Dept. of Human Services v. R.F.
“The court may grant the motion for intervention if the person moving to intervene in the case proves by a preponderance of the evidence that: (A) A caregiver relationship exists between the person and the child or ward; (B) The intervention is in the best interests of the child or ward; (C) The reason for intervention and the specific relief sought are consistent with the best interests of the child or ward; and (D) The existing parties cannot adequately present the case.” ORS 419B.116(5)(c)(A) - (D)
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Doe v. The First Christian Church of the Dalles, Oregon
OEC 609(1) provides: “For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted if elicited from the witness or established by public record, but only if the crime: (a) Was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year under the law under which the witness was convicted; or (b) Involved false statement or dishonesty.”
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
M.C. v. Quest Global, Inc.
For Oregon to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a defendant, there must be “minimum contacts’’ between the defendant and Oregon. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 US 286, 291-92, 100 S Ct 559, 62 L ED 2d 490 (1980).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Johnson
Stalking occurs if a person “knowingly alarms or coerces another person or a member of that person’s immediate family or household by engaging in repeated and unwanted contact with the other person; [i]t is objectively reasonable for a person in the victim’s situation to have been alarmed or coerced by the contact; and [t]he repeated and unwanted contact causes the victim reasonable apprehension regarding the personal safety of the victim or a member of the victim’s immediate family or household.” ORS 163.732(1)(a)-(c). Under State v. Rangel, 328 Or 294, 303 (1999), a qualifying threat must “instill[] in the addressee a fear of imminent and serious personal violence from the speaker.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Joseph
OEC 803(18a)(b) provides, in part, that: “A statement made by a person concerning an act of abuse as defined in ORS 107.705 or 419B.005, is not excluded by ORS 40.455 if the declarant either testifies at the proceeding and is subject to cross-examination, or is unavailable as a witness but was chronologically or mentally under 12 years of age when the statement was made.”
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Keck
To establish that an officer had reasonable suspicion, “[a] court (1) must find that the officer actually suspected that the stopped person had committed a specific crime or type of crime or was about to commit a specific crime or type of crime, and (2) must conclude, based on the record, that the officer[’s] subjective belief was objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances existing at the time of the stop.” State v. Maciel-Figueroa, 361 Or 163, 182, 189 P3d 1121 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. McIntire
“[T]here is a critical difference * * * between arguing to the trial court as factfinder that it should be persuaded to decide the case in a particular way and arguing to the court as legal decisionmaker that only one outcome is permitted as a matter of law.” State v. M.D.M., 320 Or. App. 394, 396 (2022) (emphasis in original).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
DHS v. A.C.S.G.
“An appeal is moot when a decision will no longer ‘have a practical effect on the rights of the parties[,]" and DHS has that burden of proof. Dept. of Human Services v. G.D.W., 292 P3d 548 (2012). Under ORS 419B.639(2)(a), DHS is only required to send notice of the first scheduled hearing, and any subsequent hearing scheduled to accommodate a request for an extension does not require a new notice.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Coy
“[T]he appropriate time to challenge the existence of the conditions precedent to the issuance of the citation is in a pretrial motion aimed at the efficacy of the charging instrument.” State v. King, 199 Or App 278, 285, rev den, 339 Or 544 (2005).
Area(s) of Law:- Traffic Infractions
State v. H.D.
A court may order a conditional release of a person with mental illness only if the release is requested by the legal guardian, relative or friend of the person who requested to be allowed to care for the person “during the period of commitment in a place satisfactory to the judge,” and who has the ability and adequate financial resources to care for the person. ORS 426.125(1)(a)-(c).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
State v. H.D.
A two-year conditional release agreement, the breaking of which may lead to involuntary commitment, does not comport with ORS 426.130(2) which requires that “[a]ny period of commitment [...] or conditional release under this section shall be for a period of time not to exceed 180 days."
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
Woods v. Hendricks
“Except as provided in ORS 137.635, 137.700, 137.707, 163.105, 163.107 and 163.115, each adult in custody sentenced to the custody of the Department of Corrections for felonies is eligible for a reduction in the term of incarceration for: (a) appropriate institutional behavior, as defined by rule of the Department of Corrections; and (b) participation in the adult basic skills development program described in ORS 421.084.” ORS 421.121.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Martin v. Kelly
Claims that trial counsel failed to provide adequate representation requires evidence that counsel's efforts were (1) constitutionally inadequate, and (2) prejudicial. Trujillo v. Maas, 312 Or 431, 435 (1991).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Newton v. Kelly
A post-conviction claim of actual innocence requires an "exacting standard of proof" from the defendant. Reeves v. Nooth, 432 P3d 1105 (2018). Defense counsel does not render inadequate assistance just because they did not predict that the United States Supreme Court would later decide that conviction by a nonunanimous jury was unconstitutional. Smith v. Kelly, 508 P3d 77 (2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
ODOT v. Pacific Indemnity Co.
The “four corners” rule imposes a duty to defend when the complaint alleges facts, if proved true, which would impose liability covered by the policy. See West Hills Development Co. v. Chartis Claims, 360 Or 650, 653 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Insurance Law
Peeler v. Reyes
Under federal law, “absent misrepresentation or other impermissible conduct by state agents … a voluntary plea of guilty intelligently made in the light of then applicable law does not become vulnerable because later judicial decisions indicate that the plea rested on a faulty premise.” Brady v. United States, 397 US 742, 756-57 (1970).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Ricard v. Klamath Falls Forest Estates Homeowners' Association
Plaintiffs alleging housing discrimination must either show “direct evidence of discriminatory intent” or indirect evidence such that a reasonable factfinder could infer discriminatory intent, like similarly situated individuals not in the protected class claimed by plaintiff treated differently. See Miller v. Racing Commission, 298 Or App 70, 90 (2019); Groshong v. Mutual of Enumclaw Ins. Co., 143 Or App 450, 457 (1996), aff’d, 329 Or 303 (1999).
Area(s) of Law:- Disability Law
State v. Sell
A fair trial is one in which “the verdict is based on the evidence and not on factors external to the proof at trial.” State v. Osorno, 264 Or App 742, 748 (2014). When a defendant claims that the jury could not follow instructions, the defendant must show an “overwhelming probability” that the jury failed to do so. State v. Garrett, 292 Or App 860, 868 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Wall v. Ash
Generally, “for a judgment to effect a preclusion of further litigation [...] it must be a final judgment ‘on the merits.’ ” Rennie v. Freeway Transport, 294 Or 319, 330 (1982). When parties sign a settlement agreement and the Plaintiff dismisses the underlying action with prejudice, that judgment does not automatically preclude further litigation.
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
Marks v. L.C.D.C.
The IGAs are likely to have a significant impact on land use in Stafford and the surrounding area within the meaning of the significant impact test due to the control over expansion of the UGB and timing of concept planning. See, e.g., Hemstreet v. Seaside Improvement Commission, 93 Or App 73, 75, 761 P2d 533 (1988) (articulating significant impact test).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Mouktabis v. Clackamas County
ORS 31.150 provides a mechanism for a defendant to move to strike certain nonmeritorious claims predicated on speech and petitioning activity potentially entitled to constitutional protection.” Tokarski v. Wildfang, 313 Or App 19, 21, 496 P3d 22, rev den, 368 Or 788 (2021). Accordingly, reports to the police about whether court orders are being violated are "matters of public interest" under ORS 31.150(2)(d) because they implicate public safety and effective governance.
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
State v. Forbes
Special conditions of probation must be “reasonably related to the crime of conviction or the needs of the probationer for the protection of the public or reformation of the probationer[.]” ORS 137.540(2). “We will not hold that a probation condition is invalid simply because we can posit an alternative ‘more narrowly tailored’ condition.” State v. Maack, 270 Or App 400, 411 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Miller
“Vouching refers to the expression of one’s personal opinion about the credibility of a witness.” State v. Chandler, 360 Or 323, 330-31 (2016) (internal quotations omitted). “Credibility determinations are the exclusive province of the jury, so witnesses are categorically prohibited from expressing a view on whether another witness is telling the truth.” State v. Middleton, 294 Or 427, 438 (1983) (internal quotations omitted).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence