Oregon Supreme Court (2 summaries)
State v. N.R.L.
ORS 419C.450, the juvenile restitution statute, is not considered civil in nature and does not entitle a defendant to a jury trial under Article 1, Section 17 of the Oregon Constitution.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Reinke
A defendant may be subject to an enhanced sentence absent a grand jury’s consideration of the enhancement factors.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Oregon Court of Appeals (20 summaries)
State v. Negrete
In order for a factfinder to find the essential elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, the evidence must be sufficient under the totality of the circumstances.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Gray
A court's failure to properly instruct a jury on the requisite culpable mental state required to commit the charged crime will result in plain error, which does not require preservation for appellate review.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Egeland
When refusal to give a requested jury instruction results in a jury conviction that would have likely been affected by the rejected instruction, the court may have committed harmful error.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Moore
Under Article 1 Section 9 of the Oregon Constitution a warrantless search of a pretrial detainee's cell is unreasonable unless an exception to the warrant requirement can be shown.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Jenkins v. Portland Housing Authority
The Oregon Tort Claims Act is applicable when a duty arises from statute or common law, and is independent from the terms of a specific contract.
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
C.P. v. Bernstein
ORS 20.105 and 36.715 requires an award of attorney fees and the court must award them as authorized under these statutes.
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
Dept. of Human Services v. S.D.I.
For ORS 419B.100(c) to apply, the State must show sufficient evidence of the type, degree and duration of any psychological or emotional damage that would justify juvenile court jurisdiction over the child.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Stiles v. Godsey
A ruling or decision that has been made in a particular case is binding on a second appeal. It can only be reviewed as a matter of law if the judgment conflicts or was contrary to the ruling or decision.
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
State v. Cupp
A delay of 11 months for a trial for DUII, when only 34 days of that time are unaccounted for, does not amount to an unreasonable delay and, consequently, a denial of a speedy trial.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Baldwin and Baldwin
Under ORS 18.235, the trial court administrator is only required to enter satisfaction of a child-support judgment into the record if the judgment is paid in full.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. Milnes
In order to issue the witness-false-in-part jury instruction a witness must clearly have consciously testified falsely.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
AGAT Transport Inc. v. Employment Department
In assessing unemployment tax, the Employment Department looks to ORS 670.600 to determine if a person qualifies as an independent contractor.
Area(s) of Law:- Tax Law
State v. Ferry
The Court may not reach an argument on appeal that was not preserved at trial.
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
Grabhorn Inc v. Washington County
Courts may not decide land use decisions unless they fall into the exceptions listed in ORS 197.015(b). ORS 197.825 gives Land Use Board of Appeals exclusive jurisdiction over land use decisions.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
State v. A.J.C.
According to "State v. M.A.D." the determination for what is reasonable under a school-safety search depends on the nature of the safety threat. If the search is determined reasonable, then it is not a violation of a student's rights under Article 1, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. C.E.B.
A juvenile court has the authority to dismiss a petition under ORS 419C.261(2) even if the person is no longer under the court's jurisdiction under ORS 410C.005 because they have reached the age of 25.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Contreras
ORS 135.747, the speedy trial provision, regulates only the timing of the first trial and a defendant waives the right to dismiss under this provision if he does not file a motion before the first trial.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Dept. of Human Services v. M.M.B.
An order for guardianship will be upheld if the juvenile court makes the necessary findings of fact as laid out in ORS 419B.476.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Benner
There must be sufficient evidence to establish if a defendant or his counsel intentionally waived the right to a 90-day speedy trial.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Nichols v. Employment Dept
Proceedings that derive from ORS 657.270, ORS 657.275, and ORS 657.292, may be used under ORS Chapter 657 for the purposes of preclusion.
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law