Bush v. City of Prineville
“[U]pon appeal of a judgment in an action or suit in which one or more claims are asserted for which the prevailing party may receive an award of attorney fees, the appellate court in its discretion may designate as the prevailing party a party who obtains a substantial modification of the judgment.” ORS 20.077(3)
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
Bellshaw v. Farmers Ins. Co.
ORS 746.290(2)(b) requires insurers to provide notice of all of the provisions of ORS 746.280 when a relevant policy is issued. The obligation under ORS 746.290(2)(b) attaches at the time a policy is issued, not at the time a claim is made under the policy.
Area(s) of Law:- Insurance Law
State v. Brosy
Under ORS 163.185(8), a person is guilty of second-degree assault if they “knowingly cause physical injury to another by means of a dangerous weapon." “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.’ ORS 163.185(1)
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Gonzalez
To determine whether sentencing is proportional, courts examine “(1) a comparison of the severity of the penalty and the gravity of the crime; (2) a comparison of the penalties imposed for other, related crimes; and (3) the criminal history of the defendant.” State v. Rodriguez/Buck, 347 Or 46, 58, 217 P3d 659 (2009).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Halvorson
“[I]nvited error is no basis for reversal.” State v. Harris, 362 Or 55, 67, (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
Williamson v. Zielinski
“The burden of proof to establish that a testator had testamentary capacity is upon the proponent of the will … [h]owever when a will is executed in due form [the proponent if the will] is entitled to the benefit of a presumption that the testator is competent.” Clauder v. Morser, 204 Or 378, 386 (1955). "A contestant of a will ... bears the burden to establish the existence of ‘a suspicion of undue influence,’ meaning that (1) a ‘confidential relationship’ exists between the testator and the beneficiary, ‘such that the beneficiary held a position of dominance over the testator’; and (2) there are ‘suspicious circumstances surrounding the procurement or execution of the will.’ Knutsen v. Krippendorf, 124 Or App 299, 308 (1993).
Area(s) of Law:- Trusts and Estates
Andlovec v. Spoto
“[F]or purposes of ORS 20.105(1), a claim, defense, or ground for appeal or review is meritless when it is entirely devoid of legal or factual support at the time it was made.” Mattiza v. Foster, 311 Or 1, 8, 803 P2d 723 (1990) (footnotes omitted).
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
State v. Skotland
At trial, the state cannot comment on a defendant’s failure to produce evidence when the evidence is “related to the defendant’s lack of knowledge.” (internal quotations omitted) State v. Mayo, 303 Or App 525, 534, 465 P3d 267 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Wesley
“After [State v. Hubbell, 314 Or App 844, 870-871, (2021)], where a person has taken a substantial step toward delivery of a controlled substance, but has not yet attempted the transfer itself, the person will have committed the inchoate crime of attempted delivery of a controlled substance, rather than delivery.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Cent. Or. Landwatch v. Deschutes Cnty.
Under Deschutes County Code (DCC) 22.36.010(B)(1), “a land use permit is void two years after the date the discretionary decision becomes final if the use approved in the permit is not initiated within that time period.”
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Dept. of Human Services v. M.G.J.
“If the case plan at the time of the hearing is to reunify the family, [the court shall] determine whether [DHS] has made reasonable efforts or, if the ward is an Indian child, active efforts as described in ORS 419B.645 to make it possible for the ward to safely return home and whether the parent has made sufficient progress to make it possible for the ward to safely return home. In making its determination, the court shall consider the ward’s health and safety the paramount concerns.” ORS 419B.476(2)(a).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Maltais v. Peacehealth
When reviewing a judgment dismissing a complaint, the court accepts as true the facts alleged in the complaint and draws all reasonable inferences from those allegations in favor of the plaintiff. Tomlinson v. Metropolitan Pediatrics, LLC, 362 Or 431, 434 (2018). The court must "determine whether upon the facts alleged no reasonable factfinder could decide one or more elements of liability" in favor of the plaintiff. Fazzolari v. Portland School Dist. No. 1J, 303 Or 1, 17 (1987).
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
Smith v. Johnson
“Even where a trial court has discretion to reach a certain outcome, it may not rely on a mistaken legal premise to reach that outcome.” Anderson v. Sullivan, 311 Or App 406, 413, 492 P3d 118, rev den, 368 Or 702 (2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Landlord Tenant
State v. Cleaver
ORS 163.467 states that a “person commits the crime of private indecency if the person exposes the genitals of the person with the intent of arousing the sexual desire of the person or another person and, inter alia, the person is in a place where another person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. D.B.O.
ORS 163.415 provides that a person commits third-degree sexual abuse when they have sexual contact with someone who does not consent with the purpose of sexual arousal. “It is necessary for the state to establish a purpose of sexual arousal [beyond a reasonable doubt] in order to complete proof of the crime.” State v. Fitch, 47 Or App 205, 208, 613 P2d 1108 (1980).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Eggers
Conviction of “a misdemeanor that has, as an element of the offense, the use . . . of physical force,” qualifies the court to prohibit possession of a firearm or ammunition. ORS 166.255(3)(e).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Ezell
OEC 404(4) states that “in criminal actions, evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts by the defendant is admissible if relevant except as otherwise provided by … [inter alia, OEC 403] (evidence is inadmissible if the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice).”
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. M.T.F.
ORS 163.208 states: “A person commits the crime of assaulting a public safety officer if the person intentionally or knowingly causes physical injury to the other person, knowing the other person to be a peace officer and while the other person is acting in the course of official duty.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Miles
Asportation can only be shown “when the defendant changes the position of the victim such that, as a matter of situation and context, the victim’s ending place is qualitatively different from the victim’s starting place,” State v. Sierra, 349 Or 506, 513, 254 P3d 149 (2010), adh’d to as modified on recons, 349 Or 604, 249 P3d 759 (2011), however, that movement “must not be ‘only “incidental”’ to another crime.” Id. at 514.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Taylor
To admit evidence of other acts under OEC 404(3), the proponent must “articulate the chain of inferences that makes the evidence relevant to [an identified] purpose and explain how that chain of inferences does not depend on the actor’s character.” State v. Jackson, 368 Or 705, 733, 498 P3d 788 (2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Botts Marsh, LLC v. City of Wheeler
Under Gutoski v. Lane County, 155 Or App 369, a LUBA remand would be improper only “if (1) the applicant had at least minimally adequate notice of the local government’s interpretation of its standards in time to submit responsive materials in support of its application” and “(2) the applicant has not shown that it could have put in more evidence with adequate notice.” “If the local government’s interpretation ‘plausibly accounts for the text and context’ of the provision, then LUBA and [the Court] must defer to that interpretation” Siporen v. City of Medford, 349 Or. 247 (2010).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Curry v. Highberger
Counsel is inadequate when a petitioner establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that “counsel failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment, and that the petitioner suf-fered 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
Dep't of Hum. Servs. v. T.B.
ORS 419B.385 states that “[t]he court may order the parent or guardian [subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court] to assist the court in any reasonable manner in providing appropriate education or counseling of the ward.” (Emphasis added.)
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Gramada v. SAIF Corp.
“A finding of impairment requires (1) that there is a loss of use or function of the body part or system, and (2) that the loss is due to the compensable injury.” Robinette v. SAIF, 369 Or 767, 781-82 (2022) (citing ORS 656.214). “Each loss of use or function is to be considered separately, and a loss is ‘due to the compensable injury’ when the accepted condition is found to be a material cause of the loss.” Johnson v. SAIF, 369 Or 707, 603 (2022); Robinette, 369 Or at 784.
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
State v. J.D.B.
Even in juvenile proceedings, “it is a fundamental violation of due process for the state to withhold evidence that is favorable to an accused where the evidence is material to either guilt or punishment.” Brady v. Maryland, 373 US 83, 87 S Ct 1194, 10 L Ed 2d 215 (1963).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Parras
A statute restricting Second Amendment rights is only constitutional if consistent with the nation’s history of regulating firearms. New York Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen, 597 US ___, 142 S Ct 2111, 213 L Ed 2d 387 (2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
State v. Stone
“Second-degree assault under ORS 163.175(1)(a) requires ‘[i]ntentionally or knowingly caus[ing] serious physical injury to another[.]’” “’[S]erious physical injury,’ … is defined in ORS 161.015(8) to mean ‘physical injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious and protracted disfigurement, protracted impairment of health or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ.’”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Douglas County v. Fish and Wildlife Commission
OAR 635-600-6775(6)(b) explicitly allows the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission to start and end hatchery programs.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Lavelle-Hayden v. Emp. Dep’t
“Under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, a state generally cannot deny unemployment benefits to a worker if the misconduct was the result of the worker adhering to a sincerely held religious belief.” Sherbert, 374 US at 403.
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
State v. J.H.
When determining witness competency under OEC 601, “[t]he proper inquiry is not whether the person is able to perceive and communicate in any capacity, but rather ‘whether [the] person has sufficient ability to perceive, recollect, and communicate so it is worthwhile for the person to testify.’” State v. Sarich, 352 Or 601, 616, 291 P3d 647 (2012).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law