M. W. V. H. v. Van Hoff
To receive an SPO, the victim must show that it was 鈥渙bjectively reasonable for a person in the victim鈥檚 situation to have been alarmed or coerced.鈥 ORS 30.866(1)(a),(b). Further, the conduct must have caused 鈥渞easonable apprehension,鈥 referring to the victim鈥檚 own personal safety. ORS 30.866(1)(c).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Stalking Protective Order
State v. Drumbor/Day
ORS 813.635(1) establishes that a notation requires that the installation and use of an IID remain on a diversion participant鈥檚 driving record until the participant presents a certificate which states that the IID didn鈥檛 record a negative report for 90 consecutive days.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Moore
After an amendment made in 2013, ORS 137.106 now 鈥渄oes not require the court to determine the amount of restitution or enter a restitution judgment within any specific time.鈥 State v. Taylor, 300 Or App 626, 629-30, 455 P3d 609 (2019), rev den, 366 Or 493 (2020). Moreover, ORS 137.106(1)(a) allows the time for the prosecutor鈥檚 presentation of restitution information to be extended for 鈥済ood cause.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Ekloff v. Persson
Four Ramsey considerations a post-conviction court may review to determine whether to allow amendment are: 鈥(1) the nature of the proposed amendments and their relationship to the existing pleadings; (2) the prejudice, if any, to the opposing party; (3) the timing of the proposed amendments and related docketing concerns; and (4) the colorable merit of the proposed amendments.鈥 Eklof v. Persson, 307 Or App 585, 589 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Jones v. Willamette United Football Club
A permit application must be based upon 鈥渟tandards and criteria which shall be set forth in the zoning ordinance鈥 or other relevant county regulation. ORS 215.416(8)(a).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
State v. Deshaw
A sex offender is required to report a change of residence within 10 days of that change; the term 鈥溾榗hange of residence鈥欌efer[s] to the date of moving out of the current residence.鈥 ORS 163A.010(3)(a)(B); State v. Cox, 219 Or App 319, 323 182 P3d 259 (2008).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Herfurth
鈥淭here can be no question either that the Sixth Amendment's unanimity requirement applies to state and federal criminal trials equally. This Court has long explained that the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial is 鈥榝undamental to the American scheme of justice鈥 and incorporated against the States under the Fourteenth Amendment.鈥 Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S Ct 1390, 1397-98 (2020) (internal citation omitted).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
State v. Kinstler
鈥淸A] 鈥榩roper occasion鈥 to give the statutory witness-false-in-part instruction exists when, considering the testimony and other evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction, the trial court concludes that sufficient evidence exists for the jury to decide that at least one witness consciously testified falsely and that the false testimony concerns a material issue.鈥 State v. Payne, 366 Or 588, 468 P3d 445 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. McQueen
ORS 163.700 provides that 鈥渁 person commits the crime of invasion of personal privacy in the second degree if: [t]he person knowingly makes or records a photograph, motion picture听.听.听.听without the consent of the other person; and the person being recorded has a reasonable exception of privacy concerning the intimate area.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Davidson
鈥淣othing in the text of OAR 213- 008-0003(2) precludes its application to departure sentences imposed under ORS 137.719(2).鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. McNall
The court of appeal's role is not re-weighing evidence to determine guilt because as long as the rational factfinder could conclude the state proved all the elements of the crime, the judicial system gives the jury the responsibility to decide guilt. State v. Miller (A134139), 226 Or App 52, 55 (2009).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Pierce
Under OEC 611, a trial court may exercise discretion to 鈥渞easonably control the presentation of evidence鈥 but that discretion is not fundamentally fair if the court 鈥渆ffectively prevent[s] a party from presenting his or her case.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence