Bacon v. Cain
To succeed on a claim of inadequate assistance of counsel under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution, the petitioner must show by a preponderance of the evidence facts demonstrating that (1) counsel failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment, and (2) counsel’s failure had a tendency to affect the result of his trial. Montez v. Czerniak, 355 Or 1, 7 (2014).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Dept. of Human Services v. T.M.M.
Under ORS 419B.500, the Court’s de novo standard for review of termination cases, “we must be persuaded by the evidence that it is highly probable that termination of mother’s parental rights is in [the children’s] best interest.” Dept. of Human Services v. T.L.M.H., 294 Or App 749, 750 (2018), rev den, 365 Or 556 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Mayes v. Ramos
A party may recover fees associated with litigating an attorney fee award, unless “the legislature intended to depart from that accepted practice.” Trimet v. Aizawa, 362 Or 1, 14 (2017); see ORCP 68 (denoting procedure for recovering supplemental attorney fees).
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
State v. Montgomery
Counsel may not express a personal opinion of the witness’s credibility. State v. Sperou, 365 Or 121, 135 (2019); Heroff v. Coursey, 280 Or App 177, 194 (2016), rev den, 360 Or 851 (2017). “Evidence of a victim’s collateral sexual activity is not admissible to show consent to the sexual activity that is the subject of an alleged crime.” State v. Beeler, 166 Or App 275, 285 (2000), rev den, 331 Or 244 (2000).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Rose
An out-of-jurisdiction offense is a “statutory counterpart” of Oregon DUII only if the elements of the defendant’s prior convictions are the close equivalent, or “match,” the elements of the Oregon offense. State v. Nelson, 318 Or App 230, 231 (2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Blain v. Cain
“In the posture of a post-conviction proceeding . . . a petitioner must establish a denial of rights of constitutional magnitude ‘in the proceedings resulting in [the] petitioner’s conviction.’” ORS 138.530(1)(a).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. Brown
“[A] court errs in failing to instruct the jury that the state bears the burden to disprove [a] defense where defendant puts it at issue." See State v. Abram, 273 Or App 449, 456 (2015); ORS 161.055(1) (The State has the burden of proof of disproving a defense beyond a reasonable doubt.); ORCP 59 B (Trial Court must instruct jury of all matters of law necessary to reach its verdict.).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Trunorth Warranty Plans of North Am., LLC v. DCBS
"Determining the intended meaning of a statute is a question of law." DCBS v. Muliro, 359 Or 736, 742 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Business Law
Albrecht v. Emmert
"[C]ourts of record within their respective jurisdictions shall have power to declare rights, status, and other legal relations, whether or not further relief is or could be claimed." ORS 28.010. "The purpose of [a declaratory action] is to settle and to afford relief from uncertainty and insecurity with respect to rights, status and other legal relations, and is to be liberally construed and administered." ORS 28.120.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Esquire Investments, Inc. v. Summers
“Preservation rules are pragmatic as well as prudential. What is required of a party to adequately present a contention to the trial court can vary depending on the nature of the claim or argument; the touchstone in that regard, ultimately, is procedural fairness to the parties and to the trial court.” Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209, 220 (2008).
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
Wolfston v. Eastside Bend, LLC.
ORS 36.705(1)(a) states: “the court shall vacate an award made in the arbitration proceeding if … [t]he award was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means.”
Area(s) of Law:- Arbitration
Yoshida v. Watson
“A motion [for an order declaring that a money award has been satisfied] . . . must include . . . [t]he date or dates and amounts of any payments on the money award. . . . [and a]ny amount that the person believes remains to be paid.” ORS 18.235(3)(c), (d).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
Blakeley v. Quality Loan Service Corp. of WA
ORS 86.797(2) plainly bars “an action for a deficiency” against “the grantor, the grantor’s successor in interest, or another person obligated on” the relevant note; however, given the text and context of the statute, that does not encompass a nonjudicial or judicial foreclosure of a trust deed.
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
Cazun v. State
When it is “truly clear” that removal from this country will result from a guilty plea, a trial counsel must advise a client that deportation is presumptively mandatory. Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 US 356, 369, (2010)
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Person v. Board of Parole
“[T]o grant parole consideration under ORS 144.228 (1987), the board must find that the person’s severe personality disorder indicating a propensity toward continuing dangerous criminal activity is absent or in remission.”
Area(s) of Law:- Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
State v. Babcock
State v. Chitwood established that a prosecutor's comments must be "so prejudicial" that any sue sponte instruction by the court would be insufficient to safeguard a defendant's right to a fair trial.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Durant
Improper yet curable statements are not subject to plain error review as “the defendant was not denied a fair trial.” State v. Durant, 327 Or. App. 363, 365 (2023).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Humphrey
"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. Humphrey, 327 Or.App. 344, 348 (2023).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
City of Salem v. Stadeli
The firefighter’s presumption is a rebuttable presumption that employment contributed to the employee's condition or injury. It shifts the burden of production and persuasion onto the employer. To rebut the presumption, the employer must show that the employee’s work was not a fact in consequence “of any amount” in causing the employee’s condition. City of Salem v. Stadeli, 327 Or App 396, __P3d__ (2023). The employer will generally have to “un[-]persuade[]” a tribunal that work was a fact in consequence to the employee’s condition. Id.
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law