State v. McCarthy
"[W]e overrule Brown's per se exigency rule and hold that, in order to justify a warrantless seizure or search of a vehicle based on exigent circumstances, the state must prove that exigent circumstances actually existed at the time of the seizure or search."
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Whitehead v. Fagan
Article IV, section 1(2)(b) of the Oregon Constitution provides that only signatures of "qualified voters" count towards the number required to propose an initiative law; those qualified voters must "[b]e registered" and be an active voter.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
WaterWatch of Oregon v. Water Resources Dept.
Under ORS 543A.305, when conversion from a hydroelectric water right to an in-stream water right would not injure existing water rights, conversion is required.
Area(s) of Law:- Water Rights
State v. Reyes-Herrera
Article I, section 9, of the Oregon constitution protects the people’s right to move freely in the world, with assurance that their liberty will not be significantly restrained without reasonable suspicion that they engaged in criminal activity.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Belden
The constitutional right to confrontation requires the State to exhaust “all reasonably available means of producing the witness,” under “the circumstances of the individual case.” State v. Harris, 362 Or 55, 66–67, 404 P3d 926 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence