Christopher Ishihara

United States Supreme Court (14 summaries)

Edwards v. Vannoy

New procedural rules announced by the Supreme Court are not retroactively applied on federal collateral review.

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

Carr v. Saul

Administrative proceedings must be adversarial in nature for a court to impose the requirement of issue exhaustion.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Jones v. Mississippi

Miller v. Alabama and Montgomery v. Louisiana do not require a sentencer to make a finding that a defendant under the age of eighteen is permanently incorrigible before imposing a sentence of life without parole.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid

Under 47 U.S.C. §227(a)(1)(A), an autodialer must have the capacity “to use a random or sequential number generator” to either “store or produce phone numbers” to be called.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

United States Fish and Wildlife Serv. v. Sierra Club, Inc.

The deliberative process privilege shields predecisional and deliberative documents from Freedom of Information Act requests, but documents which communicate an agency’s settled position on a matter are not protected.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp

The expropriation exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act incorporates the domestic takings rule, which makes a sovereign’s taking of its own nationals’ property a domestic affair.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sovereign Immunity

United States v. Briggs

Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), no time limitation exists for bringing charges on crimes which are “punishable by death” under the USMJ.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

McGirt v. Oklahoma

Congress has the sole power to disestablish a Native American reservation; the Major Crimes Act requires federal prosecution of certain crimes within “Indian country,” including the Creek Reservation in Oklahoma.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Indian Law

Barr v. Am. Ass'n of Political Consultants, Inc.

The 2015 amendment to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 excluding robocalls made to collect government debts from the general prohibition against robocalls to cellular phones is unconstitutional and therefore severed.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

June Med. Servs. L. L. C. v. Russo

Louisiana’s admitting-privileges law for abortion doctors represents a substantial obstacle to a woman pursuing an abortion and is therefore unconstitutional.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez

The three-strikes provision under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, denying prisoners the ability to bring suit without paying a filing fee if three or more prior suits were dismissed, includes all dismissals for failure to state a claim—with or without prejudice.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Fin. Oversight & Mgmt. Bd. for Puerto Rico v. Aurelius Inv., LLC.

The Appointments Clause of the Constitution, Art. II, §2, cl. 2, applies to the appointments of some territorial officials, but not to officials whose powers and duties are primarily local.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

U.S. v. Sineneng-Smith

Under the party presentation principle, a court’s role is to neutrally adjudicate cases as presented by the parties, not to reframe the controversy.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

Barton v. Barr

The offense which disqualifies a permanent legal resident from eligibility for cancellation of removal does not have to be one of the offenses which triggered the removal action.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted (2 summaries)

Transunion LLC v. Ramirez, Sergio L.

Whether either Article III or Rule 23 permits a damages class action where the vast majority of the class suffered no actual injury, let alone an injury anything like what the class representative suffered.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project

Whether the court of appeals erred in vacating as arbitrary and capricious the FCC orders under review, which, among other things, relaxed the agency’s cross-ownership restrictions to accommodate changed market conditions.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Oregon Supreme Court (7 summaries)

State v. Bartol

Under Article I, section 16, two special proportionality requirements apply to the death penalty. (1) Death must be limited to those who commit “a narrow category of the most serious crimes,” and are “the most deserving of execution. Atkins v. Virginia, 536 US 304, 319, 122 S Ct 2242 (2002). (2) There must be “a fundamental, moral distinction” between death-penalty and non-death-penalty crimes. Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 US 407, 438, 128 S Ct 2641 (2008).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Walker v. Oregon Travel Information Council

A claim of wrongful discharge requires a plaintiff to identify an important public policy that would be foiled if the plaintiff were discharged; “it is necessary to ‘find’ a public duty, not create one.” Babick v. Oregon Arena Corp., 333 Or 401, 409, 40 P3d 1059 (2002). “The reasonableness of an employee’s belief” about an employer’s violation of law, like the reasonableness determination in civil negligence claims, is a question of fact. Fazzolari v. Portland School Dist. No. 1J, 303 Or 1, 12, 734 P2d 1326 (1987).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

State v. Banks

A prosecutor may not make statements to a jury which imply that “additional evidence exists but cannot be presented” due to “our laws and rules of the court.” State v. Newburn, 178 Or 238, 241-42, 166 P2d 470 (1946). A trial court “accentuate[s] the error” if it overrules a defendant’s objection; reversal is required if the trial court fails to instruct the jury to disregard the prosecutor’s statement. Id.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co. v. Sulejmanagic

Under ORS 100.450(7)(c), a foreclosure action that has been filed and dismissed is treated as if it had never been filed.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Property Law

State ex rel Rosenblum v. Nisley

Under ORS 236.010 (1)(g), an office becomes vacant if the “incumbent ceases to possess any other qualification required for election or appointment to such office.” Under ORS 8.630, a district attorney must be admitted to practice law in Oregon.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Election Law

James v. State of Oregon

The contract rights of a member of the Public Employees Retirement System are impaired if: (1) an amendment functions retrospectively to decrease benefits attributable to work completed prior to the change, or (2) an amendment prospectively operates to reduce future benefits and the prior offer was irrevocable. Moro v. State of Oregon, 357 Or 167, 202-207, 351 P3d 1 (2015).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

Elkhorn Baptist Church v. Brown

Under ORS 401.192(4), the “powers granted to the Governor” under a state of emergency declared under 401.165 continue until the “termination of the state of emergency” either by the Governor or by a joint resolution of the state legislature. Under ORS 433.441(4), the Governor’s powers related to a public health emergency are not subject to the twenty-eight-day limit, if a state of emergency under ORS 401.165 is declared.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

Oregon Court of Appeals (59 summaries)

State v. Carter

Lay opinion testimony is not relevant to prove the truth or falsity of a person’s statement. See State v. Chandler, 360 Or 323, 334, 380 P3d 932 (2016). “If there is little likelihood that the error affected the verdict, [an appellate court] will not reverse on the basis of that error.” State v. Nguyen, 293 Or App 492, 498, 429 P3d 410 (2018).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Henry

For restitution award purposes, a trial court may not find that an amount paid was reasonable based solely on the fact of payment by CVCP. State v. J. M. E., 299 Or App 483, 489, 451 P3d 1018 (2019). Medical costs that are at or below the market rate are considered reasonable. State v. Workman, 300 Or App 622, 623-24, 455 P3d 566 (2019).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Remedies

State v. Phillips

The term “vehicle” in ORS 164.135(1)(a) covers items such as trailers and conduct such as towing. State v. Eastep, 361 Or 746, 756–57, 399 P3d 979 (2017). The failure to include a “lesser-included offense can impermissibly enhance the risk of an unwarranted conviction” when (1) the “element that elevates the lesser-included offense to the greater one is doubtful” and (2) “there must be substantial evidence of a serious lesser offense.” Perida-Alba v. Coursey, 356 Or 654, 665, 342 P3d 70 (2015).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Dept. of Human Services v. W. C. T.

Under ORS 419B.337, ORS 419B.387, and case law, a court may order a psychological evaluation of a parent if the following are true after an evidentiary hearing: (1) “the evaluation is rationally related to the jurisdictional findings,” (2) evaluation is a “predicate component to the determination of treatment and training,” (3) treatment or training is needed to “ameliorate the jurisdictional findings or to facilitate the child’s return,” and (4) “the parent’s participation” in the treatment or training is “in the best interests of the child.”  See State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. G. L., 220 Or App 216, 224, 185 P3d 483, rev den, 345 Or 158 (2008) (allowing trial court to order psychological evaluation under ORS 419B.337(2)).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

Partsafas and Partsafas

“Any decision to set child support above the guidelines cap must, at a minimum, be based primarily on the child’s needs, as set out in specific supporting findings.” Stringer v. Brandt, 128 Or App 502, 507, 877 P2d 100 (1994). Disparity in income cannot serve as a reason for rebutting the presumptive amount because relative incomes of the parents is a factor in determining the presumptive amount in the first place. Larkin and Larkin, 146 Or App 310, 313, 932 P2d 115 (1997).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

State v. A. R. H.

When determining whether a youth failed to meet the burden of proof under ORS 163A.030, an appellate court must determine whether “no court could find itself unpersuaded that” a youth is rehabilitated and no longer presents a threat to public safety. State v. A. L. M., 305 Or App 389, 404–05, 469 P3d 244, rev den, 367 Or 218 (2020).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

State v. Powe

Under ORS 163.275(1), coercion is the use of the fear of a specified consequence to “influence or persuade a victim to alter his or her course of conduct—to do something that the victim otherwise would not have done or to not do something which the victim otherwise would have done.” State v. Pedersen, 242 Or App 305, 312, 255 P3d 556, rev den, 351 Or 254 (2011).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. K. M.

An involuntary civil commitment requires more than the mere diagnosis of a mental disorder or threats to others. State v. C. H., 306 Or App 63, 67, 473 P3d 60 (2020). The State must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, “that actual future violence is highly likely.” State v. M. A., 276 Or App 624, 629, 371 P3d 495 (2016).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Commitment

Braymen v. Water Resources Dept.

Courts may consider extrinsic evidence when assessing whether a stipulated judgment is ambiguous. Van Atta v. Stephanie Fry, Inc., 295 Or App 465, 473, 434 P3d 575 (2018). Voluntarily engaging in conduct that violates the terms of a judgment, with knowledge of the terms, amounts to contempt. Chang v. Chun, 305 Or App 144, 152, 470 P3d 410 (2020).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Contract Law

Reynolds v. Dept. of Human Services

Under ORS 183.484(4), an agency may withdraw a final order “in an other than contested case” for reconsideration at any time after the filing of a petition for judicial review, before the date set for hearing, without permission from the court.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

State v. Craig

Convictions for felony sex crimes must result in a sentence to count towards a defendant’s eligibility for life without parole under ORS 137.719(1). Gordon v. Hall, 232 Or App 174, 221 P3d 763 (2009).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

Friends of Columbia Gorge v. Energy Fac. Siting Coun.

Orders denying requests for contested case proceedings are final orders on the contested case requests. ORS 183.310(b)(6). A request for a contested case proceeding is not itself a contested case; they are “other than contested cases.” ORS 183.310(2)(a); ORS 183.484.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Mouktabis v. Amarou

A guardian ad litem is not a party to an action based solely upon his or her guardian ad litem status. Christman v. Scott, 183 Or 113, 117-18, 191 P2d 389 (1948). Non-attorney guardians ad litem who appear pro se are engaging in the unlawful practice of law; only members of the Oregon State Bar may appear on behalf of another. ORS 9.160(1); ORS 9.320.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

State v. Lebanno

“In the formation of probable cause, the stacking of inferences to achieve probable cause is impermissible.” State v. Goennier, 291 Or App 694, 699, 422 P3d 391, rev den, 363 Or 481 (2018).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Lipka

“The test for validity of a search incident to arrest is the reasonableness of the search in light of the circumstances of the particular case.” State v. Hernandez, 299 Or App 544, 551, 449 P3d 878 (2019), rev den, 366 Or 292 (2020).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Vasquez-Gonzalez

It is the State’s burden to show that a defendant “knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights.” State v. Ward, 367 Or 188, 191, 475 P3d 420 (2020). The knowing and intelligent inquiry “focuses primarily on a defendant’s state of mind.” State v. Norgren, 287 Or App 165, 169, 401 P3d 1275 (2017), rev dismissed, 363 Or 40 (2018).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Walton v. Neskowin Regional Sanitary Authority

Under ORS 12.080, takings claims have a six-year statute of limitations; the statute of limitations begins to run when the physical occupation begins. Suess Builders v. City of Beaverton, 294 Or 254, 268, 656 P2d 306 (1982); The Foster Group, Inc. v. City of Elgin, Oregon, 264 Or App 424, 442, 332 P3d 354 (2014).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

State v. Busch

No error exists if there are adequate grounds in the record to support the reliability of statements admitted under the domestic violence hearsay exception. State v. Wilcox, 180 Or App 557, 562, 43 P3d 1182, rev den, 334 Or 632 (2002).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Burns v. American Family Mutual Ins.

An insurer is liable for arbitration-related attorney fees under ORS 742.061(1) if the insurer refuses to pay the damages awarded during binding arbitration.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Insurance Law

Carrillo v. SAIF

A combined condition involves the combination of two separate conditions. Brown v. SAIF, 361 Or 241, 255-56, 391 P3d 773 (2017); Multifoods Specialty Distribution v. McAtee, 333 Or 629, 634, 43 P3d 1101 (2002).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

Sky Lakes Medical Center v. Dept. of Human Services

A court must defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own administrative rule if the interpretation is “plausible” and not “inconsistent with the wording of the rule itself, or with the rule’s context, or with any other source of law.” Don’t Waste Oregon Com. v. Energy Facility Siting, 320 Or 132, 142, 881 P2d 119 (1994).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

State v. Lara-Vasquez

A punishment which is so disproportionate to the offense as to “shock the moral sense of reasonable people” violates Article I, section 16. State v. Rodriguez/Buck, 347 Or 46, 58, 217 P3d 659 (2009). Courts consider three factors when determining disproportionality: (1) severity of penalty versus gravity of offense; (2) “penalties imposed for other, related crimes”; and (3) criminal history of the defendant. Id.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

State v. Stockton

Other misconduct evidence, to be relevant to a defendant’s motive, must “show a common motive among the charged acts and the acts against former partners.” State v. Tena, 362 Or 514, 523-24, 412 P3d 175 (2018).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Johnson and Johnson

The standard for a change of circumstances for the purposes of custody modification is: (1) “the custodial parent is no longer competent to care for the child” or (2) the custodial parent’s continued care and custody is “inimical to the child’s welfare.” Merges v. Merges, 94 Or 246, 254, 186 P 36 (1919). The “primary purpose” of this requirement is “to avoid repeated litigation over custody and to provide a stable environment for children.” Ortiz and Ortiz, 310 Or 644, 649, 801 P2d 767 (1990).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

State v. Deshaw

Evidence of uncharged acts can be admitted to establish a timeline of events in appropriate circumstances. State v. Grubb, 279 Or App 458, 460, 468, 379 P3d 715, rev den, 360 Or 423 (2016). Admittance of “highly inflammatory” uncharged-misconduct evidence is not harmless if it affected the verdict. State v. Wright, 283 Or App 160, 178, 387 P3d 405 (2015).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Zimmerman

The aid-and-abet statute, ORS 161.155, “applies only to conduct prior to or during the commission of a crime”; aid-and-abet theories of criminal liability do not apply after a crime has been committed. State v. Barboe, 253 Or App 367, 375, 290 P3d 833 (2012), rev den, 353 Or 714 (2013). Under ORS 164.015, the theft-by-taking theory requires a defendant to exercise dominion or control and physically move the property of another. State v. Spears, 223 Or App 675, 699, 196 P3d 1037 (2008).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Horner

Reversal of unanimous verdicts after a jury instruction allowing nonunanimous verdicts is not required. State v. Ciraulo, 367 Or 350, 353, 478 P3d 502 (2020). In light of Ramos, accepting “nonunanimous guilty verdicts for a nonpetty offense constitutes plain error.” State v. Ulery, 366 Or 500, 464 P3d 1123 (2020).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. S. S.

Under ORS 426.005(1)(f)(A), an individual may be involuntarily committed if the individual: (1) engaged in behavior that “caused or risked serious harm” and (2) the behavior is likely to recur. State v. T. Y., 285 Or App 21, 24, 396 P3d 986 (2017); State v. S. R. J., 281 Or App 741, 751, 386 P3d 99 (2016).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Commitment

C. R. v. Eugene School Dist. 4J

A special motion to strike under ORS 31.150 must “be filed within 60 days after service of the complaint” or at any later time, in the court’s discretion. ORS 31.152(1). Claims may be stricken if “based on written or oral statements” made during or in connection with a “proceeding authorized by law,” an “issue of public interest,” or in furtherance of “constitutional right of free speech” in connection with an issue of public interest. ORS 31.150(2).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

State v. Hernandez

When considering whether an affidavit establishes probable cause for a search, reviewing courts look at the “totality of the circumstances presented in the affidavit” and the inferences that an issuing magistrate could reasonably draw from those circumstances. State v. Miser, 303 Or App 347, 352, 463 P3d 599, rev den, 366 Or 827 (2020). The “paramount consideration” of a request for a bench trial is “whether a bench trial will fully protect a defendant’s rights.” State v. Austin, 274 Or App 114, 120, 360 P3d 603 (2015).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. E. J. J.

In order to commit someone “based on dangerousness to others, there must be a causal connection between” the person’s mental disorder and his allegedly dangerous behavior; the person must be “highly likely to engage” in actual, “future violence towards others.” State v. D. A. H., 241 Or App 391, 398, 250 P3d 423 (2011); State v. S. E. R., 297 Or App 121, 122, 441 P3d 254 (2019). To commit someone based on inability to provide for basic personal needs, the State must show that the inability to provide will place the person in danger of serious physical harm in the near future. State v. M. A. E., 299 Or App 231, 240, 448 P3d 656 (2019).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Commitment

Davison and Schafer

Under the best-interests analysis of ORS 107.137(1), a court may consider lifestyle choices, such as moves, only if the choices “will or may cause damage to the child.” Miller and Miller, 269 Or App 436, 443, 345 P3d 472 (2015) (emphasis in original). Increased difficulty to the noncustodial parent’s ability to co-parent is “not relevant to the determination of damage.” Id. at 444. If a parent is a full-time student, imputation of full-time income is not appropriate. Bouris and Bouris, 276 Or App 637, 639, 369 P3d 1186 (2016).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

State v. M. T.

To establish a mentally ill person “is a danger to herself,” the state must establish that the person is likely to cause life-threatening physical harm to herself in the near future. State v. B. B., 240 Or App 75, 82-83, 245 P3d 697 (2010). Further, the “threat of serious physical harm” must be “particularized” and “highly probable.” State v. M. A., 276 Or App 624, 628-29, 371 P3d 495 (2016).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Commitment

State v. T. T.

Officers must have reasonable suspicion that a person has committed or is about to commit a “specific type of crime”; reasonable suspicion based on “nonspecific criminal activity” is not sufficient to initiate or extend a stop. State v. Maciel-Figueroa, 361 Or 163, 180-81, 389 P3d 1121 (2017).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

Harper v. Washburn

The proponent of impeachment evidence must “lay a sufficient foundation for” the evidence’s admission; “reasonable inferences are permissible,” but speculation and guesswork are not. State v. Hubbard, 297 Or 789, 796, 688 P2d 1311 (1984); State v. Bivins, 191 Or App 460, 467, 83 P3d 379 (2004).

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

Querbach v. Dept. of Human Services

The standard for founded dispositions of abuse is “reasonable cause to believe” abuse occurred. OAR 413-015-1010. The “reasonable cause” standard is akin to the “reasonable suspicion” standard; on review, the court must only determine “whether a reasonable person could reach” DHS’s determination. A. F. v. Oregon Dept. of Human Services, 251 Or App 576, 583-84, 284 P3d 1189 (2012).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

State v. Beeson

Determining whether a breath test derived from a violation of Miranda requires a “totality-of-the-circumstances” examination of the facts to determine whether the causal chain between the violation and the test was broken. State v. Swan, 363 Or 121, 131, 420 P3d 9 (2018). This fact-specific analysis may include “the nature of the violation,” the time between the violation and statements, whether the suspect remained in custody, subsequent events that “may have dissipated the taint,” and other circumstances. State v. Jarnagin, 351 Or 703, 716, 277 P3d 535 (2012).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Dykstra

Under ORS 131.525 (1)(b)(B), manifest necessity includes “a legal defect in the proceeding that would make any judgment entered…reversible as a matter of law.” Without a written jury waiver, a trial court “errs in going to trial at all” and any decision made by the court must be reversed on appeal. State v. Barber, 343 Or 525, 530, 173 P3d 827 (2007).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Magno, LLC v. Bowden

Under ORS 19.245(2), a defendant may not challenge a default judgment. Under ORS 18.235(7), if a court determines an applicant is entitled to relief, “the court shall issue an order providing that” a money award has been satisfied in full.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Remedies

Jones v. Willamette United Football Club

A permit application must be based upon “standards and criteria which shall be set forth in the zoning ordinance” or other relevant county regulation. ORS 215.416(8)(a).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

State v. Deshaw

A sex offender is required to report a change of residence within 10 days of that change; the term “‘change of residence’…refer[s] to the date of moving out of the current residence.” ORS 163A.010(3)(a)(B); State v. Cox, 219 Or App 319, 323 182 P3d 259 (2008).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Hunt

Under ORS 138.035(3), “new or modified condition[s] of probation” does not include sanctions; sanctions imposed on a probationer by a trial court are not appealable under ORS 138.035(3).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

Wanting and Wanting

Courts must take into consideration the statutory preference of awarding custody to a child’s primary caregiver. Nice v. Townley, 248 Or App 616, 622-623, 274 P3d 227 (2012); ORS 197.137.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

Easley v. Bowser

To establish a claim for habeas relief, a prisoner must establish that prison officials have not treated the prisoner in a timely manner and “have been deliberately indifferent to the prisoner’s serious medical” needs; deliberate indifference requires something “more than an honest difference of medical opinion about correct diagnosis and necessary treatment.” Billings v. Gates, 323 Or 167, 180-81, 916 P2d 291 (1996).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Gillette v. Cain

A waiver hearing transferring a juvenile into adult court is not sufficient consideration of an offender’s youth to constitutionally impose a mandatory sentence of life without parole; the sentencer must consider the offender’s youth. Miller v. Alabama, 567 US 460, 486-89, 132 S Ct 2455, 183 L Ed 2d 407 (2012); State v. Link, 297 Or App 126, 155, 441 P3d 664, rev allowed, 365 Or 556 (2019).

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

Mayfield and Mayfield

Under ORS 109.744(1)(a), to conclude that it does not have continuing jurisdiction in a child-custody case, a trial court must determine: (1) the children do not have “a significant connection with Oregon” and (2) substantial evidence concerning the “care, protection, training and personal relationships” of the children are “no longer available in Oregon.” Under ORS 109.761, an Oregon court may consider “all relevant factors” to determine that “it is an inconvenient forum under the circumstances” and another court “is a more appropriate forum.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

Morris v. Dental Care Today, P. C

A claim under the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act must “commence within one year” of discovery of “the unlawful method, act or practice;” the statute of limitations “begins to run when the plaintiff knows or should have known of the allegedly unlawful conduct.” ORS 646.638(6); Pearson v. Philip Morris, Inc., 358 Or 88, 137, 361 P3d 3 (2015). “Once a defendant moves for summary judgment,” the plaintiff must “produce evidence showing she can” meet her burden of proof. Sternberg v. Lechman-Su, 299 Or App 450, 456, 450 P3d 37 (2019).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

State v. N. S.

A court may commit someone to the Oregon Health Authority if, due to mental illness, the person is “unable to provide for basic personal needs that are necessary to avoid” physical harm serious enough to require treatment in the near, but not immediate, future. ORS 426.130(1)(a)(C); ORS 426.005(1)(f)(B); State v. M. A. E., 299 Or App 231, 239-240, 488 P3d 656 (2019).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Commitment

Durham v. Laney

In order to “support a claim for medical habeas relief,” a prisoner must allege facts which show that he or she “has a serious medical need that has not been treated in a timely and proper manner and that prison officials have been deliberately indifferent to the prisoner’s serious medical needs.” Billings v. Gates, 323 Or 167, 180-81, 916 P2d 291 (1996).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

State v. Kyger

When a person takes “a substantial step toward murder of more than one person” during a single criminal episode, but is unsuccessful in killing anyone, that person has committed the crime of attempted aggravated murder. State v. Quintero, 110 Or App 247, 256-257, 823 P2d 981 (1991), modified on other grounds on recons, 114 Or App 142, 834 P2d 496 (1992), rev den, 314 Or 392 (1992).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

LNV Corp. v. Fauley

Under ORS 18.948(2), “an objector to an execution sale of real property” must establish that: (1) the sale was “not conducted in the manner” prescribed by law and (2) “that as a result” the objector “suffered damage.” Further, a trial court’s confirmation order under ORS 18.948 is appealable.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Property Law

State v. M. C. D.

In order to continue an involuntary commitment, the State must show that a person will be put at a “nonspeculative risk of serious physical harm” due to an inability to “provide for his or her basic personal needs” if released. State v. M. A. E., 299 Or App 231, 240, 448 P3d 656 (2019). Neither homelessness nor a likely inability to obtain or prepare food is sufficient to support continued commitment. State v. C. M. C., 301 Or App 206, 213, 454 P3d 30 (2019); State v. S. T., 294 Or App 683, 685-87, 432 P3d 378 (2018).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Commitment

State v. Frick

A trial court errs when it imposes fines or fees in a written judgment that it did not include at the sentencing hearing. State v. Toombs, 302 Or App 173, 174, 460 P3d 533 (2020). Payment of fines or fees is allowed during a period of imprisonment if the court finds that the defendant has assets to pay the amounts; the defendant may challenge this finding in the trial court. ORS 161.675(1); State v. Ciraulo, 301 Or App 849, 459 P3d 960 (2020).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

State v. Gutierrez

Under the Sixth Amendment, hearsay statements that are testimonial in nature are prohibited unless the person who made the statement is unavailable and the defendant previously had an opportunity to cross-examine the person. Crawford v. Washington, 541 US 36 (2004). The curative admissibility doctrine allows one party to counter inadmissible testimony elicited by the other party by introducing its own otherwise inadmissible testimony. State v. Apodaca, 291 Or App 268, 274-75, 420 P3d 670 (2018).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

McMillan v. Kelly

Under Oregon law, a defendant may only be convicted as an accomplice to a crime the defendant has the specific intent to facilitate, assist, or promote; the defendant may not be convicted of every crime which is a natural and probable consequence to the specific crime. Specific intent is required for conviction based on accomplice liability. State v. Lopez-Minjarez, 350 Or 576, 582, 260 P3d 439 (2011).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State/Klamath County v. Hershey

An animal forfeiture claim is most akin to a lien foreclosure claim in general, which was not entitled to a jury trial at the time of the adoption of the Oregon Constitution, and does not include the kind of fact-finding that would customarily be tried to a jury.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

State v. Rhamy

"[D]etermination of the reliability of the child victim’s testimony and statements—and, in particular, how various questioning or interviewing techniques call the reliability of that evidence into question—is a matter for the trier of fact at trial, not a matter to be determined by the court in a pretrial hearing." State v. Kelly, 244 Or App 105, 109-110, 260 P3d 551 (2011); State v. Bumgarner, 219 Or App 617, 632-34, 184 P3d 1143, rev den, 345 Or 175 (2008), cert den, 555 US 1101, adh’d to as modified on recons, 229 Or App 92, 209 P3d 857 (2009).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

NAES Corp. v. SCI 3.2, Inc.

The standard of proof for a claim under the last injurious exposure rule is reasonable medical probability; medical certainty is not required to show an employer was the sole cause of an injury. Liberty Metal Fabricators v. Lynch Co., 295 Or App 809, 813, 435 P3d 810 (2019), adh’d to as modified on recons, 302 Or App 110, 456 P3d 691 (2020).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

Wright v. Turner

Under ORS 742.504(7)(a) and ORS 742.502(2), uninsured motorist protection is part of coverage under an insurance policy; the burden of proof is on the insured to prove coverage. FountainCourt Homeowners v. FountainCourt Develop., 360 Or 341, 360, 380 P3d 916 (2016).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Insurance Law

Land Use Board of Appeals (1 summary)

Central Oregon Landwatch v. Jefferson County

Under OAR 660-015-0000(14) and OAR 660-024-0040(1), changes of Urban Growth Boundaries require showing a 20-year need and a need for “housing, employment opportunities or uses such as public facilities, streets and roads, schools, parks or open space.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Back to Top