Olivia Van Wey

Oregon Supreme Court (2 summaries)

State v. Henderson

“A person commits the crime of burglary ‘if the person enters or remains unlawfully in a building with intent to commit a crime therein.’” ORS 164.215(1) (emphasis added).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Dept. of Human Services v. J.C.

“The plain text of ORS. 419B.366(6)…establishes two ways a general guardianship can end: when the court terminates the guardianship pursuant to ORS 419B.368 or when the court’s jurisdiction over the ward ends pursuant to ORS 419B.328.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

Oregon Court of Appeals (49 summaries)

State v. Dennis

“A criminal defendant has a right to be present at sentencing. We have repeatedly held that a trial court errs when it imposes fines or fees in a written judgment that it did not pronounce at sentencing.” State v. Baccaro 300 Or App 131, 137, 452 P3d 1022 (2019); State v. Coghill, 298 Or App 818, 819, 448 P3d 1195 (2019).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

State v. Fry

“We may affirm a trial court ruling on an alternative basis that was not raised in the trial court when certain conditions are met. Outdoor Media Dimensions Inc. v. State of Oregon, 331 Or 634, 659-60, 20 P3d 180 (2001). However, even when those conditions are met, affirming on an alternative basis that was not raised in the trial court “is a matter of prudential discretion and not compulsion.” Biggerstaff v. Board of County Commissioners, 240 Or App 46, 56, 245 P3d 688 (2010).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Belden

“Reliance by the state on out-of-court statements in lieu of live testimony is only permitted when offered out of necessity, that is, after the state has ‘exhausted all reasonably available means of producing the witness.’ The state bears the burden to establish unavailability of the witness.” State v. Nielsen, 316 Or 611, 623, 853, P2d 256 (1993); State v. Harris, 362 Or 55, 65, 404 P3d 926 (2017).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Miser

“The circumstances of a case may give rise to probable cause to search several different locations at the same time, particularly where, as here, the evidence sought may be at once in more than one location.” State v. Villagran, 294 Or 404, 413, 657, P2d 1223 (1983).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Strickland

“The legal standard for assessing the reasonableness of a person’s belief about the need for force or the extent of force necessary turns on an objective evaluation of the circumstances in which physical force has been used or threatened, and not on the perceptions of the individual defendant.” State v. Bassett, 234 Or App 259, 228 P3d 590 (2010).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Fuller

“Civil stands for the proposition that, to prove an unauthorized taking, operating, riding in, or other use in violation of ORS. 164.135(1)(a), the state must present sufficient evidence to support a finding that the defendant did not come into possession of the vehicle in question through an agreement with the owner.” State v. Civil, 283 Or App 395, 388 P3d 1185 (2017).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Property Law

State v. Merrill

“In Hendricks [we held] “that a limited interruption of breathing can constitute a material impairment of physical condition for purposes of proving physical injury under the assault statute.” State v. Hendricks, 273 Or App 1, 359 P3d 294 (2015), rev den, 358 Or 794 (2016).”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Arnold

"To be 'within the immediate view and presence of the court' is to personally witness such conduct." State v. Blackburn, 283 Or App 843, 845, 391, P3d 929 (2017).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Dept. of Human Services v. T. J.

“‘Under ORS 419B.100(1)(c), jurisdiction is warranted if a child’s condition or circumstances are such as to endanger [that child’s] welfare’—that is, if they ‘give rise to a threat of serious loss or injury.’ DHS must prove that the threat is current, nonspeculative, and causally connected to the allegedly risk-causing conduct or circumstances.” Dept of Human Services v. D.W.M., 296 Or App 109, 117-18, 437 P3d 1186 (2019).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

Menten and Deatherage

"ORS 107.105(6) explicitly authorizes parties who have an undivided interest in real property pursuant to a dissolution judgment to maintain a proceeding for the 'partition' of the property." See Abrahram v. Goff, 85 Or App 595, 597, 737 P2d 971 (1987).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

State v. Keys

"In the absence of indictment, preliminary hearing, or waiver, the circuit court lacks jurisdiction to try the defendant and any judgment rendered in that case is void.” Huffman v. Alexander, 197 Or 283, 301, 251 P2d 87 (1952); OR Const, Art VII (Amended), section 5.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Dept. of Human Services v. P. W.

“ORS 419B.387 authorizes the juvenile court to order a parent to submit to a psychological evaluation, but only after ‘the establishment of a need for treatment or training at the evidentiary hearing.’” Dept of Human Services v. D.R.D., 298 Or App 788, 799, 450 P3d 1022 (2019); see also Dept. of Human Services v. T.L.H., 300 Or App 606, 453. P3d 556 (2019).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

Miller v. Elisea

"[T]he inquiry into the admissibility of evidence of medical causation focuses on the differential diagnosis and whether the particular use of the differential diagnosis to determine causation has met the general test of scientific validity." Jennings v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 331 Or 285, 307, 14 P3d 596 (2000). 

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Simmons

“A confession or admission of a defendant, whether in the course of judicial proceedings or otherwise, cannot be given in evidence against the defendant when it was made under the influence of fear produced by threats.” ORS 136.425(1). "Any communication made with the idea of some 'temporal benefit or disadvantage' for the criminal defendant is enough to run afoul with the statute." State v. Linn, 179 Or 499, 504-07, 173 P2d 305 (1946); State v. Bell, 281 Or App 208, 383, P3d 327 (2016).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. J.W.

"A person may be committed to DHS for care, treatment, or training if the court determines that (1) the person has an intellectual disability; (2) because of the intellectual disability, the person is either (a) dangerous to self, (b) dangerous to others, or (c) unable to provide for personal needs and not receiving care as is necessary for the person’s health, safety, or rehabilitation; and (3) voluntary treatment and training or conditional release is not in the person’s best interest. ORS 427.290.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Commitment

Shriners Hospitals for Children v. Cox

“We balance four factors in determining whether a court permissibly exercised its discretion [over a petitioned leave to amend]: ‘(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 amendment.” Ramsey v. Thompson, 162 Or App 139, 145, 986, P2d 54 (1999) rev den 329, Or 589 (2000).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Walton v. Myrick

"ORS 138.550(3) places a ‘limit on successive post-conviction proceedings’ and is meant to disallow ‘serial litigation’ of post-conviction claims." Bogle v. State of Oregon, 363 Or 455, 458, 476-477, 423 P3d 715 (2018). "The fact that a represented petitioner failed in his or her effort o raise additonal claims in the original post-conviction proceeding . . . will not justify the filing of a new, successive post-conviction petition under ORS 138.550(3)." Id. at 477-78.

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

Simi v. LTI Inc.- Lynden Inc.

“Under ORS 656.267, a claimant is required to initiate a new or omitted medical condition claim [when]… (d) ‘an injured worker who believes that a condition has been incorrectly omitted from a notice of acceptance, or that the notice is otherwise deficient, first must communicate in writing to the insurer or self-insured employer the worker’s objections to the notice pursuant to ORS 656.267. The insurer or self-insured employer has 60 days from receipt of the communication from the worker to revise the notice or to make other written clarification in response.’… The claim is then required to be processed pursuant to ORS 656.262(7) [wherein] (c)… ‘If a condition is found to be compensable after claim closure, the insurer or self-insured employer shall reopen the claim for processing regarding that condition.’”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

Joseph Mill Property, LLC v. S&V Properties, LLC

Unlike most states, Oregon recognizes the possibility of an irrevocable license in certain circumstances. Brown v. Eoff, 271 Or 7, 10-11, 530 P2d 49 (1975). "A license that has been partially executed gives the licensee an irrevocable license for the limited purpose of removing the licensee's personal property that is located on the licensor's land."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Property Law

State v. Brooks

"The scope of the right to counsel encompasses those stages of a criminal proceeding 'when [a defendant] must take steps or make a choice which is likely to have a substantial effect on the prosecution against him.'" State v. Miller, 254 Or 244, 249, 458 P2d 1017 (1969). "When a defendant asks to represent himself, the court must determine, on the record, whether his decision is an intelligent and understanding one." Id. at 523 (citing State v. Davis, 110 Or App 358, 360, 822 P2d 736 (1991)).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Mitchell v. State of Oregon

“In reviewing the denial of a post-conviction claim based on inadequate assistance of counsel, the first question is ‘whether petitioner demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that his lawyer failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment.’" Montez v. Czerniak, 355 Or 1, 7, 322 P3d 487 (2014) (citation omitted). "Second, if we conclude that petitioner met that burden, we further must determine whether he proved that counsel’s failure had a tendancy to affect the result of his trial." Id. (citation omitted).

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

State v. M.B.

"Under the current standard, 'serious physical harm' means a nonspeculative threat that the person will not safely survive without treatment, and 'in the near future' means something less immediate than 'imminent' but not so attenuated from present circumstances as to render it speculative." State v. M.A.E., 299 Or App 231, 239-40, 237 448 P3d 656 (2019).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Commitment

State v. Rossiter

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Simi v. LTI Inc.-Lynden Inc.

“ORS 656.802(1)(a) defines an occupational disease as ‘any disease or infection arising out of and in the course of employment . . . including: (c) [a]ny series of traumatic events or occurrences which requires medical services or results in physical disability or death.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

State v. Ham

Pursuant to ORS 161.067(2), "when the same conduct or criminal episode, though violating only one statutory provision involves two or more victims, there are as many separately punishable offenses as there are victims.’’

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Pittman

“If the existence, location, and authenticity of documents is a foregone conclusion, then compelling a person to assemble those documents for production does not reveal the person’s mental processes and therefore is not sufficiently testimonial to trigger Fifth Amendment protection. However, if the government has minimal information about what documents exists or what they contain, the act of locating and selecting the documents to produce may require the subpoena recipient to use his or her own mental processes in a way that renders the resulting response testimonial in nature.” See Fisher v. United States, 425 US 391, 411, 96 S Ct 1569, 48 L Ed 2d 39 (1976).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

State v. South

“Law enforcement may constitutionally extend a traffic stop as long as the officer’s inquiries are ‘reasonably related’ to the traffic stop.” State v. Aguirre-Lopez, 291 Or App 78, 84-85, 419. P3d 751 (2018). In State v. Miller, two issues were addressed: "(1) whether an officer’s circumstance-specific perception of danger can be based entirely on circumstances that are not particular to the determined person; and (2) what a reviewing court considers to determine whether the state has proved that the officer’s perception and decision were objectively reasonable.” State v. Miller, 343 Or 374, 383, 422, P3d 240 adh’d to as modified on recons, 363 Or 742, 428 P3d 899 (2018).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Barkers Five, LLC v. LCDC

The “best achieves” standard is “a balance in the designation of urban and rural reserves that, in its entirety, best achieves livable communities, the viability and vitality of the agriculture and forest industries and protection of the important natural landscape features that define the region for its residents.” OAR 660-027-0005(2)

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

State v. L. M.

“In a continued-commitment proceeding of the kind involved here, the trial court’s task is to “determine whether the person is still a person with mental illness and is in need of further treatment.” ORS 426.307. A ‘person with mental illness’ is defined to include a person who, because of a mental disorder, is “[u]nable to provide for basic personal needs that are necessary to avoid serious physical harm in the near future, and is not receiving such care as is necessary to avoid such harm.” ORS 426.005(1)(f). "We recently explained that the term ‘serious physical harm,’ as used in that statute, “means bodily harm that is serious enough that a person who suffers that harm is unsafe in the absence of commitment, treatment, or other amelioration of the physical condition.” State v. M.A.E., 299 Or. App 231, 239, __ P3d __ (2019). The risk of serious physical harm need not be ‘imminent’ or “immediate”; all the statute requires is that the person be unable to provide for such basic needs that are necessary to avoid such harm ‘In the near future.’” State v. M.A.E., 299 Or. App 240, P3d __ (2019) (quoting ORS 426.005(1)(f)).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Commitment

Field v. Myrick

“In Bogle, the court indicated that when faced with a church motion, a post-conviction court is being asked for one of two possible remedies—‘to either replace counsel or instruct counsel to raise those grounds for relief.’” Bogle v. State of Oregon, 363 Or 470-71, 423 P3d 715 (2018).

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

State v. J. M. E.

“For hospital or medical expenses to qualify as recoverable economic damages, the state must prove that the cost of such services was reasonable.'” See State v. Campbell, 296 Or App 22, 27, 438 P3d 448 (2019). "Submission of a hospital bill, without more, is insufficient proof for recovery of 'reasonable' hospital or medical services. Some additional testimony or evidence is required to support the reasonableness of the bill for the hospital or medical services." State v. McLelland, 278 Or App 138, 144, 372 P3d 614 (2016).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Remedies

Dept. of Human Services v. A. M. B

“An administrative search is a recognized exception to the warrant requirement. In general, a search qualifies for the exception if it is conducted for a purpose other than law enforcement… typical examples include health and safety inspections and certain inventory searches of lawfully seized automobiles.” State v. B.A.H., Or App 203, 206, 263 P3d 1047 (2011)(quoting State v. Anderson, 304 Or 139, 141, 743, P2d 715 (1987)).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Sky Lakes Medical Center, Inc. v. Klamath Falls

Pursuant to ORS 197.829(1), "LUBA is required to accept a local government’s interpretation of its own land use ordinance if that interpretation ‘plausibly accounts for the text and context’ of the ordinance.” Siporen v. City of Medford, 349 Or 247, 262, 243 P3d 776 (2010).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

State v. Chisholm

Under ORS 161.155, Criminal Liability for Conduct of Another, "A person is criminally liable for the conduct of another person constituting a crime if: .... (2) With the intent to promote or facilitate the commission of the crime the person: .... (b) Aids or abets or agrees or attempts to aid or abet such other person in planning or committing the crime."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. White

“A person is not a ‘victim’ within the meaning of that provision unless the person (1) is the one against whom the defendant committed the crime and (2) incurred economic damages as a result.” State v. Moreno-Hernandez, 365 Or 175, 442 P3d 1092 (2019).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Remedies

State v. Dearmitt

“Where multiple charges arise from a single criminal episode, ‘criminal conduct that violates only one statutory provision will yield only one conviction unless the so called ‘antimerger’ statute, ORS 161.067, operates so as to permit the entry of multiple convictions.’” State v. Reeves, 250 Or App 294, 304, 280 P3d 994 (2012); see also ORS 161.067(3).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Bates v. Andaluz Waterbirth Center

“To hold a third-party beneficiary bound to an arbitration agreement, the third party beneficiary must have 'manifested assent to be bound by the agreement by ratifying it or asserting to a claim for relief under the agreement.'" Drury v. Assisted Living Concepts, Inc., 245 Or App 217, 224, 262 P3d 1162 (2011).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Contract Law

Sanford v. Hampton Resources, Inc.

“To succeed on an IIER claim . . . [there must be] (1) the existence of a professional or business relationship (which could include, e.g. a contract or a prospective economic advantage), (2) intentional interference with that relationship, (3) by a third party, (4) accomplished through an improper means or for an improper purpose, (5) a causal effect between the interference and damage to the economic relationship, and (6) damages.” McGanty v. Staudenraus, 321 Or 532, 535, 901 P2d 841 (1995).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Business Law

Burley v. Clackamas County

Pursuant to ORS 659.001(4)(a), "for the purposes of chapter 659A, ’employer’ means any person who in this state, directly or through an agent, engages or uses the personal service of one or more employees, reserves the right to control the means by which such service is or will be performed. Additionally, ORS 659.001(9)(b) states “’[p]erson’ includes . . . [a] public body as defined in ORS 30.260.’”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

State v. Semore

“An officer’s subjective belief is objectively reasonable when the officer can point to specific and articulable facts that support a reasonable inference that the defendant has committed or is about to commit the crime that the officer suspects.” State v. Maciel-Figuroa, 361 Or 163, 184, 389 P3d 1121 (2017).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Coelsch v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co.

“We are mindful that, in construing an insurance policy, we are to interpret terms according to what we perceive to be the understanding of the ordinary purchaser of insurance.” Hunters Ridge Condo. Assn. v. Sherwood Crossing, 285 Or App 416, 422, 395 P3d 892 (2017).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Insurance Law

Aikens v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision

Reversal and remand are appropriate if "the board's order similarly did not disclose whether the board would have reached the same determination without the erroneous factual finding." See King v. Board of Parole, 283 Or App 689, 694, 389 P3d 1171 (2017).

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

Estrada v. Federal Express Corp.

“A worker may give notice [of a work-related accident to the employer] within one year after the date of the accident in some circumstances, including when the worker established that he or she had ‘good cause’ for failing to give notice within 90 days.” ORS 656.265(4)(c).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

Wallace v. Holden

"A court may assert general jurisdiction over foreign (sister-state or foreign-country) corporations to hear any and all claims against them when their affiliations with the State are so 'continuous and systematic' as to render them essentially at home in the forum state. Specific jurisdiction, on the other hand, depends on an affiliatio[n] between the forum and the underlying controversy, principally, activity or an occurrence that takes place in the forum State and is therefore subject to the State’s regulation." Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A., v. Brown, 564 US 915, 919, 131 S Ct 2846, 180 L Ed 2d 796 (2011).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Boatfield and Boatfield

"The general rules is that the amount of a support award is not justified if it is 'outside' the 'range of reasonableness by a significant enough margin so as not to be just and equitable in the totality of pertinent circumstances.'" Cullen and Cullen, 223 Or App 183, 194, 194 P3d 866 (2008).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

State ex rel Val Hoyle v. City of Grants Pass

"ORS 652.060(1) provides fire departments with a ‘safe harbor,’ under which an employer is 'deemed to have complied with [ORS 652.060(1)] and ORS 652.070 if the hours of regular duty required of firefighters employed by it an average not more than [72 or 56] hours a week over each quarter of the fiscal year.'” (Emphasis added). Additionally, "ORS 652.070(1) requires employers to 'put into effect and maintain a schedule of working hours' that complies with ORS 652.060 . . . [i]f an employer fails to do so, it must pay overtime 'to every regularly employed firefighter as additional pay for every hour of regular duty required of and performed by the firefighter over and above the average hours established by ORS 652.060."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

T. J. N. v. Schweitzer

In order to acquire an SPO, “a petitioner must show by preponderance of the evidence, that ‘(a) the person intentionally, knowingly or recklessly engages in repeated and unwanted contact with the other person or a member of that person’s immediate family or household thereby alarming or coercing the other person; (b) it is objectively reasonable for a person in the victim’s situation to have been alarmed or coerced by the contact; and (c) the 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. 30.866(7); ORS. 30.866(1).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Stalking Protective Order

Western Radio Services Co. v. Verizon Wireless, LLC.

In order to “establish a claim for trespass to chattels or conversion, a party must show an actual ownership interest in and the right to control the disputed property.” Mustola v.Toddy, 253 Or 658, 663 456 P2d 1004 (1969).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Property Law

State v. Walker

Pursuant to ORS 801.265, a "farm tractor" is "a motor vehicle designed and used primarily in agricultural operations for drawing or operating other farm machines, equipment, and implements of husbandry."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Traffic Infractions

Back to Top