�����Ƶ

Crowley v. City of Hood River

Under ORS 197.829(1), “LUBA must defer to a local government’s interpretation of its comprehensive plan and land use regulations, unless the board determines that the local government’s interpretation is inconsistent with the express language, purpose, or underlying policy of the comprehensive plan or use regulation.”

• Land Use

DHS v. M.T.P.

“DHS is required to initiate a petition to terminate parental rights under these circumstances unless ‘there is a compelling reason, which is documented in the case plan, for determining that filing such a petition would not be in the best interests of the child.’” ORS 419B.498(2)(b).

• Juvenile Law

SAIF v. Maldonado

The law of the case doctrine precludes relitigation of an appellate court holding after remand and on subsequent appeal but does not apply in the context of two separate administrative proceedings "because it gives preclusive effect only to the prior ruling or decision of an appellate court . . . and does not bar such rulings from being overruled in separate cases." ILWU, Local 8 v. Port of Portland, 279 Or App 157, at 164, rev den, 360 Or 422 (2016).

• Civil 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).

• Appellate Procedure

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).

• Criminal Law

State v. Mays

Statutory analysis of ORS 164.115(1) indicates that the legislature intended that when determining the value of the stolen item, market value would be the default method and replacement value would be the fallback method. To rely on replacement value as the fallback, the state must present evidence that is not possible to ascertain market value to a reasonable certainty by an investigation that is reasonable under the circumstances.

• Criminal Law

Wells Fargo Bank v. Clark

Although ORCP 21 requires that a motion to dismiss must be made before a responsive pleading, it does not "implicitly or explicitly" state that a defendant cannot file a counter-claim and answer while waiting for the court to rule on a motion to dismiss.

• Civil Procedure

D.R.M. v. Woods

“Despite the lack of an explicit threat, the court may look at the totality of the circumstances to determine that a respondent has, with the requisite mental state, placed a petitioner in fear of imminent serious bodily injury and in immediate danger of further abuse.” Lefebvre v. Lefebvre, 165 Or App 297, 302, 996 P2d 518 (2000).

• Family Abuse Prevention Act

Eddy v. Anderson

Under ORS 90.130, “a tenant may elect to forego any remedy under the ‘essential services’ statute and to pursue a remedy under ORS 90.360(2) instead, the tenant nevertheless must act in ‘good faith.’”

• Landlord Tenant

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).

• Civil Procedure

State v. Heckler

In earlier cases, the Court has found that statutes that share a common function and many of the same characteristics may be considered statutory counterparts. State v. Donovan, 243 Or App 187, 256 P3d 196 (2011).

• Criminal Law

State v. Pryor

ORS 161.085(7) states that “‘Intentionally’ or ‘with intent,’ when used with respect to a result or to conduct described by a statute defining an offense, means that a person acts with a conscious objective to cause the result or to engage in the conduct so described.” ORS 161.085(7).

• Criminal Law

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).

• Tort Law

Emrys v. Farmers Ins. Co.

"In Oregon, a court will reform a written agreement if the party seeking that remedy establishes three things: (1) an antecedent agreement to which the contract can be reformed; (2) a mutual mistake or, alternatively, a unilateral mistake by one party along with inequitable conduct by the other party; and (3) the party seeking reformation was not grossly negligent." A&T siding, Inc. v. Capitol Specialty Ins. Corp., 358 Or 32, 42-43 (2015).

• Contract Law

State v. Brown

To qualify as an expert through training alone, a person must prove that they "acquired certain habits of judgment based on experience or special observation’ that enables him or her to draw from the facts inferences that are uniquely beneficial to the jury” regarding a subject. Mall v. Horton, 292 Or App 319, 324 (2018).

• Evidence

State v. Corcilius

Under ORS 164.805(1), "a person commits the crime of offensive littering if they create an objectionable stench" by "discarding or depositing any rubbish, trash, garbage, debris or other refuse upon the land of another without permission of the owner."

• 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).

• Criminal Law

State v. Diaz-Avalos

ORS 139.690 provides the guidelines to request a DNA test. A person may request a DNA test if the person is incarcerated "as the result of a conviction for aggravated murder [,] a person felony," murder, or is not in custody but convicted of aggravated murder or sex crime. ORS 139.690. ORS 138.692 then provides that the person furnish an affidavit supporting the motion with evidence and the defense that the DNA would support. Innocent must be proclaimed by the person entering the motion, and the DNA test result must directly support that proclamation of innocence. ORS 138.692(1)(a)(B); (1)(a)(A)(ii);& (1)(b)(A). Those requirements must be satisfied for the court to order the testing.

• Habeas Corpus

State v. Miller

Under ORS 25.110, a circuit court may enforce compliance of a support order from another county upon the motion of a party. “’Certified copies of the files, records, and prepared transcripts of testimony in the original proceeding [must] be transmitted to the clerk of the circuit court of any county in the state in which the obligee or obligor resides, or in which property the obligor is located.” Once those certified copies have been transmitted to the circuit court, the court has jurisdiction to compel compliance. ORS 25.110.

• Family 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).

• Evidence

Angel Medflight Worldwide Air Ambulance Service v. SAIF Corporation

Under ORS 183.482(8)(c), a factual finding is supported by substantial evidence so long as the “record, when viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.”

• Administrative Law

City of Troutdale v. Palace Construction Corporation

When the nonmoving party for summary judgment fails to challenge all the grounds for summary judgment made by the moving party on appeal, the court must affirm summary judgment.��State v. Stoudamire, 198 Or App 399, 403, 108 P3d 615 (2005);��Roop v. �����Ƶer Northwest Paving Co., 194 Or App 219, 236, 94 P3d 885 (2004).

• Contract Law

Makarios-Oregon, LLC v. Ross Dress-for-Less, Inc

For a party to succeed “on a fee-generating claim that shares common issues with other claims or unsuccessful efforts, time spent working on those matters is recoverable if it ‘was reasonably incurred to achieve the success that the [party] eventually enjoyed in the litigations[.]’” Fadel v. El-Tobgy, 245 Or App 696, 709-10, 264 P3d 150 (2011).

• Attorney Fees

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).

• Insurance Law

Pamplin Media Group v. City of Salem

ORS 192.314(1) provides that “[e]very person has a right to inspect any public record of a public body in this state, except as otherwise expressly provided by ORS 192.338, 192.345 and 192.355.” In a proceeding brought to require a public body to disclose public records, “the burden is on the public body to sustain its action.” ORS 192.431(1).

• Civil Law

Sauter and Sauter

Under ORS 107.105(1)(f), the court distinguishes between property brought into the marriage and property acquired during the marriage for purposes of division of personal property.

• Family Law

State v. Anderson

Under ORS 162.315(2)(c), the term “resists” means “the use or threatened use of violence, physical force or any other means that creates a substantial risk of physical injury to any person and includes . . . behavior clearly intended to prevent being taken into custody by overcoming the actions of the arresting officer. The behavior does not have to result in actual physical injury to an officer.”

• Criminal Law

State v. Berry

Under ORS 163.205(2)(b), a "'dependent person' means a person who because of either age or a physical or mental disability is dependent upon another to provide for the person's physical needs."

State v. Borders

ORS 137.540(2) grants a trial court discretion to impose any special conditions of probation “that are reasonably related to the crime of conviction or the needs of the probationer for the protection of the public or reformation of the probationer, or both”. ORS 137.540(2).

• Sentencing

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).

• Criminal Procedure

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).

• Sentencing

State v. Chandler

“Because a person who must report has 10 days after release to sign the form, it follows that that person cannot ‘fail to sign’ the form before 10 days have elapsed.” See State v. Depeche, 242 Or App 155, 163, 255 P3d 502 (2011).

• Parole and Post-Prison Supervision

State v. Clay

Pursuant to past Oregon Supreme Court decisions, “an emergency aid exception to the . . . warrant requirement is justified when police officers have an objectively reasonable belief, based on articulable facts, that a warrantless entry is necessary to either render immediate aid to persons, or assist persons who have suffered, or who are imminently threatened with suffering, serious physical injury or harm.” State v. Baker, 350 Or 641, 650, 260 P3d 476 (2011).

• Criminal Law