Mathis v. St. Helens Auto Center, Inc.
"ORS 652.200(2) does not contain any 'beat the offer' language. . . it simply provides for attorney fees in a particular type of action, subject to a few conditions. . . [and] is therefore unlike ORS 20.080(1), ORS 742.061(1), or ORCP 54 E."
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Sanford v. Hampton Resources, Inc.
鈥淭o succeed on an IIER claim . . . [there must be] (1) the existence of a professional or business relationship (which could include, e.g. a contract or a prospective economic advantage), (2) intentional interference with that relationship, (3) by a third party, (4) accomplished through an improper means or for an improper purpose, (5) a causal effect between the interference and damage to the economic relationship, and (6) damages.鈥澨齅cGanty v. Staudenraus, 321 Or 532, 535, 901 P2d 841 (1995).
Area(s) of Law:- Business Law
State. Lachat
In a harmless-error analysis, a defendant鈥檚 testimony may be considered if it was obtained voluntarily and in such a manner as to not violate 鈥渃onstitutional protections against compelled confessions.鈥 State v. McGinnis, 335 Or 243, 252-53, 264 P3d 1123 (2003).
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
State v. Chapman
鈥淕iven . . . statutory and legislative history [of ORS 19.260(1)(a)(B)] we conclude that ordinary first-class mail was not what the legislature intended by the phrase. . . 鈥榤ailed or dispatched by a class of delivery calculated to achieve within three calendar days . . ." The drafters intended to expand the categories of registered or certified mail to include expedited delivery services, but the drafters conspicuously refrained from substituting ordinary first-class mail.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Dickinson
In restitution cases, 鈥渢he trial court [can] not simply rely on a review of [a victim鈥檚 medical bill] and 鈥榗ommon sense鈥 to conclude that such charges were reasonable,鈥 and the state is required to produce 鈥渁dditional testimony or evidence鈥 to support that a medical bill is reasonable. State v. McClelland, 278 Or App 138, 141, 372 P3d 614 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Eatinger
When testimony is scientific, the State is required to lay foundation using the听Brown/O鈥橩ey听factors.听听State v. O鈥橩ey, 321 Or 285, 899 P2d 663 (1995);听State v. Brown, 297 Or 404, 687 P2d 751 (1984).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Ramirez
Pursuant to ORS 137.540, a defendant violates probation by violating a general or special condition of probation lawfully imposed by the court.听
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Bank of America, N.A., v. Carlson
鈥淭hose statements were not admissible under the hearsay exception for business records under OEC 803(6), which, subject to various requirements, allows for the admission of a 鈥榤emorandum, report, record, or data compilation, in any form鈥欌︹榥o part of that rule purports to render testimony about [the records] admissible over a hearsay objection.鈥欌 U.S. Bank National Assn. v. McCoy, 290 Or App 525, 534-536, 415 P3d 1116 (2018) (emphasis in original).
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
Card and Card
ORS 107.105(1) 鈥済enerally does not authorize a court to award property as spousal support鈥 unless 鈥渢he assets awarded in the property division may also generate new income that may be considered in determining future spousal support payments.鈥 Johnson and Price, 280 Or App 71, 79, 380 P3d 983 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. Savath
"The 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. . .[and] it must not authorize a search that is broader than the supporting affidavit supplies probable cause to justify.鈥 State v. Mansor, 363 Or 185, 212 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Burley v. Clackamas County
Pursuant to ORS 659.001(4)(a), "for the purposes of chapter 659A, 鈥檈mployer鈥 means any person who in this state, directly or through an agent, engages or uses the personal service of one or more employees, reserves the right to control the means by which such service is or will be performed. Additionally, ORS 659.001(9)(b) states 鈥溾橻p]erson鈥 includes . . . [a] public body as defined in ORS 30.260.鈥欌
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Eberhardt v. Providence Health and Service
A 鈥渢rial court d[oes] not abuse its discretion by granting summary judgment without giving plaintiff additional time to submit鈥 a response to pleadings when 鈥淸t]he court had already granted plaintiff additional time to file [the] response and made it clear to plaintiff that it would not allow any additional postponements.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Goodwin v. NBC Universal Media - NBC Universal
Under ORS 656.319(1), an employer must be able to connect a hearing request to the particular denial or matter to which it relates; so a request for a hearing must be related to a particular denial by referencing the particular denial that is being challenged, either directly or indirectly.
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
State v. Cooper
鈥淭he decision to revoke probation is discretionary and may be exercised upon a finding that the offender has violated one or more conditions of probation . . . .鈥 OAR 213-010-0001.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Olson
Substitution of counsel is required when there is a "'legitimate complaint concerning [appointed counsel]' that might rise to the level of requiring substitution." State v. Langley, 314 Or 247, 257, 839 P2d 692 (1992), adh鈥檇 to on recons, 318 Or 28, 861 P2d 1012 (1993).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Partain
Defendants are not required to preserve a challenge that is raised on appeal if the error appears for the first time in the judgment. State v. Lewis, 236 Or App 49, 52, 234 P3d 152 (2010).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Carter v. Waste Management Disposal Services of Oregon
In SAIF, the Court held that a medical expert鈥檚 鈥渙pinion is persuasive鈥 but 鈥渋n all events, a medical expert鈥檚 opinion that an increase of symptoms signifies an actual worsening of a particular compensable condition satisfies the actual worsening standard鈥 as found in ORS 656.273. SAIF v. January, 166 Or App 620, 624 (2000).
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
Dept. of Human Services v. J. G. K.
Evidence demonstrating a parent鈥檚 ability to sufficiently care for their child is relevant at both initial and established jurisdiction hearings; however, if it is clear such evidence would not influence the court鈥檚 ruling, its exclusion is considered harmless. Dept. of Human Services v. T.L., 279 Or App 673, 678, 684-85, 379 P3d 741 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Curry
"The discriminatory use of peremptory challenges by the prosecution causes a criminal defendant cognizable injury. . . [r]ather it is because racial discrimination in the selection of jurors 'casts doubt on the integrity of the judicial process,' and paces the fairness of a criminal proceeding in doubt." Powers v. Ohio,听499 US 400, 411-12, 111 S Ct 1364, 113 L Ed 2d 411 (1991).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Payne
When the trial court errs, the reviewing court is required to affirm the judgment of the trial court if, 鈥渢here is little likelihood that the error affected the verdict.鈥 State v. Davis, 336 Or 19, 32, 77 P3d 1111 (2003).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Payne
Jury concurrence is necessary 鈥渨hen the indictment charges a single violation of a crime but the evidence permits the jury to find multiple, separate occurrences of that crime.鈥 State v. Pipkin, 354 Or 513, 517, 316 P3d 255 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Smartt
In a restitution proceeding under ORS 137.106(1)(a), 鈥渢he state can demonstrate the reasonable value of medical expenses by offering evidence that the medical expenses reflect the usual and customary rate for those services in the market wherein they occur.鈥 State v. Campbell, 296 Or App 22, 31, 438 P3d 448 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing