Oregon Supreme Court (3 summaries)
Perez-Rodriguez v. State of Oregon
The “escape clause” of the statute of limitations in the Post-Conviction Relief Act must be “construed narrowly” and only applies in “extraordinary circumstances.” Bartz v. State of Oregon, 314 Or 353, 839 P2d 217 (1992).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. Mansor
“A warrant must be sufficiently specific in describing the items to be seized and examined that the officers can, ‘with reasonable effort ascertain’ those items to a ‘reasonable degree of certainty.’ Blackburn/Barber, 266 Or at 35. But, even if the warrant is sufficiently specific, it must not authorize a search that is ‘broader than the supporting affidavit supplies probable cause to justify.’ State v. Reid, 319 Or 65, 71, 872 P2d 416 (1994).”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Shearer's Foods v. Hoffnagle
“[A] party entitled to recover attorney fees incurred in litigating the merits of a fee-generating claim also may receive attorney fees incurred in determining the amount of the resulting fee award.” TriMet v. Aizawa, 362 Or 1, 3, 403 P3d 753 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Oregon Court of Appeals (50 summaries)
A. A. C. v. Miller-Pomlee
"Contact" does not require a "direct oral or visual connection between a petitioner and respondent;" it “is sufficient if the act, when learned, gives rise to an unwanted relationship or association between the petitioner and the respondent.” Boyd v. Essin, 170 Or App 509, 516-17, 12 P3d 1003 (2000), rev den, 331 Or 674 (2001).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Stalking Protective Order
State v. Perez-Cardenas
“Two guilty verdicts for sexual abuse, based on touching two of the victim’s body parts in a single incident, [should be] merged into a single conviction” State v. Dugan, 282 Or App 768, 769, 387 P3d 439 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Plueard
“[E]vidence about sexual grooming of children ‘was “scientific” evidence under OEC 702’ that could not be admitted ‘without first requiring the state to establish its scientific validity.’” State v. Henley, 363 Or 284, 422 P3d 217 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Myers v. Howton
"Whether there has been an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege will depend on the particular circumstances of each case, including the defendant’s age, education, experience, and mental capacity; the charge (whether complicated or simple); the possible defenses available; and other relevant factors." State v. Meyrick, 313 Or 125, 132, 831 P2d 666 (1992).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Jimenez/Carlson v. Multnomah County
“[T]he text and context of the code . . . are the best indications of the code drafters’ intent." Polacek and Polacek, 349 Or 278, 284, 243 P3d 1190 (2010).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
State v. White
"Restitution is the ‘process to ask the criminal court to award damages that the victim would be able to obtain in a civil action.’” State v. Ramos, 358 Or 581, 368 P3d 446 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Hammond v. Hammond
Pursuant to the discovery rule, "the period of limitation commences either when a plaintiff actually discovers his or her injury or when a reasonable person exercising reasonable care should have discovered his or her injury.” Rice v. Rabb, 354 Or 721, 725, 320 P3d 554 (2014). “To establish adverse possession, a claimant must show by clear and convincing evidence that his or her use of the property—or that of a predecessor in interest—was “actual, open, notorious, exclusive, hostile, and continuous” for a period of 10 years, that the claimant had an “honest belief” that he or she was the actual owner of the property throughout the vesting period, and that that belief was objective and reasonable under the circumstances.” Case v. Burton, 250 Or App 14, 22-23, 279 P3d 259 (2012).
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
State v. Keleman
“A probationer fails to ‘abide by the direction of the supervising officer’ within the meaning of that provision only when the officer’s direction relates to the requirement that the probationer ‘[r]eport as directed.’” State v. Harges, 294 Or App 445, 432 P3d 268 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Rose
When determining whether a defendant has invoked his or her right to remain silent the court should view the “words that the defendant identifies as having amounted to an unequivocal invocation” and “view[] [them] in isolation before examin[ing] the context in which the statements were made.” State v. Nichols, 361 Or 101, 390 P3d 1001 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Fulmer
“Property is ‘seized,’ for purposes of Article I, section 9, when there is a significant interference, even a temporary one, with a person’s possessory or ownership interests in the property.” State v. Juarez-Godinez, 326 Or 1, 6, 942 P2d 772 (1997).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
OR OSHA v. CBI Services, INC.
Under a reasonable diligence standard, the “agency must show why the employer could, with the exercise of reasonable diligence, have been aware of the violation that the agency inspector observed.” OR-OSHA v. Tom O’Brien Construction Co., Inc. 148 Or App 453, 459, 941 P2d 550 (1997), aff’d, 329 Or 348, 986 P2d 1171 (1999).
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Grudzien v. Rogers
“Stipulated judgments, as court-approved contracts, ‘can be set aside only on grounds adequate to rescind a contract.’ Kneefel v. McLaughlin, 187 Or App 1, 6, 67 P3d 947 (2003).”
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Wright
A party who wishes to challenge a trial court’s refusal to strike a juror for cause must have exhausted all of their peremptory challenges and must create a record that they were forced to accept an objectionable juror. Lambert v. Srs. of St. Joseph, 277 Or 223, 229, 560 P2d 262 (1977); State v. Megorden, 49 Or 259, 263-64, 88 P 306 (1907).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Department of Human Services v. C.A.M.
“The ‘key inquiry in determining whether condition[s] or circumstances warrant jurisdiction is whether, under the totality of the circumstances, there is a reasonable likelihood of harm to the welfare of the child.’ Dept. of Human Services v. C. Z., 236 Or App 436, 440, 236 P3d 791 (2010).”
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Morat v. Sunset Village, LLC
The court of appeals “discern[s] [the meaning of statutes based] on the words of the statutes in context and, when helpful, legislative history and other interpretive aids. State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160, 171-72, 206 P3d 1042 (2009). Because it is a judicial proceeding, “plaintiff’s attorney fees may still be recoverable under ORS 742.061 in court-annexed arbitration.” Robinson v. Tri-Met, 277 Or App 60, 62 n 3, 370 P3d 864 (2016), rev den, 361 Or 886 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Landlord Tenant
State v. J.D.H.
When “determining ‘whether a particular search falls within the scope’ of a person’s consent, ‘the trial court will determine, based on the totality of circumstances,’ what the person giving the consent ‘actually intended.’” State v. Blair, 361 Or 527, 537, 396 P3d 908 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Hunter
“If there is ‘little likelihood that the error affected the verdict,’ we will affirm the judgment.” State v. Davis, 336 Or 19, 32, 77 P3d 1111 (2003).
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
Schommer v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Group
“[W]hether a claimant’s attorney untimely filed a brief, or did not file a brief at all, is a factor to be considered in assessing the appropriate amount of fees to award,” but the lack of a timely filed brief does not preclude collection of attorney fees. Shearer’s Foods v. Hoffnagle, 363 Or 147, 420 P3d 625 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Elan v. Tate
“To prove that the defendant’s negligence caused a particular injury, ‘the evidence must be sufficient to establish that such a causal relationship is reasonably probable and for this purpose, testimony that an injurious consequence is “possible,” rather than “probable,” is not sufficient.’” Feist v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 267 Or 402, 407, 517 P2d 675 (1973).
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
State v. Carey-Martin
Courts use three factors to determine if a sentence is disproportionate under Article I, Section 16: (1) the severity of the penalty compared to the gravity of the offense, (2) the penalty at issue to the penalties for other related crimes, and (3) the defendant’s criminal history. State v. Rodriguez/Buck, 347 Or 46, 58, 217 P3d 659 (2009).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Nguyen
“Where [a] prior act and the charged conduct involve similar kinds of bad conduct the similarities between the physical elements must outweigh the differences.” State v. Davis, 279 Or App 223, 234, 381 P3d 888 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Roberts
“In general, a party is entitled to a jury instruction on the law that supports that party’s theory of the case when “(1) there is evidence to support that theory and (2) the requested instruction is a correct statement of the law.” State v. Harryman, 277 Or App 346, 356, 371 P3d 1213, rev den, 360 Or 401 (2016).”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Hill v. City of Portland
“[T]he Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments permit the government to exact a dedication of private property as a condition of approval of a land use permit if the government demonstrates (1) a nexus between a governmental interest that would furnish a valid ground for the denial of the permit and the exaction of property, and (2) that the nature and extent of the exaction are roughly proportional to the effect of the proposed development. Brown v. City of Medford, 251 Or App 42, 47, 283 P3d 367 (2012).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Cascadia Wildlands v. Oregon Department of State Lands
(1) Under ORS 183.480(1), a person has standing when they are negatively affected by an order; ORS 183.480(1), provides that “a person is ‘aggrieved’ . . . if . . . (1) the person has suffered an injury to a substantial interest resulting directly from the challenged governmental action; (2) the person seeks to further an interest that the legislature expressly wished to have considered; or (3) the person has such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure concrete adverseness to the proceeding.” People for Ethical Treatment v. Inst. Animal Care, 312 Or 95, 101-02, 817 P2d 1299 (1991). (2) “[a]lthough [the State Land Board] constituted a part of the administrative department of the government under the constitution, it is nevertheless governed and controlled in the exercise of its functions by the legislature and the laws emanating therefrom.” Robertson v. Low, 44 Or 587, 594, 77 P 744 (1904).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Dept. of Human Services v. M. S. W.
“’[B]efore it can change a permanency plan to adoption, a juvenile court must be able to find affirmatively from the evidence that there is not’ another permanent plan better suited to meet the child’s health and safety needs.” Dept. of Human Services v. J. M. T. M., 290 Or App 635, 638, 415 P3d 1154 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. Kelley
“When a party objects to the admission of other acts evidence, a trial court first should determine whether the proffered evidence is relevant for one or more non-propensity purposes, under OEC 404(3). Then the court should determine, at step two, whether the probative value of that evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice under OEC 403.” State v. Baughman, 361 Or 386, 388-90, 393 P3d 1132 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. C.H.
Under ORS 425.275(4), the county in which the trial visit occurred has sole jurisdiction over all proceedings stemming from the visit.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Holt
OEC 404(4) requires trial courts to conduct balancing under OEC 403 rather than a “narrower, ‘due process’ standard for evaluating the admissibility of evidence.” State v. Baughman, 361 Or 386, 393 P3d 1132 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Mason v. BCK
Summary judgment is appropriate if undisputed facts would compel a jury to return a verdict for the moving party.” Jones v. General Motors Corp., 325 Or 404, 414, 939 P2d 608 (1997).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Wakefield
Under ORS 163.195(1), reckless endangerment occurs when a defendant’s actions put another person within the “zone of danger” of a weapon or projectile. State v. Harbert, 155 Or App 137, 963 P2d 710, rev den, 327 Or 554 (1998).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Portfolio Recovery Association v. Sanders
“The threshold question in a choice-of-law problem is whether the laws of the different states actually conflict.” Spirit Partners, LP v. Stoel Rives LLP, 212 Or App 295, 301, 157 P3d 1194 (2007).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Smith
“Under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, two components comprise probable cause: an officer must subjectively believe that a crime has been committed and thus that a person or thing is subject to seizure, and this belief must be objectively reasonable in the circumstances.” State v. Vasquez-Villagomez, 346 Or 12, 23, 203 P3d 193 (2009).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Spurger v. SAIF
Under OAR 436-035-0019(l)(i), “chronic condition impairment” occurs when a worker is significantly limited in the repetitive use of a body part. “significant impairment” includes those injuries which create important and meaningful limitations on the use of that body part. Godinez v. SAIF, 269 Or App 578, 346 P3d 530 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
State v. Harrison
To be a concealed weapon under ORS 166.250(1)(b) “an object need not be completely hidden from view Instead, a weapon may also be ‘concealed’ within the meaning of the statute even if it is recognizable for what it is if there is also evidence of an imperfect attempt to prevent it from being discovered or recognized.” State v. Turner, 221 Or App 621, 627, 191 P3d 697 (2008).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Scharfstein v. BP West Coast Products, LLC
Under ORS 646.608(1)(u), the Attorney General has rulemaking authority for protecting consumers from “any other unfair or deceptive conduct in trade or commerce.” BP West Coast Products, LLP v. Dept. of Justice, 284 Or App 723, 725, 396 P3d 244, rev den, 361 Or 800 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
State ex rel Smith v. Hitt
“Term limits are not qualifications but, rather permissible exercise[s] of state power to regulate the ‘Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections’” U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 US 779, 828, 832-33, 115 S Ct 1842, 131 L Ed 2d 881 (1995). “Where a state constitution provides for certain officials and names the qualifications for such officers, the legislature is without authority to prescribe additional qualifications unless the constitution, either expressly or by implication, gives the legislature such power.” State ex rel. Powers v. Welch, 198 Or 670, 672-73, 259 P2d 112 (1953).
Area(s) of Law:- Election Law
State v. Smith
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, 380 P3d 309 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Hartvigson v. SAIF
Under ORS 656.308(2)(d), a claimant may receive attorney fees when an employer initially denies responsibility for an injury and then rescinds that denial. Brown v. SAIF, 361 Or 241, 280-81, 391 P3d 773 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Timmerman v. Herman
Under ORS 90.370(1)(b), Tenants are entitled to possession when when “the damages awarded the tenant on her counterclaims exceed[] the amount of unpaid rent the landlord claimed was due.” L & M Investment Co. v. Morrison, 44 Or App 309, 313, 605 P2d 1347, rev den, 289 Or 275 (1980).
Area(s) of Law:- Landlord Tenant
State v. Krieger
“When the trial court has excluded testimony, the proponent of the disputed evidence must make an offer of proof. State v. Affeld, 307 Or 125, 128, 764 P2d 220 (1988). . .Error is not always sufficient to warrant reversal. We will affirm a judgment of conviction notwithstanding the erroneous admission or exclusion of evidence if there is little likelihood that the error affected the verdict. State v. Davis, 336 Or 19, 32, 77 P3d 1111 (2003).”
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
O’Hara v. Premo
“To prevail on a post-conviction claim of inadequate assistance of counsel, the burden is on the petitioner to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, facts demonstrating that trial counsel failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment and that the petitioner suffered prejudice as a result.” Lambert v. Palmateer, 182 Or App 130, 135, 47 P3d 907 (2002), adh’d to as modified on recons, 187 Or App 528, 69 P3d 725, rev den, 336 Or 125 (2003).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. O’Dell
The officer-safety exception to the warrant requirement applies when officers face an “objectively reasonable threat.” State v. Kennedy, 284 Or App 268, 272-73, 392 P3d 382 (2017). “To be objectively reasonable, the state must prove that ‘the officer’s safety concerns [are] based on facts specific to the particular person searched, not on intuition or a generalized fear that the person may pose a threat to the officer’s safety.” State v. Smith, 277 Or App 298, 303, 373 P3d 1089, rev den, 360 Or 401 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Apodaca
“Evidence of a defendant’s prior bad act that otherwise would be inadmissible under OEC 404(3) may be admissible under that rule for the non-character purpose of impeaching the defendant’s testimony” State v. Grey, 175 Or App 235, 250, 28 P3d 1195 (2001), rev den, 333 Or 463 (2002).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Davis
Out of court statements may be relevant, not for their truth, but to provide context, and therefore do not qualify as hearsay. State v. Chandler, 360 Or 323, 380 P3d 932 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Crider
“For a single criminal act or criminal episode to give rise to more than one statutory violation, 3 three requirements must be satisfied: ‘(1) defendant must have engaged in acts that are ‘the same criminal conduct or episode’; (2) defendant’s acts must have violated two or more ‘statutory provisions’; and (3) each ‘statutory provision must require proof of an element that the others do not.’” State v. Parkins, 346 Or 333, 348, 211 P3d 262 (2009) (quoting State v. Crotsley, 308 Or 272, 278, 779 P2d 600 (1989)).”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Townsend
“The right to confrontation is ‘satisfied when the defense is given a full and fair opportunity to probe and expose [the] infirmities [in the witness’s testimony] through cross-examination[.]’” State v. Quintero, 110 Or App 247, 254, 823 P2d 981 (1991) (en banc) (quoting United States v. Owens, 484 US 554, 558, 108 S Ct 838, 841, 98 L Ed 2d 951 (1988) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Stewart and Stewart
To rebut the presumption of equal contribution regarding marital assets, a party must demonstrate that the other party’s contribution to that asset is less than equal. Hixson and Hixson, 235 Or App 217, 227, 230 P3d 946, clarified on recons, 235 Or App 570, 232 P3d 996 (2010).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. Harrison
“[T]o prove contempt, the state must establish the existence of a valid court order, the defendant’s knowledge of that order, and the defendant’s willful noncompliance with that order.” State v. Beleke, 287 Or App 417, 421, 403 P3d 481, rev den, 362 Or 208 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State of Oregon v. Hernandez-Zurita
"The 'reasonableness of a petitioner's failure to act on information that is available is simply not enough to trigger the escape clause of ORS 138.510(3).'" Fisher v. Belleque, 237 Or App 405, 411, 240 P3d 745 (2010), rev den, 349 Or 601 (2011).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. Moreno-Hernandez
Under ORS 151.505 and 161.665, a court can award attorney fees when there is objective, non-speculative evidence that Defendant has the ability to pay. State v. Pendergrapht, 251 Or App 630, 633, 284 P3d 573 (2012). The three prerequisites for compensatory fines under ORS 137.101(1): criminal activities; a victim who incurred objectively verifiable economic damages that the victim could recover in a civil action; and causal relationship between the two. State v. Alonso, 284 Or App 512, 516, 393 P3d 256 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law