D.S.
“The rule that statutes in derogation of common law are to be strictly construed does not apply to the adoption laws of this state.” ORS 109.268(1). The principal purpose of adoption is to effectuate “the protection and promotion of the child’s best interest.” F. v. C., 24 Or App 601, 608-09, cert den, 429 US 907 (1976).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Davoodian v. Rivera
“A special motion to strike may be made against any claim in a civil action that arises out of any other conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of petition or the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest.” ORS 31.150(2)(d).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
DHS v. M.M.
“To establish jurisdiction, the Department of Human Services (DHS) must prove that the child’s conditions or circumstances ‘present a current threat of serious loss or injury’ that is nonspeculative and reasonably likely to be realized.” DHS v. C.J.T., 258 Or App 57, 61-62 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Duckworth v. Duckworth
“Oregon circuit courts have subject matter jurisdiction to decide title disputes.” While circuit courts “are free to resolve title disputes in FED actions,” they “are not necessarily required to.” See Bunch v. Lowry, 313 Or App 398, 399 n 1 (2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
State v. Horton
“Whether a plain error occurred does not turn on the law at the time of trial, but rather depends on the law at the time of the appellate decision.” State v. McKinney/Shiffer, 369 Or 325, 333 (2022). “[N]ot instructing the jury on a mental-state requirement for the value element of criminal mischief is plain error.” See State v. Morales, 326 Or App 177, 181 (2023); State v. Waterman, 319 Or App 695, 702 (2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Dept. of Human Services v. C. H.
“[I]n determining whether DHS made reasonable efforts, we consider a parent’s lack of cooperation, but we evaluate such lack of cooperation within the context of DHS’s conduct and the case circumstances.” Dept. of Human Services v. R.W., 277 Or App 37, 44 (2016). “In determining whether the parent has made sufficient progress, the juvenile court gives the highest priority to a child’s health and welfare.” Dept. of Human Services v. M. K., 285 Or App 448, 460, rev den, 361 Or 885 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Shepard Investment Group LLC v. Ormandy
When a landlord violates procedural conditions to utilize pass-through billing, a tenant may recover “an amount equal to one month’s periodic rent or twice the amount wrongfully charged to the tenant, whichever is greater.” ORS 90.315(4)(f).
Area(s) of Law:- Landlord Tenant
State v. Koelzer
Under ORS 809.235(1)(b), a person’s driving privileges shall be permanently revoked “if the person is convicted for a third or subsequent time of driving while under the influence of intoxicants in violation of ORS 813.010 or its “statutory counterpart” in another jurisdiction.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Calef v. Employment Department
“An individual shall be eligible to receive a payment of disaster unemployment assistance with respect to a week of unemployment if: (i) the individual is not eligible for compensation (as defined in § 625.2(d)) for such week under any other Federal or State law, except that an individual determined ineligible because of the receipt of disqualifying income shall be considered eligible for such compensation." 20 CFR section 625.4(i).
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
K.E.B. v. Bradley
"In sum, to renew a FAPA restraining order, it is no longer necessary for the trial court to find an ‘imminent danger of further abuse.’”
Area(s) of Law:- Family Abuse Prevention Act
State v. Hampton
Only crimes directly listed by name under subsection (1) of ORS 137.717 meet the criteria for disqualifying a defendant from a downward depature in sentencing under ORS 137.717(6)(a).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Moore
A defendant is guilty of second-degree disorderly conduct under ORS 166.025(1)(d) as long as there is a risk of causing public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm. State v. Hund, 76 Or App 89, 91-92, 708 P2d 621 (1985), rev den, 300 Or 477 (1986).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Craven and Craven
Marital assets are subject to a statutory presumption of equal contribution. ORS 107.105(1)(f)(C).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
DeHart v. Tofte
Under ORS 31.150, a defendant can succeed on an anti-SLAPP motion to strike after demonstrating that the defendant’s actions were in furtherance of free speech that related to a matter of public interest and that the plaintiffs had not provided evidence to support a prima facie case for their claim.
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
Fields v. City of Newport
Landowners who grant public access to their land for recreational use are immune from liability for injury that “arises out of the use of the land for recreational purposes.” ORS 105.682(1). “The activity of crossing a parcel of land, by itself, is not a recreational purpose.” Liberty v. State Dept. of Transportation, 342 Or 11, 21-22 (2006).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
IBEW Local 89 v. Wallan
ORS 183.480(1) allows “any person adversely affected or aggrieved by an order” to seek judicial review if they can show one or more of the following: (1) the petitioner has “suffered an injury to a substantial interest resulting directly from the challenged governmental action”; (2) the petitioner “seeks to further an interest that the legislature expressly wished to have considered”; or (3) the petitioner has “such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure concrete adverseness to the proceeding.” People for Ethical Treatment v. Inst. Animal Care, 312 Or 95, 101-02 (1991).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Mandell v. Miller
To obtain relief, petitioners must establish that there was a “substantial denial” of their constitutional rights in the proceedings that resulted in their conviction. ORS 138.530(1)(a).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Rinne v. Psychiatric Security Review Board
“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). Substantial reason exists where the agency has articulated a rational connection between the facts and the legal conclusion that the agency draws from them. Dorn v. Teacher Standards and Practices Comm., 316 Or App 241, 243 (2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
State v. Little
Probable cause has two components: (1) at the time of the stop, the officer must subjectively believe that a violation has occurred; and (2) that belief must be objectively reasonable under the circumstances. State v. Derby, 301 Or App 134, 138 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Traffic Infractions
State v. Rockafellor
The Confrontation Clause is “primarily concerned with ensuring the reliability of evidence offered by witnesses, and ensuring that a defendant and jury have adequate access to witnesses … [n]o element of the right to confrontation promises the defendant that his entire face will be literally seen.” Furthermore, “[w]hen an inherently prejudicial security measure is at issue, a trial court must make a determination that such restraints are justified by a state interest specific to that particular trial.” Deck v. Missouri, 544 US 622, 629 (2005); State v. Guzek, 358 Or 251, 263 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
State v. An Ngoc Le
“Evidence used ‘to demonstrate the sexual predisposition’ of a defendant towards a ‘particular victim’ is admissible ‘to show the sexual inclination of [the] defendant towards the victim.’” State v. McKay, 309 Or 305, 308, 787 P2d 479 (1990). The factors to be considered in determining whether a sentence would be unconstitutionally disproportionate are: “(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; (3) the criminal history of the defendant.” State v. Rodriguez/Buck, 437 Or 46, 58, 217 P2d 659 (2009).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law