Oregon Supreme Court (4 summaries)
State v. Edmonds
Law enforcement records are generally not admissible under the "business records exception" in criminal cases because it supports the conclusion that, under the Oregon Evidence Code, “section [803](6) does not open a back door for evidence excluded by section [803](8)”. United States v. Oates, 560 F2d 45 (2d Cir 1977). United States v. Cain, 615 F2d 380 (5th Cir 1980).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Vallin
Although the preamble to the legislature’s 2009 bill, HB 3508, and on representations made by legislators and their staff during committee hearings on the bill might support a legislative intent to “phase in” sentences that were as long as the ones that the voters had approved in Measure 57, they do not support an intent to restore the sentences to their former status as sentences that were approved by the people and thus subject to the two-thirds majority requirement of Measure 57 as they are sentences that the legislature adopted.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Garges v. Premo
Under ORS 34.320, if a habeas plaintiff has been transferred to a different facility, the court shall “transfer the case to the jurisdiction in which the other institution is located, unless the court ‘determines that by reason of the plaintiff’s transfer the claims *** do not require immediate judicial scrutiny or are otherwise subject to dismissal’” which are to be determined on a case by case basis.
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
State v. Tena
Under OEC 404(3), in order to admit evidence of violent behavior for non-propensity purposes, the state must "show some substantial connecting link between the two acts," that is, between the other act and the charged act. State v. Flett, 234 Or 124, 380 P2d 634 (1963).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Oregon Court of Appeals (60 summaries)
Childers Meat Co., Inc. v. City of Eugene
A fee is “based on quantity” when “the quantity of hazardous substance used” is a “principal component of determining whether a user pays a fee” and Eugene Code 3.692 expressly establishes that connection by defining “hazardous substances user,” in part, as an entity that uses “any quantity of hazardous substance (above zero)” and the mere reference to quantity does not indicate that the fee is “quantity-based”. Advocates for Effective Regulation v. City of Eugene, 160 Or App 292, (1999) (Advocates I). Additionally, under Chapter II of the Eugene Charter, the city retains significant authority to adopt rules and ordinances that regulate entities also regulated by the charter itself and “all power of the city is vested in the city council,” except as expressly provided by the charter. Eugene Charter § 4(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Business Law
Warren v. Washington County
Pursuant to ORS 197.307(4), the “clear and objective requirement applies broadly to local governments’ application of standards, conditions, and procedures 'regulating the development of housing' generally, including 'needed housing.'"”
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Travelers Ins. Co. v. Arevalo
Under ORS 656.382 and ORS 656.383, "attorney fees are contingent on achieving a favorable result," which cannot be “incurred” until a final order is issued, and a claimant finally prevails on a disputed issue. Travelers Ins. Co. v. Arevalo, 296 Or App 514, 521 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
Campos v. Jensen
The proper analysis under Neumann requires an examination of individual statements within the context of the review as a whole, a context which demonstrated in that instance that the statements were “not provably false” but, rather, statements of opinion or speculation. Neumann v. Liles, 358 Or 706 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
D. M. v. Oregon Health Authority
When an agency withdraws an order under ORS 183.482(6) and then files an order on reconsideration that does not merely “affirm[] *** or modif[y] the order with only minor changes,” a petitioner must file a timely amended petition for judicial review of the order on reconsideration if the petitioner seeks to proceed with the case” and failure to timely file an amended petition for judicial review means that the proceeding must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Haskell Corp. v. Filippi, 152 Or App 117 (1998).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Michaelson/NWDA v. City of Portland
The scope of LUBA’s review is to look at the whole record which is a direction “to evaluate the substantiality of supporting evidence by considering all the evidence in the record." ORS 197.835(9)(a)(C). Younger v. City of Portland, 305 Or 346 (1988).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
City of Eugene v. Hejazi
In order for jurisdiction to be found, "the essential prerequisite of our jurisdiction under ORS 221.360 is that the appellant raise a cognizable facial or as-applied challenge to the constitutionality of an ordinance” that the appellant was convicted of violating. City of Lowell v. Wilson, 197 Or App 291, (2005).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. H. H. J.
"Under ORS 426.301(1), if the court finds that the person is still a person with mental illness and in need of further treatment, it 'may order commitment to the authority for an additional indefinite period of time up to 180 days,' otherwise the person must be released." State v. T. Z., 287 Or App 8 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Dept. of Human Services v. D.W.M.
The risk of harm when establishing jurisdiction must be “present at the time of the hearing and not merely speculative” and “a person’s status as a sex offender does not alone justify state intervention, nor does the fact that a sex offender is untreated create a presumption of risk to the child.” Dept. of Human Services v. E.M., 264 Or App 76 (2014); Dept. of Human Services v. G.J.R., 254 Or App 436 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Dept. of Human Servives v. M. M. R.
A court has the inherent authority to set aside a judgment for extrinsic fraud only, which “consists of acts not involved in the fact finder’s consideration of the merits of the case." Wimber v. Timpe, 109 Or App 139 (1991).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Ellingsen
Under ORS 164.055(1), “[t]he legislature did not intend theft by receiving committed by selling to include a theft, * * * that is both committed by an initial thief and committed by fraudulently returning property to its owner in accordance with the owner’s return policy rather than by selling that property to a third party in the market for stolen goods.” State v. Fonte, 363 Or 327 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Willamette Oaks, LLC v. City of Eugene
Under ORAP 5.45(1) provides, in part, that “[n]o matter claimed as error will be considered on appeal unless the claim of error was preserved in the lower court” and must “demonstrate that the question or issue presented by the assignment of error timely and properly was raised and preserved in the lower court.” Barnes v. City of Hillsboro, 239 Or App 73, 81, 243 P3d 139 (2010).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
T. G. W. v. B. J. V.
Under ORS 109.324, willful neglect looks at the failure of parent to maintain substantial expressions of concern which show that the parent has a "deliberate, intentional, and good faith interest in maintaining a parent-child relationship” with the relevant further inquiry being whether there is “just and sufficient cause” that excuses the parent’s neglect. Eder v. West, 312 Or 244 (1991). C. R. H. v. B. F., 343 Or 690 (2007).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
J. K. v. Kargol
Under ORS 107.718, in order for a FAPA restraining order to be issued, petitioner must prove by a preponderance of evidence that respondent (1) “abused” petitioner in the 180 days preceding the filing of the petition, (2) presents an “imminent danger of further abuse” to petitioner, and (3) “represents a credible threat to the physical safety of the petitioner”, with a subjective fear being insufficient. T. K. v. Stutzman, 281 Or App 388 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Abuse Prevention Act
State v. Tolbert
Under ORS 164.395, “immediate use of physical force” is required to establish robbery, which is interpreted as “hot pursuit in which the thief uses force against his pursuer,” without an “interruption of a cognizable interval of time, space, or incident.” State v. Rios, 24 Or App 393(1976), State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160 (2009).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
DHS v. T.L.M.H
Under ORS 419B.500, “the applicable standard of proof is the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard,” to which must show “that it is highly probable that termination of mother’s parental rights is in [the child’s] best interest.” Dept. of Human Services v. M. P.-P., 272 Or App 502, (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. S.T.
Under ORS 426.005(1)(f)(B), a person has a mental illness if, because of a mental disorder, the person 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.”
Area(s) of Law:- Disability Law
State v. Jerscheid
Under ORS 137.542(2), "if a person holds a registry identification card and is sentenced to probation—the probation conditions related to the use of usable marijuana and specified cannabinoid products must comply with the statute."
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Wendt
“A witness needs to demonstrate her expertise relative to the topic about which she is asked to make her statement” which can be proven with “specialized knowledge” through professional experience under OEC 702. Meyer v. Harvey Aluminum, 263 Or 487 (1972). State v. Woodbury, 289 Or App 109 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Summerfield v. OLCC
If testimony is scientific, the proponent is “required to comply with the standards for admission of scientific evidence set out in O’Key and * * * Brown[.]” which set out factors to consider when assessing scientific reliability. State v. Henley, 363 Or 284 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Markstrom v. Guard Publishing Co.
When a court imposes the sanction of dismissal under ORCP 46, the court is required to “explain why that sanction is just.” Pamplin v. Victoria, 319 Or 429 (1994).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Homan
“An error in excluding evidence is harmless if there is ‘little likelihood that the error affected the jury’s verdict’” State v. Davis, 336 Or 19 (2003).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Long
Under ORS 163.545, the “term ‘unattended’ means that the child is left under circumstances in which no responsible person is present to attend to his needs.” Commentary to Criminal Law Revision Commission Proposed Oregon Criminal Code, Final Draft and Report § 174, 176 (July 1970). It is the state’s burden to prove the elements of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt. ORS 136.415; State v. Rainey, 298 Or 459 (1985).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Crow
The legislature explicitly found and declared that “[a]nimals are sentient beings capable of experiencing pain, stress and fear,” ORS 167.332(1) and that the principal purpose was to protect individual animals from further abuse and neglect, and to deter animal abuse and neglect in the first place and that the “prohibition on possessing a particular genus of animal was designed so that the possession ban is customized to protect the particular class of animals against which the defendant’s crime was committed, not to protect the public generally” which shows that the roots of the cruelty laws have been interested in “protecting individual animals themselves from suffering.” State v. Nix, 355 Or 777 (2014).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Saunders
A party invites error when the party is "actively instrumental in bringing about" an alleged error that can also happen “where counsel’s failure to object was inadvertent or unintentional.” State v. Kammeyer, 226 Or App 210 (2009). Tenbusch v. Linn County, 172 Or App 172 (2001).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Moore v. Allstate Ins. Co.
“Nothing in McBride suggests that ORS 742.524(1) mandates payment of PIP benefits within 60 days of an insurer receiving the bills” and the “60-day requirement in ORS 742.524(1)(a) operates to create a rebuttable presumption that the medical bills are reasonable and necessary”, which can be rebutted by a defendant. McBride v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 282 Or App 675 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Insurance Law
State v. Brown
Mere conversation becomes a seizure “only if the officer engages in conduct significantly beyond that accepted in ordinary social intercourse” and the “pivotal factor is whether the officer, even if making inquiries [that] a private citizen would not, has otherwise conducted himself in a manner that would be perceived as nonoffensive contact if it had occurred between two ordinary citizens.” State v. Holmes, 311 Or 400, 410, 813 P2d 28 (1991).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Department of Human Services v. J.E.R.
“DHS’s efforts are evaluated over the entire duration of the case, with an emphasis on a period before the [permanency] hearing sufficient in length to afford a good opportunity to assess parental progress”, with the efforts to be analyzed on “the particular circumstances of each case” and “particularly the adjudicated bases for jurisdiction.” Dept. of Human Services v. S. M. H., 283 Or App 295 (2017). Dept. of Human Services v. S. S., 278 Or App 725 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Cedartech v. Strader
When it comes to substantial performance, the determination is “a question of fact” that is to be decided by the trial court using the preponderance of the evidence standard. American Petrofina v. D & L Oil Supply, 283 Or 183, 195, 583 P2d 521 (1978).
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
Integrity Properties of Oregon, LLC v. Elkins
An unpreserved error may be reviewed as plain error if “(1) the error is one of law; (2) the error is apparent, that is, the legal point is obvious, not reasonably in dispute; and (3) the error appears on the face of the record, in that we need not go outside the record or choose between competing inferences to find it.” After meeting those requirements, the Court may decide whether to use its discretionary power based on the totality of the circumstances. State v. Loving, 290 Or App 805, 809, 417 P3d 470 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
State v. Haji
An amendment to an indictment is improper when the “omission of the allegations from the original indictment was a defect of ‘form’ within the meaning of Article VII,” with the matter of “form” being one that is not “essential to show that an offense has been committed.” State v. Wimber, 315 Or 103, (1992).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Patterson and Patterson
In order to modify an award of spousal support, the court must determine that there has been a “substantial, unanticipated change in economic circumstances since the original award” with the other party carrying the burden of proof. Boni and Boni, 208 Or App 592 (2006).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. Meeker
In determining whether an officer’s objective belief is reasonable, we look at “the totality of the circumstances as they reasonably appeared to the officer at the time” that must be based on “facts specific to the particular person” and cannot be based on “intuition or a generalized fear that the person may pose a threat to the officer’s safety.” State v. Jackson, 190 Or App 194 (2003), rev den, 337 Or 182 (2004).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Bowden
ORS 137.540(2) allows the imposition of special conditions “that are supplementary to the general conditions available under ORS 137.540(1)” and it is not intended as a way to override a general condition. State v. Schwab, 95 Or App 593 (1989)
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. S.-Q. K.
“Adjudicatory hearings”, according to the legislative history, were intended to be a “one shot” disposition, meaning that one “could not first give one disposition and later give another for the same act, stating a range of possible dispositions are available to the court upon the first try and the court just has to choose the right one so it “encompasses a juvenile court probation violation hearing”. DCBS v. Muliro, 359 Or 736 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Department of Human Services v. J.H.
Under ORS 419B.100(1)(c), the juvenile court may assert jurisdiction only where the evidence is sufficient to establish “a current threat of serious loss or injury that is likely to be realized” which is to be based on “the totality of the children’s circumstances or conditions.” Dept. of Human Services v. A. W., 276 Or App 276 (2016). Dept. of Human Services v. A. L., 268 Or App 391 (2015)
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Department of Human Services v. T.L.H.S.
When it comes to a jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court’s focus must be “on the child’s conditions or circumstances at the time of the hearing and whether the totality of those circumstances demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of harm to the welfare of the child.” Dept. of Human Services v. W. A. C., 263 Or App 382 (2014)
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Howard
When it comes to a restitution award, the State must prove that there were “(1) criminal activities, (2) economic damages, and (3) a causal relationship between the two.” State v. Kirkland, 268 Or App 420 (2015). It is “plain error, in fact—for a trial court to impose restitution based on activities that occurred outside the period of time covered by the defendant’s plea agreement.” State v. Muhammad, 265 Or App 412 (2014).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Middleton v. Premo
Under ORS 138.550(2), “post-conviction relief is available only if the ground for relief ‘was not asserted and could not reasonably have been asserted in the direct appellate review proceeding.’”
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
State v. Werner
Under 813.011(1), the word “convicted” refers to the date of conviction, where its interpretation is supported by Measure 73, which “makes DUII a Class C felony if defendant [was] previously convicted of DUII, or statutory counterpart, at least twice in prior 10 years.” Shilo Inn v. Multnomah County, 334 Or 11 (2002).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Department of Human Services v. K.D.S.
Under ORS 419B.918(1) and ORS 419B.918(7), a court may exercise discretion in its decisions, however the court “is obligated to make a record of that exercise” and must “describe the basic reasons for its discretionary decisions” that enables “appellate courts to engage in meaningful review of the court’s exercise of discretion.” Olson and Olson, 218 Or App 1 (2008); State v. Kacin, 237 Or App 66 (2010).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Nemecek v. Taylor
“Whether a petitioner has demonstrated prejudice is a question of law that, in turn, may depend on predicate findings of fact.” Hayward v. Belleque, 248 Or App 141 (2012). “If the post-conviction court failed to make findings of fact on all the issues and there is evidence from which such facts could be decided more than one way we will presume that the facts were decided consistently with the post-conviction court’s conclusions of law.” Everett v. Premo, 279 Or App 470 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Portland Metro. Assn. of Realtors v. City of Portland
"A case becomes moot when a court’s decision will no longer have a practical effect on the rights of the parties” which requires the moving party “to identify any collateral consequences that he or she contends has the effect of producing the required practical effects of a judicial decision” and demonstrate that “any of those identified collateral consequences either does not exist or is legally insufficient.” State v. K. J. B., 362 Or 777 (2018)
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Marshall v. Cannady
In order “to preserve an argument for appeal, ‘[a] party must provide the trial court with an explanation of his or her objection that is specific enough to ensure that the court can identify its alleged error with enough clarity to permit it to consider and correct the error immediately, if correction is warranted.’” Justice and Crum, 265 Or App 635 (2014).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Blueback
When the Department of Transportation issues license plates, ORS 803.525 requires that a vehicle be issued two license plates and, when taken in conjuncture with ORS 803.540(1)(b), require that the “vehicle’s driver display two plates.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Bowerman v. Lane County
Under ORS 92.190, local governments “may use procedures other than replatting procedures in ORS 92.180 and 92.185 to adjust property lines as described in ORS 92.010(12)” with the only limitation being that the procedures “must provide for recording of approved property line adjustments.”
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
State v. Ritz
When it comes to exigent circumstances, “the mere possibility that defendant could make a break if he were so inclined” does not give rise to exigency “when there is no indication that he is, in fact, so inclined.” State v. Peller, 287 Or 255 (1979).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Covington
When determining if an in camera review is required, the defendant must “demonstrate that the items of which he sought review would have been material and favorable to his defense” and the trial court must decide whether to undertake that review considering “the facts and circumstances of the particular case, the volume of materials at issue, the relative importance of information sought, and whether such information might be available from non-privileged sources.” State v. Cockrell, 284 Or App 674 (2017), State v. Lammi, 278 Or App 690 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Engweiler v. Board of Parole
The United States Supreme Court's explicit statement prevails: “entitlement, if any, to eventual release will be to parole.” State v. Turner, 235 Or App 462, 466, 234 P.3d 993 (2010).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Robin v. Teacher Standards and Practices Comm.
Under ORS 183.650(2) and the implementing rule, OAR 137-003-0665(3), an agency must “identify the modifications and provide an explanation to the parties to the hearing as to why the agency made the modifications” if the agency “modifies the form of order issued” or “changes the outcome or the basis for the order”.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
State v. Mendoza-Lopez
Preservation is required to ensure that party positions are clearly presented and “it will turn on whether, given the particular record of a case, the court concludes that the policies underlying the rule have been sufficiently served.” State v. Parkins, 346 Or 333 (2009).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Horton
Under ORS 165.800(1), intent to defraud requires that a defendant act with specific intent which looks at a “conscious objective of causing the injury to another’s legal rights or interest."
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Roberts
A trial court errs as a matter of law when it “fails to conduct OEC 403 balancing when requested to do so or if it fails to make a record that reflects that the court has conducted the requested OEC 403 balancing.” State v. Garcia-Rocio, 286 Or App 136 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
LandWatch Lane County v. Lane County
Under interpretation of the statutory text, “there is no more persuasive evidence of the intent of the legislature than the words by which the legislature undertook to give expression to its wishes.” State v. Branch, 362 Or 351 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
State v. Manning
Under Art. I, sec. 11 of the Oregon Constitution and Sixth Amendment, a defendant is guaranteed a right to make a closing argument based on evidence if it is not based on impermissible speculation that is “insufficient to support an inference when the conclusion to be drawn from it requires too great an influential leap”. State v. Bivins, 191 Or App 460 (2004).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Schmidtke
An officer’s statements amount to unlawful interrogation when “the substance of the [statements made] to defendant and the manner in which those [statements] were [made] demonstrated that they were likely to elicit some type of incriminating response”, where incriminating response refers to any “inculpatory or exculpatory response” that a prosecutor may seek to introduce in a trial. State v. Scott, 343 Or 195 (2007).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Miranda
Under ORS 164.225, to survive a motion for a judgment of acquittal for burglary, the State is required “to plead and prove the specific offense that defendant intended to commit when he unlawfully entered or remained in the house.” State v. Frey, 248 Or App 1 (2012), rev den, 354 Or 814 (2014).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Hubbard
ORS 163.115(5) grants the authority to parole “persons with life sentences for murder” regardless of when the crime happened. State v. Haynes, 168 Or. App. 623 (2000).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Kuralt v. SAIF
Under ORS 656.265, in order to survive a claim for worker compensation, a worker must have good cause for failing to submit a timely notice with a subjective belief which must be "induced by some actual occurrence which is susceptible to such an interpretation by him." Riddel v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 8 Or App 438, 494 P2d 901 (1972).
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
Wingard v. Oregon Family Council, Inc.
Under ORS 31.150(3), a plaintiff must present “substantial evidence to support a prima facie case” to have an anti-SLAPP motion denied; this means that a plaintiff “must submit sufficient evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could find that the plaintiff met its burden of production.” Handy v. Lane County, 360 Or 605, 385 P3d 1016 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law