Oregon Supreme Court (1 summary)
Sloan v. Providence Health System-Oregon
"Even when a special relationship is the basis for the duty of care owed by one person to another . . . if the special relationship does not prescribe a particular scope of duty, then ‘common law principles of reasonable care and foreseeability of harm are relevant.’” Oregon Steel Mills, Inc. v. Coopers & Lybrand, LLP, 336 Or 329, 342, 83 P3d 322 (2004).
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
Oregon Court of Appeals (19 summaries)
Braun and Braun
“When a party seeks modification or termination of spousal support, the trial court ‘must determine whether there has been a substantial, unanticipated change in the economic circumstances since the time of the earlier award.’” Davis and Lallement, 287 Or App 323, 327-328, 401 P3d 1230 (2017). “If there has been, the trial court ‘must determine what amount of support is just and equitable under the totality of the circumstances.’” Id. at 328.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. Phillips
To determine whether circumstances are compelling for purposes of Miranda warnings, the court asks “whether the questioning occurred in a police-dominated atmosphere.” State v. Turnidge, 359 Or 364, 402, 374 P3d 853 (2016), cert den, 137 S Ct 665 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Porter v. Veenhuisen
If an action is first filed within the statute of limitations and then “involuntarily dismissed without prejudice on any ground not adjudicating the merits of the action,” a new action based on the same claim or claims may be filed within 180 days of the trial court’s entry of the judgment of dismissal of the original action, notwithstanding that the statute of limitations has run during the interim. ORS 12.220.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Spieler
“The ‘court’s speaking verdict and other comments must be considered in context, taking into account the circumstances in which the court made its observations.’” State v. Reed, 299 Or App 675, 689, 452 P3d 995 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Dept. of Human Services v. V. A. R.
To change W’s permanency plan from reunification to placement with a fit and willing relative under ORS 419B.476, the juvenile court was required to determine (1) that DHS made reasonable efforts to reunify W with his mother, and (2) that mother’s progress was not sufficient to allow reunification. Dept. of Human Services v. L.L.S., 290 Or App 132, 137-138, 413 P3d 1005 (2018). “Reasonable efforts” for purposes of ORS 419B.476(2)(a) are “efforts that focus on ameliorating the adjudicated bases for jurisdiction, and that give ‘parents a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate their ability to adjust their conduct and become minimally adequate parents.’” Id.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Dept. of Human Services v. C. M. W.
"A parent raising an inadequate-assistance claim bears the burden of proving 'not only that trial counsel was inadequate, but also that the inadequacy prejudiced the parent's rights to the extent that the merits of the juvenile court's decision are called into serious question.'" Dept. of Human Services v. M. E., 297 Or App 233, 245, 441 P3d 713 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Dept. of Human Services v. C. M. D.
If a compelling reason exists to determine that filing a petition to terminate parental rights would not be in the child’s best interest, a plan of adoption cannot be continued. Dept. of Human Services v. M.H., 258 Or App 83, 85, 308 P3d 311 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Baccaro
A trial court erred by imposing a probation violation fee pursuant to statute in the written judgment when the fee was not announced in defendant’s presence. State v. Hillman, 293 Or App 231, 426 P3d 249 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Smith
If a detective’s testimony is determined to be scientific evidence, the evidence requires a foundation to show its scientific validity. State v. Plueard, 296 Or App 580, 439 P3d 556, adh’d to as modified on recons, 297 Or App 592, 443 P3d 1195 (2019), and State v. Evensen, 298 Or App 294, 315, 447 P3d 23 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Dept. of Human Services v. K. S. W.
Under the relevant ICWA provisions, “any party seeking to effect a foster care placement of an Indian child shall satisfy the court that ‘active efforts’ have been made to provide services to prevent the breakup of the Indian family, and that those efforts have failed.” 25 USC 1912(d). Under Dept. of Human Services v. J.G., the court explained that when a party seeking placement “has satisfied the court at a prior [permanency] hearing on the placement at issue that active efforts were made and failed . . . the court is not required to make the finding again at a later proceeding. Dept. of Human Services v. J.G., 260 Or App 500, 521, 317 P3d 936 (2014).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Nickles
“[A] confession alone is not sufficient to warrant the conviction of the defendant without some other proof that the crime has been committed.” ORS 136.425(2); see, e.g., State v. Hauskins, 251 Or App 34, 40, 281 P3d 669 (2012).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Reyes
"A person is not a victim within the meaning of [ORS 137.103(4)(a)] unless the person (1) is the one against whom defendant committed the crime and (2) incurred economic damages as a result." State v. White, 299 Or App 165, 168-169 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Cohron v. Board of Parole
ORS 144.335 gives [the Court] jurisdiction to review a “final order” of the board on the petition of a person who is “adversely affected or aggrieved” by the order. ORS 144.335(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
State v. Frischman
When one provision of a warrant is determined to be impermissibly overbroad in the context of a motion to suppress, “the impermissibly overbroad portion of the warrant may be excised, and the balance of the warrant upheld and that only those items seized under the invalid portion of the warrant must be suppressed.” State v. Burnham, 289 Or App 783, 785-786, 412 P3d 1233 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Cave
Under Baughman, failure to first identify whether the evidence was admissible as propensity or nonpropensity evidence, before concluding the OEC 403 balancing test, requires reversal. State v. Baughman, 361 Or 386, 393 P3d 1132 (2017)
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Contreras v. Board of Parole
“Substantial reason *** requires the board to provide ‘some kind of an explanation connecting the facts of the case and the result reached.’” Jenkins v. Board of Parole, 356 Or 186, 188, 335 P3d 828 (2014). Additionally, “if the board’s reasoning is not obvious, its order *** must at least set for the bases for its inferences.” Mendacino v. Board of Parole, 287 Or App 822, 837, 404 P3d 1048 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
Dillard v. Premo
Pursuant to ORS 138.525(4), “[a] dismissal is without prejudice if a meritless petition is dismissed without a hearing and the petitioner was not represented by counsel.”
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. A. S.
Consent is not limited to consent given by the person against whom evidence is offered . . . valid consent can be given by a third party if that person has control over access to or use of the premises or effects to be searched. United States v. Matlock, 415 US 164, 170-171 (1974).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Stavrum v. Tudor
"To preserve an argument, an appellant must 'provide the trial court with an explanation of his or her objection that is specific enough to ensure that the court can identify its alleged error with enough clarity to permit it to consider and correct the error immediately, if correction is warranted.'" State v. Wyatt, 315 Or 335, 343, 15 P3d 22 (2002).
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
Land Use Board of Appeals (24 summaries)
Kimbrell v. City of Lincoln City
Under LCC 14.47.020(D), the required setback from a coastal bluff must be determined before any excavation or grading activities associated with the construction of a single-family dwelling take place.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Dobson v. City of Hines
(1) Under ORS 197.830(9), Notice of Intent to Appeal plan and land use regulation amendments must be filed not later than 21 days after notice of the decision sought to be reviewed is mailed or otherwise submitted to parties entitled to notice under ORS 197.615. (2) Under ORS 197.763, whether the petitioner received notice of a hearing does not affect whether the city mailed it.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Watts v. City of Tualatin
(1) LUBA reviews only the local government’s final written decision and not what individual parties, staff, or members of the decision making body stated during the proceedings. (2) In reviewing a substantial evidence challenge, LUBA's role is not to reweigh the evidence, but rather to determine if a reasonable person, viewing the whole record, could reach the conclusion that the decision maker reached.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
WKL Investments Airport LLC v. City of Lake Oswego
Under ORS 222.750(2), the determination of whether the territory is partially or entirely encompassed by the city’s boundaries is made when the annexation is authorized by the governing body, not when the annexation becomes effective. Thus, different effective dates in one annexation ordinance do not result in an impermissible incremental annexation.Petitioners appeal the city’s annexation of 1.5 acres of property pursuant to ORS 222.750(2). ORS 220.750(2), also known as the island annexation statute, authorizes a city to annex territory that is completely encompassed by a city’s boundaries without the affected property owners’ consent.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Bohan v. City of Portland
Under PCC 33.110.235.C.2, a covered deck that it attached to a dwelling, but not enclosed, can satisfy the minimum outdoor area requirement.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
DLCD v. City of Klamath Falls
In order to amend a UGB, there must be a demonstrated need for land under both of the Goal 14 land-need subsections.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Himmelberger v. City of Portland
LUBA will affirm a decision denying an application as long as there is one valid basis for denial.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Niederer v. City of Albany
(1) Under ORS197.835(9)(a)(B), while political predispositions do not require recusal, statements which demonstrate that an elected official has prejudged a matter such that they are incapable of making a decision based on the evidence and argument before them during the local proceeding may be sufficient to establish bias. (2) While findings need not take a particular form and “no magic words need be employed” in order to be reviewable, they must “establish the factual and legal basis for the particular conclusions drawn in a challenged decision.”
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Estroff v. City of Dundee
(1) Under ORS 197.829(1), LUBA must affirm a governing body’s interpretation of a land use regulation unless the interpretation is implausible, or inconsistent with the express language or purpose of the regulation, and (2) the existence of a stronger or more logical interpretation does not render a weaker or less logical interpretation implausible.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Leyden v. City of Eugene
Under 197.830(5)(b), the 21-day appeal period for zone verification decisions begins either on the date the petitioner is placed on inquiry notice or, if petitioner makes timely inquiries and discovers the decision, on the date the decision is discovered.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Renken v. City of Oregon City
(1) Under OCMC 14.04.060, the city is not limited to considering existing infrastructure at the time of annexation but may also consider future availability of infrastructure improvements to support the development of annexed territory, and (2) the OCMC does not require the city to identify exactly how infrastructure will be paid for as part of annexation decisions.
Area(s) of Law:- Municipal Law
Blu Dutch LLC v. Jackson County
Under LDO 8.7.1(G), a fire safety inspection is not required prior to approving a forest dwelling application unless a fire agency comments on the application and recommends such an inspection prior to development approval and the county makes a finding that such measures are necessary to protect public safety.
Area(s) of Law:- Municipal Law
Fairmount Neighborhood Association v. City of Eugene
EC 9.8325(5) prohibits “grading” on portions of development sites that meet or exceed 20% slope, but it does not prohibit all development, site improvements, or soil disturbance, such as “excavation.”
Area(s) of Law:- Municipal Law
MJAI Oregon 5 LLC v. Linn County
ORS 197.835(10)(a) requires reversal of a denial decision when LUBA determines that the local government lacks the discretion to deny the development application.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Hill v. City of Portland
The city’s determination not to require street improvements for safety reasons under PCC 33.641.020(A) does not mean it cannot impose a condition requiring a waiver of remonstrance under PCC 33.800.070 to enforce PCC 17.88.020 for other reasons.
Area(s) of Law:- Municipal Law
Conte v. City of Eugene
The fact that application requirements may not have been satisfied provides no basis for remand unless the failure to satisfy the requirements resulted in non-compliance with mandatory approval criteria.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Harris v. Marion County
Under MCC 17.136.060(A)(2), it is unclear whether police services are “rural services” for purposes of approving a conditional use permit.
Area(s) of Law:- Municipal Law
City of Albany v. Linn County
OAR 661-010-0071(1)(c) states that LUBA shall reverse a land use decision where the decision “violates a provision of applicable law and is prohibited as a matter of law.” LLC 938.340(B) allows for variances which are “consistent with the city’s comprehensive plan,” LUBA found that this variance was not and it was, therefore, “prohibited as a matter of law.”
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Landwatch Lane County v. Lane County
Where local governments choose to provide an alternative procedure for property line adjustments, the alternative procedure must include local government approval of some kind. Accordingly, a post-hoc approval process is permissible.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Central Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes County
The mere threat of potential litigation against the county is an insufficient basis, under OAR 660-023-0040(4) and (5), and the definition of the ESEE for the county to abandon or disavow a portion of its acknowledged Goal 5 program.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
King v. Deschutes County
Under DCC 18.116.330(B)(10)(a) and (b), the county must find a proposed marijuana production facility will not unreasonably interfere with the neighbor’s use and enjoyment of their property. The finding must be supported by a report from a licensed engineer.
Area(s) of Law:- Municipal Law
Hill v. City of Portland
The width of the local street right-of-way must be sufficient to accommodate expected users, taking into consideration the characteristics of the site and vicinity, such as the existing street and pedestrian system improvements, existing structures, and natural features.
Area(s) of Law:- Municipal Law
Brannon v. Multnomah County
Under MCC 33.2256(B), no reduction of the required Primary Fire Safety Zone is permitted for a nonconforming adjustment or variance.
Area(s) of Law:- Municipal Law
Landwatch Lane County v. Lane County
Continual use of parcel as a school satisfies the requirements of ORS 215.130(5) and LC 16.251(5), establishing a “vested right” to continue previously conforming use which is presently nonconforming.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use