Oregon Supreme Court (4 summaries)
State v. Chapman
ORS 19.260(1)(a)(B) provides that "the date of filing a notice appeal is the date of mailing or dispatch if the notice is mailed or dispatched by a class of delivery within three calendar days and the party filing notice has proof of the mailing or dispatch date."
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
State v. Ciraulo
“[I]nstructing the jury that it could return a non-unanimous guilty verdict [is] not structural error [w]here a jury poll reveals that the jury unanimously found the defendant guilty of the charged offense[s], the nonunanimous jury instruction [can] be held harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Flores Ramos, 367 Or 292, 319-20 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Chernaik v. Brown
The public trust doctrine, a common law doctrine, applies to “navigable waterways” and the lands below such waterways, capable of expanding to include natural resources.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
City of Damascus v. State of Oregon
ORS 221.610 and ORS 221.621 set out the requirements for elections. Additionally, a legislature may pass a retroactive law unless it impairs a right of contract or vested right, and home rule provisions provide that cities may supply the manner of utilizing the initiative and referendum powers as to their municipal legislation.
Area(s) of Law:- Municipal Law
Oregon Court of Appeals (19 summaries)
State v. Emerine
For the court to order restitution, “the record must support a nonspeculative inference that there is a causal relationship between the defendant’s criminal activities and the victim’s economic damages.” State v. Akerman, 278 Or App 486, 490 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. McConnell
"A trial court’s pretrial ruling is reviewed for abuse of discretion." State v. Pitt, 352 Or 566, 573-74 (2012).
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
State v. Taylor
During a traffic stop, an officer is precluded from asking investigatory questions that are unrelated to the original purpose of the investigation and “without independent constitutional justification.” State v. Arreola-Botello, 365 Or 695, 712 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Hallam
During a traffic stop, an officer is precluded from asking investigatory questions that are "unrelated to the original purpose of the investigation" and “without independent constitutional justification.” State v. Arreola-Botello, 365 Or 695, 712 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Neal v. Behind the Gates, LLC, et al.
A bankruptcy petition operates as a stay of “the commencement [...] of a judicial [...] proceeding against the debtor[.]” 11 USC §362(a)(1), without exception.
Area(s) of Law:- Bankruptcy Law
Ekloff v. Persson
Four Ramsey considerations a post-conviction court may review to determine whether to allow amendment are: “(1) the nature of the proposed amendments and their relationship to the existing pleadings; (2) the prejudice, if any, to the opposing party; (3) the timing of the proposed amendments and related docketing concerns; and (4) the colorable merit of the proposed amendments.” Eklof v. Persson, 307 Or App 585, 589 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. Pierce
Under OEC 611, a trial court may exercise discretion to “reasonably control the presentation of evidence” but that discretion is not fundamentally fair if the court “effectively prevent[s] a party from presenting his or her case.”
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Bradley
Under ORS 161.067(3), a sufficient pause “occurs when there is a temporary or brief cessation of a defendant’s criminal conduct that occurs between repeated violations and is so marked in scope or quality that it affords a defendant the opportunity to renounce his [...] criminal intent.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. LGS-S
[T]he State was required by ORS 419C.450 to present its restitution evidence before the court concluded the adjudicatory hearing.” State v. L.G.S.-S., 307 Or App 208, 212 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Vierria
Where a defendant is deprived of otherwise available options for reducing the burden associated with paying mandatory fees due to the court’s imposition of those fees outside the defendant’s presence, the error is not harmless. See, e.g., State v. Postlethwait, 303 Or App 163, 164, 459 P3d 964, rev den, 366 Or 827 (2020)
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Zook
ORS 813.225(4) provides, “[t]he court may grant a petition for an extension [...] if the court finds that the defendant made a good faith effort to complete the conditions of the diversion agreement and that the defendant can complete the conditions of the diversion agreement within the requested extended diversion period.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Warren v. Smart Choice Payments, Inc.
“A partially integrated writing supersedes or discharges all prior agreements, written or oral, to the extent that the prior agreements are inconsistent with the partial integration.” Warren v. Smart Choice Payments, Inc., 306 Or App 634, 640 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
State v. M.J.F.
For a person to be found a danger to self under ORS 426.005(1)(f), they must have a mental disorder, and as a result, that disorder causes them to engage in behavior likely to result in harm to self in the near future. A present intent to commit suicide coupled with actions demonstrating that the mental disorder has resulted in harm to self is sufficient to show a danger to self.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
Golik v. CBS Corp.
Under ORCP 64 B(2), “[a] former judgment may be set aside and a new trial granted in an action where there has been [jury trial] on the motion of the party aggrieved for [...] causes materially affecting the substantial rights of such party: [m]isconduct of the jury or prevailing party.”
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Granberg
“Jurisdiction [over a defendant] does not attach until there is an indictment, preliminary hearing, or knowing waiver.” State v. Keys, 302 Or App 514, 526 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Hardegger v. Amsberry
The possibility of a murder review hearing by the parole board [...] years in the future is not a constitutionally adequate substitute for the consideration of youth at the time of sentencing. State v. Link, 27 Or App 126, 158 (2019)
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. Kini
If business records are ever admitted without implicating a defendant’s confrontation rights, the admissibility will be limited to those records that reflect only facts and not any types of opinions, exercises of judgment, or investigative facts that trigger the confrontation right.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Torres v. Persson
“To obtain relief on a claim of inadequate assistance of counsel, petitioner must establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that petitioner's trial counsel did not exercise the professional skill and judgment required by Article I, Section 11, of the Oregon Constitution and that petitioner suffered prejudice as a result."
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Couey v. Clarno
ORS 250.048(10) restricts conduct, not expression, and therefore is not subject to a challenge for facial invalidity under Article I, sections 8 and 26