Oregon Supreme Court (7 summaries)
FountainCourt Homeowners v. FountainCourt Develop.
St. Paul Fire v. McCormick & Baxter Creosoting established that even if property damage begins to occur before the insurance policies are in effect, the policies are “triggered” when the damage is ongoing during the policy periods.
Area(s) of Law:- Insurance Law
American Civil Liberties Union v. City of Eugene
The public has a particularly strong interest in police department personnel investigations arising out of use of force complaints. However, a public body may separate material that is exempt from disclosure (such as personal identifying information) from material that is not exempt and make the nonexempt material available for inspection.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Yeatts v. Polygon Northwest Co.
The Oregon Employer Liability Law (ELL) imposes a greater duty of care on employers than common law negligence imposes; circumstances giving rise to ELL liability can exist without also supporting liability in negligence.
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
Etter v. Dept. of Rev.
Under 49 USC § 40116, the term “regularly” indicates that the assigned duties must be normal, typical, or routine.
Area(s) of Law:- Tax Law
Hardin v. Popoff
Under ORS 138.510, a petitioner is required to file for post-conviction relief within two years of entry of the judgment of conviction, unless the grounds for relief could not reasonably have been raised during that period. A claim can reasonably be raised even if the underlying principle has not previously been analyzed in the petitioner's situation.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. Newcomb
An individual does not have possessory rights or search and seizure rights over an animal that is lawfully seized with probable cause.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Couch Investments, LLC v. Peverieri
Under ORS 36.695 an arbitrator can order remedies that the arbitrator considers just and appropriate under the circumstances of the arbitration proceeding.
Area(s) of Law:- Remedies
Oregon Court of Appeals (42 summaries)
Dept. of Human Services v. C.L.H
In determining whether DHS failed to make reasonable efforts to make reunification possible, the juvenile court must engage in a cost-benefit analysis, considering both the burdens on the state in providing that service and the benefit that might reasonably be expected to flow from that service. DHS may not withhold a potentially beneficial service to an incarcerated parent simply because, in DHS’s estimation, reunification with the child is ultimately unlikely even if the parent successfully engages in the services and programs that DHS provides.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Lien/Wilverding
State v. Howard/Dawson, 204 Or App 438 (2006) established that defendants have no possessory interest after the sanitation company picks up the garbage can, but defendants do have a possessory interest before the sanitation company collects the defendants’ garbage can. It does not conclude that a slight deviation from an ordinary collection routine is constitutionally significant.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Herrington
An error is subject to review, regardless of whether it was preserved, if it is a plain error; an error is not plain if it is necessary to choose between competing inferences to find it. When the record does not contain a written jury waiver, competing inferences do not exist.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Stewart
ORS 475.900(2)(a) applies when a defendant commits unlawful delivery with the purpose of obtaining something of value in return, even if the defendant has not yet received payment or a promise of payment at the time he commits the delivery.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. McCright
(1) Under State v. Bates a trial court judge’s decision to maintain restraints on a defendant throughout trial without justification is error. The error is harmless if the proceeding is without a jury, which reduces the likelihood of prejudice, and there is no showing that the use of restraints substantially affects the trial court’s fact finding.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Reed
ORS 88.010(1) does not require the entry of a money judgment against a lien debtor where the foreclosure plaintiff does not seek a money judgment against the lien debtor
Area(s) of Law:- Bankruptcy Law
State v. Dawson
Under State v. Dennis, an officer conducting a traffic stop is free to question a motorist about matters unrelated to that stop, but not as an alternative to going forward with the next step in processing the traffic stop.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Criswell
If a trial judge believes that an offender should receive a more severe sentence than the one originally imposed, the judge’s reasoning must appear on the record. Those reasons must be based on identified facts of which the first sentencing judge was unaware, and must not be a product of vindictiveness.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Hall
State v. Reed and Ailes v. Portland Meadows found that when deciding whether to exercise discretion to correct plain error, a court may consider the competing interests of the parties, the ends of justice in a particular case and whether the policies behind the general rule requiring preservation of error have been served in the case in another way.
Area(s) of Law:- Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
Big River Construction, Inc. v. City of Tillamook
An expert’s estimate can be of sufficient competence and certainty to base damages on if, from the proximate estimate, a satisfactory conclusion can be reached.
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
State v. Delfino
State v. Krause established that when a search incident to arrest is conducted for the purpose of discovering evidence of the crime of arrest, the search comports with Article I, section 9, even if a defendant no longer has control over the area searched, as long as the evidence reasonably could be found in that area and the search is otherwise reasonable in time, scope, and intensity. If the search in this case occurred immediately after the officer developed probable cause for a Defendant’s arrest, and Defendant had exited the van only shortly before that occurred, the search was reasonable in time, scope, and intensity.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Sheldon v. US Bank
In a workers' compensation claim, the claimant is only required to adequately explain why idiopathic factors were not the cause of the injury, not to disprove every other possible cause of the injuries.
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
Purdy v. Deere and Company
Under the standard of Estate of Michelle Schwarz v. Philip Morris, when an instruction is necessary to inform the jury of the parameters that it must apply in considering evidence, an instruction that does not completely and accurately describe those parameters is erroneous and objectionable, even if the omitted portion of those parameters would benefit the opposing party.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Webber
Probable cause exists only if the affidavit sets forth facts that create a nexus between the place to be searched and the objects to be found. State v. Goodman established that facts derived from an officer’s training and experience may contribute the necessary factual nexus in a determination of probable cause, but it does not, in all instances, mean that an officer’s mechanical invocation of training and experience is sufficient to obtain a warrant to search a given location. There must be objective facts derived from other sources.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Krause
State v. Washington established that even if the defendant is removed from the area in which an officer believes that evidence is located, then a warrantless search incident to arrest to discover evidence of the crime of arrest is justified if the driver had control of the car immediately before the arrest and the search followed closely, making the search of the car incident to the driver’s arrest reasonable in time and scope.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Hayward v. Premo
Under ORS 138.525, dismissing a meritless petition is not appealable and an untimely petition must allege facts that, if supported by evidence, would establish that the grounds for relief could not reasonably have been raised timely.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. Christy
State v. Pumphrey provides that a court may award restitution for expenses incurred by a victim in implementing security measures in response to a defendant’s crimes, if there is evidence sufficient to support a finding that Defendant’s criminal activities were a “but for” cause of the expenses that the victim incurred.
Area(s) of Law:- Remedies
State v. Hoard
State v. Hill established that the circumstances of a dangerous weapon’s use, as mentioned in ORS 161.015(1), rather than design features, convert an object into a dangerous weapon. Under ORS 166.275, if there is evidence from which a jury could infer that an object was not yet a weapon, the jury could consider an attempt charge.
Clackamas County Oregon v. Clackamas River Water
Under ORS 258.046, an election contest proceeding should have a prevailing party, even if a claim does not exist, and the prevailing party should be entitled to a mandatory fee award.
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
State v. Gray
Under ORS 137.540, probation may be revoked if an individual fails to abide by all general and special conditions of probation and the court is not required to prove that it was a willful failure.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Heroff v. Coursey
State v. Parker established that it is improper for counsel to interject personal appraisal of a witness’s credibility in a way, which would suggest to the jury that the appraisal is based upon counsel’s own knowledge of facts not introduced into evidence.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Johnson and Price
Under ORS 107.105, courts are not authorized to award property or attorneys fees as spousal support. In addition, when a court is rendering a judgment of dissolution, the court may provide for “the division or other disposition between the parties of the real or personal property as may be just and proper."
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Dayton v. Jordan
Whether a sale of land creates an implied easement is determined on a case by case basis. The dispositive question is whether a reasonable purchaser would expect the easement under the circumstances in which he or she purchased the land.
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
State v. Hudson
Under OEC 103, evidentiary errors are not presumed to be prejudicial. A defendant’s conviction due to an evidentiary error cannot be reversed unless the defendant can demonstrate that he or she was actually prejudiced by that error.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Goodlette v. Causey
Under ORS 138.590, a petitioner is entitled to suitable counsel, but a post-conviction relief court is not required to appoint substitute counsel simply because a petitioner disagrees with his or her attorney’s reasonable strategic choices.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. Barber
Mere acquiescence occurs when an individual is not given a reasonable opportunity to choose to consent or when he or she is informed that a search will occur regardless of whether consent is given.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Wolfgang
Under ORS 131.505(4), when a defendant is found guilty of more than one criminal offense that arises out of a continuous and uninterrupted course of conduct, the sentences imposed for the resulting convictions must be concurrent.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Dept. of Human Services v. S. S.
The Department of Human Services must undertake reasonable efforts to make it possible for children to safely return home based on circumstances that exist prior to a permanency hearing and that period must be sufficient in length to afford a good opportunity to assess parental progress.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. Hermanson
In order to obtain evidence through a warrantless entry, the state must show how long it would take to obtain a search warrant and that the police had an objectively reasonable belief that the evidence would be lost within that specified time.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Dept. of Human Services v. A. D. D. B.
Under ORS 419B.337, for an order removing a child from the parents’ custody or continuing substitute care, a court must find that reasonable efforts were made to make it possible for the child to safely return home.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Bowman v. SAIF Corp.
Under ORS 656.386(1)(a), a reasonable fee includes all the time an attorney dedicates that relates to litigating a denial and rescission, including reasonable time spent after an insurer communicates its intention to rescind its denial and accept a claim.
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
State v. Jacquez
Under ORS 161.635, trial courts have the authority to impose fines for Class A misdemeanors without making any findings or following any particular procedures and those decisions are not appealable unless the fine exceeds the statutory maximum.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Parnell
If the trial court does not make specific findings on all material facts, and there is evidence from which such facts could be decided in more than one way, the Court will presume that the facts were decided in a manner consistent with the trial court’s ultimate findings.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Jones v. Randle
Judicial estoppel precludes someone for asserting an ownership interest in property that was undisclosed during previous bankruptcy proceedings if that person derived a benefit from not disclosing their ownership interest before.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Sierra
Under ORS 138.222, if a case involves multiple counts of which at least one is a felony and the appellate court reverses the judgment of conviction on any count and affirms other counts, the appellate court must remand the case to the trial court for resentencing on the affirmed count or counts.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Larisa's Home Care, LLC v. Nichols-Shields
To determine if an injustice exists for purposes of an unjust enrichment claim, one of the following factors must be present: (1) the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of payment; (2) the defendant should reasonably have expected to pay; or (3) society’s reasonable expectations of security of person and property would be defeated by non-payment.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Flight Shop, Inc. v. Leading Edge Aviation, Inc.
Under ORS 197.825, the Land Use Board of Appeals has exclusive jurisdiction over land use decisions despite the circuit court’s jurisdiction over enforcement actions.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Keystone RV Co.-Thor Industries, Inc. v. Erickson
The Workers’ Compensation Board’s evaluation of expert witness opinions and medical evidence is unreasonable when based on a misunderstanding.
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
Elsea v. Liberty Mutual, Ins.
Under ORS 656.206, If a worker is so disabled that he or she cannot work, efforts to seek work would be futile. Even if efforts would be futile, to establish permanent total disability, the worker must prove that, but for the compensable injury, the worker is or would be willing to seek regular gainful employment.
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
State v. E. G.
Under ORS 426.110, a trial court must appoint a qualified examiner to review the mental health report in order to conduct a proper civil commitment hearing. A qualified examiner must be certified by the Oregon Health Authority or the Psychiatric Security Review Board.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
T.W.-S. and Sullivan
Under ORCP 68, a party can object to a statement seeking attorney fees and costs by a written objection to the statement; if no objection is filed, a court may award attorney fees.
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
State v. T.W.
Failure to inform an allegedly mentally ill individual of the possible results of a hearing and of the individual’s right to subpoena witnesses is plain error.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
Land Use Board of Appeals (5 summaries)
Goldson v. Clackamas County
Under ORS 197.80(9), the deadline for filing a notice of intent to appeal is 21 days after the appealed decision becomes final.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Phillips v. City of Corvallis
ORS 197.830(3) applies only when the local government holds a hearing and fails to provide the petitioner notice of the hearing, when the petitioner is entitled to notice under state law.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Rogue Advocates v. Jackson County
Under ORS 197.835(2), LUBA may exercise its discretion to grant a motion to take additional evidence, unless the party had an opportunity to present evidence during a first appeal, but failed to present it, which would make LUBA’s grant inconsistent with ORS 197.805, which states that “time is of the essence” in reaching final land use decisions.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Devlin v. Linn County
Under ORS 197.015(10)(b)(A), LUBA does not have jurisdiction over a land use decision if it is made under land use standards that do not require interpretation or the exercise of policy or legal judgment; determining that a property is zoned industrial does not require interpretation or the exercise of policy or legal judgment.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
J4J v. City of Jefferson
Under ORS 197.835(9)(a)(B), the Land Use Board of Appeals will reverse or remand a land use decision under review based on procedural errors, only if the Board finds that the local government failed to follow procedural rules which prejudiced substantial rights of the petitioner.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use