Adam Froehlich

United States Supreme Court (4 summaries)

Nance v. Ward

Prisoners may maintain method-of-execution challenges under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, even if their proposed alternative method is not authorized by state law.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Rights § 1983

George v. McDonough

A change in law does not constitute “clear and unmistakable error” of the sort that will allow collateral relief from a final Veterans Affairs benefit decision under 38 U.S.C. § 7111.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Guam v. United States

Contribution actions under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) may be pursued only after settlement of a “CERCLA-specific liability.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Environmental Law

Ford Motor Company v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, et al.

There need not be a causal relationship between a defendant’s conduct in a forum and a claim to establish specific personal jurisdiction.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Oregon Supreme Court (1 summary)

State v. Naudain

Under OEC 401, evidence of a third-party’s racial bias is relevant where it bears a “logical relationship” to, and tends to show a witness’s own views.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Oregon Court of Appeals (37 summaries)

Wave Form Systems, Inc. v. Hanscom

Under Aguire v. Albertson’s, 201 Or App 31 (2005) and Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 26(1)(a), parties that acquiesce to a split claim “waive[] the ability to assert the defense of claim preclusion[,]” even in the context of sequential proceedings.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Albany & Eastern Railroad Company v. Martell

Under Halperin v. Pitts, 352 Or 482 (2012) and the statute’s structure, ORS 20.080(2) permits attorney fee awards to defendants prevailing on equitable counterclaims, provided other requirements of the statute are met.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

I.R.S. v. Hanington

The definition of abuse in the Elderly Persons and Persons with Disabilities Abuse Prevention Act is not constitutionally overbroad and does not require construction applying a heightened standard as in State v. Rangel, 328 Or 294 (1999).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

State v. Haley

Under State v. Macon, 249 Or App 260 (2012), whether a particular space is a “building” under ORS 164.215 depends “on whether the area was self-contained from its parent building, including secure physical access, separate function, and separate occupation."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Durocher and Durocher

An expert witness’ testimony may be excluded when the witness’s evaluation was not conducted in compliance with the trial court’s order on the subject, even if the testimony is otherwise admissible.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. B.Y.

Juvenile courts lack the authority to impose consecutive commitments. Juvenile courts, like adult courts, do not possess the unlimited authority to impose consecutive commitments.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

State v. Madden

Physical restraint without an officer safety justification, regardless of duration, coupled with circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to understand they were not free to leave, convert a stop into an arrest.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Jackson

“[T]he doctrine of chances, standing alone, is insufficient to make evidence * * * relevant[,]” and requires separate linkage that does not rely on prohibited inferences to the State’s proof of a material fact.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Wilsonville Subaru v. City of Wilsonville

Under Wilsonville City Code 11.040(5)(e), developers may request alternative calculations of system development charges based on special or unique factors while the development is “in the process of receiving city approval.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Municipal Law

Block v. DEA Properties-2 LLC

Under Miller v. Jones, 256 Or App 392 (2013) and Jantzen Beach Associates v. Jantzen Dynamic Corp., 200 Or App 457 (2005), an appurtenant easement gives the owner of the dominant estate a benefit by virtue of their ownership of the land, is transferred with the land, and is not severable from the ownership of the land.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Property Law

Kurtz v. Cain

Under State v. Walker, 350 Or 540 (2011), counsel need not engage in detailed, comprehensive analysis in order to “put all on notice about the nature of a party’s arguments” and preserve issues for appeal.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Post-Conviction Relief

State v. Dickey

Under ORS 153.042(1), an enforcement officer may issue a citation only for conduct occurring in their presence and not the presence of another officer.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Barnes & Brennan

Under State v. Saunders, 294 Or App 102 (2018), “when a party has invited the trial court to rule in a certain way under circumstances suggesting that the party will be bound by the ruling or * * * will not later seek a reversal in the basis of that ruling” the party cannot then complain based on that invited error.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

Markstrom v. Guard Publishing Co.

Under Laack v. Botello, 314 Or App 268 (2021), without statutory authorization courts lack the inherent authority required to strike pleadings or claims, which ORS 1.010 does not provide. Under ORCP 46, a court may impose sanctions only for the narrowly described conduct contained in the rule.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

State v. J.D.

Under State v. J.G., 302 Or App 97 (2020) and State v. Bodell, 120 Or App 548 (1993), a person can be found “dangerous to others” for purposes of ORS 426.005(1)(f)(A) based on verbal threats without acts of violence “if the evidence provides a foundation for predicting future violent behavior.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Commitment

State v. Schumacher

Under State v. Veatch, 223 OR App 444 (2008), testimonial “[r]eference to a defendant’s exercise of a constitutional right” from which a jury is likely to infer guilt “jeopardizes the right to a fair trial[,]” particularly when it goes uncured.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Perrodin

Under State v. Jennings, 220 Or App 1 (2008) and State v. Dodge, 223 Or App 130 (2008), when a defendant challenges an arrest based on a facial deficiency to a warrant, the state must either produce the warrant or defend the arrest as a valid warrantless arrest supported by probable cause.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Dalbeck v. Bi-Mart Corp.

Under ORS 659A.403, places of public accommodation may not discriminate against anyone aged 18 or older based on their age unless there is a statute expressly allowing such discrimination.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

State v. Buell

Under State v. Korth, 269 Or App 238 (2015), a defendant charged with theft-by-receiving must have particularized knowledge or believe that the goods are stolen and “[p]ossession [of] or proximity to stolen goods * * * does not, on its own, allow for a finding that a person actually knows or believes that they are stolen.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Johnson v. Premo

Witness testimony not provided to the trier of fact could have a tendency to affect the verdict even if the testimony only coincides with other evidence.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Post-Conviction Relief

Walker v. Oregon Travel Information Council

Under Greist v. Phillips, 322 Or 281, 295, 906 P2d 798 (1995), factual findings made by a jury do not prevent a court from making different factual findings in a separate matter in equity.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Khalaf v. Department of Revenue

Under Rev. Rul. 75-538, 1975-2 C.B. 34 (1975), “[a] taxpayer engaged in the trade or business of selling motor vehicles is presumed to hold all such vehicles primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of the taxpayer’s trade or business.” Under Estate of Reynolds v. Commissioner, 55 TC 172 (1970), “Transactions within a family group are * * * presume[ed] * * * gift[s].”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tax Law

State v. Kragt

“[A] trial court must impose a [post-prison supervision] term for each violation of the statutes listed in ORS 144.103(1).”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Parole and Post-Prison Supervision

Birchall v. Miller

Under Nordbye v. BCRP/GM Ellington, 271 Or App 168 (2015), a "potential claim for prevailing-party based attorney fees" cannot support a forcible entry and detainer case where there is no longer a live dispute about possessory rights.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Landlord Tenant

Kyei v. Division of Child Support

An order terminating existing license suspensions stemming from a child support judgment does not prevent future child support enforcement orders.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

State v. Anderson

Under OEC 608, “split reputation evidence is admissible” because it “permits reputation evidence for ‘truthfulness or untruthfulness.’"

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Simmons

Under State v. Nicholson, 282 Or App 51 (2016), “[a] defendant who acts based on a good faith belief that a judicial order has been dismissed cannot be deemed to have acted [willfully]” within the meaning of ORS 33.015(2).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Nelson v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company

Under Pfaendler v. Bruce, 195 Or App 561 (2004), a duty to speak giving rise to estoppel by silence develops when “the party to speak against whom estoppel is urged knows or should know that the failure to speak will likely mislead the other party to act to his or her detriment.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Contract Law

Sherertz v. Brownstein, Rask, Sweeney, Kerr, Grim, Desylvia, & Hay, LLP

Under Hale v. Groce, 304 Or 281, an attorney is liable for economic losses to a third party beneficiary only where the attorney made “an actual promise to [a] client * * * to achieve a particular objective that will benefit [the] specified third party.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

State v. Martin

Under State v. Jackson, 268 Or App 139, a person is unconstitutionally seized when an officer communicates to the person that they are the subject of an investigation “that could result in the person’s citation or arrest at that time and place” without reasonable suspicion that the person violated the law.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Ritter

Under State v. Cannon, 299 Or App 616 (2019), probable cause to search one device for child pornography does not categorically extend to other devices owned by the same individual.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Pringle Square, LLC v. Berrey Family, LLC

Equitable doctrines do not apply to legal claims made by defendants in interpleader actions.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

E.H. v. Byrne

“A brief period of consensual kissing” does not establish a “sexually intimate relationship” for the purposes of a sexual abuse protective order. Under ORS 163.765(1), whether a person reasonably fears for their personal safety is determined by examining the totality of the circumstances and does not require multiple contacts between the parties.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

Housing Land Advocates v. LCDC

Under OAR 660-015-0000(14), the totality of the circumstances may be considered when determining whether a local government has taken steps to “reasonably accommodate” housing needs within an existing urban growth boundary.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

State v. Peek

Under State v. Sholedice/Smith, 364 Or 146, 162 (2018), removing “property obstructing a public thoroughfare” outside the owner’s presence does not interfere with the owner’s property rights to constitute a seizure. Under State v. Faulkner, 102 Or App 417, 420-21 (1990), using a flashlight to see what one could otherwise see in daylight does not constitute a search.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Paye

Under ORS 161.067, when a conviction is predicated on an ongoing course of conduct, other charges involving the same conduct in the same period must merge unless otherwise barred by statute.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Oregon Racing, Inc. v. Oregon State Lottery

Under ORS 167.117(21)(b), the terms "house bank" and "house income" encompass their ordinary meanings. Operating a "house bank" includes keeping, selling, and redeeming chips, and "house income" includes income related to securing the premises and soliciting players.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Business Law

Land Use Board of Appeals (1 summary)

Oregon Coast Alliance et al v. City of Florence

Under ORS 197.830(9) and OAR 661-010-0015(l)(a), notices of intent to appeal land use decisions must be filed within 21 days after the decision becomes final, or in the case of post-acknowledgment plan amendments (PAPA), 21 days after notice of the decision is mailed, unless a different local rule applies.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Back to Top