State v. K.J.B., 362 Or 777, 785, 416 P3d 291 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. P.B.S.
“An error is ‘plain’ when it is an error of law, the legal point is obvious and not reasonably in dispute, and the error is apparent on the record without our having to choose among competing inferences.” State v. Vanornum, 345 Or 614, 629, 317 P3d 889 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
State v. Parra-Sanchez
If a defendant uses a child to create a display of sexually explicit conduct, then, under ORS 163.670, there must be an objective examination of the characteristics from the perspective of the viewer of the display.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Rytting
ORS 162.205 provides: “(1) A person commits the crime of failure to appear in the first degree if the person knowingly fails to appear as required after: (a) 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; or (b) Having been released from a correctional facility subject to a forced release agreement under ORS 169.046 in connection with a charge against the person of having committed a felony...”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Serbin
State v. Hubbell, 314 Or. App. 844 (2021) held that the crimes of possession and delivery merge because the crime of delivery cannot be committed without the crime of possession.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Soprych
Whether a defendant consents to a warrantless search turns on what the defendant intended to authorize police to search. State v. Cross, 316 Or. App. 506, 512-13 (2021); See also, State v. Blair, 361 Or. 527 (2017).
State v. Stone
It is legal error after Owen to fail to instruct the jury "that the defendant must act with a culpable mental state as to the injury element" to be found guilty of second-degree assault. State v. Hatchell, 322 Or App 315, 519 P3d 563 (2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Vesa
A valid warrant must “describe with specificity the information related to the alleged criminal conduct which there is probable cause to believe will be found on the electronic device”. State v. Mansor, 363 Or. 185, 218 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
City of Springfield v. Kellim
“[T]he government may impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place, or manner of protected speech, provided the restrictions are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, that they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and that they leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information.” Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 US 781, 791 (1989).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Dept. of Human Services v. R.W.C.
Juvenile courts may order psychological evaluations as part of the Department of Human Service's treatment plan for parents of children under the court's jurisdiction in cases of adoption as well as reunification under ORS 419B.387.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Pulley v. Herndon
ORS 109.119 “focuses on whether present circumstances cause present detriment to the child,” and the circumstances must “pose a serious present risk of psychological, emotional, or physical harm.” O’Donnell-Lamont and Lamont, 337 Or 86, 112-13, 91 P3d 721 (2004), cert den, 543 US 1050 (2005).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. Gabr
Motions to suppress rightfully made when evidence at trial is tainted by illegal search and seizure. Additionally, arguments materially altering the record may not be allowed at appeals when unpreserved below.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Neill
Where defendant and the state enter a plea agreement, and pursuant that agreement, agree to a stipulated sentence in the event probation is violated, that sentence is precluded from appeals under ORS 138.105(9) because defendant had explicitly agreed to that sentence in the event of that condition.
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
State v. True
An encounter with an officer cannot be considered a seizure unless the officer's actions would lead a reasonable person to believe that they were not free to leave. State v. Leiby, 293 Ore. App. 293 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). Regarding breath test validity, "[n]othing in the rule requires that a DUII suspect be allowed to rinse his mouth during the pre-test waiting period... the rule prohibits it." State v. Goddard, 87 Ore. App. 130, 131 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Cockey v. Mead
When it comes to legal malpractice claims, a court must consider the time when a cause of action accrues to determine when the statute of limitations starts running. The limitation period starts when the client knows or should have known every fact necessary to support their right to judgment. Kaseberg v. Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP, 351 Or 270, 277 (2011).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
Dept. of Human Services v. J.A.
“An appeal is moot when ‘the court’s decision no longer will have a practical effect on the rights of the parties.’” Dept. of Human Services v. G.D.W., 353 Or 25, 292 P3d 548 (2012).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Hartt v. City of Keizer
Actual bias is a question of fact to be determined by the court from all of the circumstances, including the prospective juror’s demeanor, apparent intelligence, and candor during voir dire. State v. Villeda, 324 Or App 502, 507 P3d 1213 (2023).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Aguilera
"ORS 135.703 is intended to allow civil compromise for Class C felonies that are capable of being punished as misdemeanors by operation of ORS 161.705."
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Cage
An officer has authority to stop a person if they "reasonably suspect - based on specific articulable facts - that the person committed a specific crime or type of crime or was about to commit a specific crime or type of crime." (quoting, State v. Maciel-Figueroa, 316 Or 163, 182 (2017). Reasonable suspicion cannot be established from evidence acquired after a stop. State vl. Ellis, 252 Or App 382, 389 (2012). When relying solely on a 9-1-1 report, the report must have an “indicia of reliability.” State v. Villegas-Varela, 132 Or App 112, 115 (1994.)
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Serrano
Under State v. Mansor, 363 Or. 185 (2018), individual privacy interests prevent the state from using evidence outside the scope of the original warrant.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
State v. Vanorden
ORS 166.070(1)(c), defines aggravated harassment as “intentionally propelling saliva at the public safety officer, and the saliva comes into physical contact with the public safety officer[.]"
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Villeda
“Actual bias is a question of fact to be determined by the court from all of the circumstances, including the prospective juror’s demeanor, apparent intelligence, and candor during voir dire.” State v. Barone, 328 Or 68, 74 (2000). “The fact that a prospective juror has formed opinions about matters relevant to the case is not itself cause to exclude that juror based upon actual bias.” Id. “[R]ehabilitation [of a biased prospective juror] occurs with evidence sufficient to allow the trial court to find that the juror has an unqualified and unequivocal commitment to serving fairly and without bias.” State v. Carter, 205 Or App 460, (2006).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Yamhill County v. Real Property
Under Article XV, section 10 of the Oregon Constitution, forfeiture of real property is criminal punishment, therefore forfeiture proceedings must be consolidated with criminal proceedings to avoid the Fifth Amendment prohibition against double jeopardy.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
J.W.V. v. J.L.W.
Under ORS 109.350(1),the standard for granting a petition for adoption provides, "the court is satisfied as to the identity and relations of the persons, that the petitioner is of sufficient ability to bring up the child and furnish suitable nurture and education, having reference to the degree and condition of the parents, and that it is fit and proper that such adoption... be effected."
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
WaterWatch of Oregon, Inc. v. Water Resources Department
Legislative direction to use existing data and sister-agency advice in coming to a conclusion does not preclude using existing data to project future data.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law