Dunn v. Board of Parole
"Collateral consequences may prevent a dispute from becoming moot in certain instances." Barnes v. Thompson, 159 Or App 383, 386, 977 P2d 431, rev den, 329 Or 447 (1999).
Area(s) of Law:- Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
Lane v. Marion County D.A.'s Office
The Supreme Court identified three criteria to 鈥済uide the determination of whether a decision-making process was quasi-judicial, (1) Was the process, once begun, bound to result in a decision? (2) Was the decision-maker bound to apply pre-existing criteria to concrete facts? (3) Was the decision directed at a closely circumscribed factual situation or a relatively small number of persons?鈥 Hicks v. Cent. Point Sch. Dist., 270 Or App at 544 (2015) (citing Strawberry Hill 4 Wheelers v. Board of Comm鈥檙s, 287 Or at 602-03).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Lobo v. Cain
A post-conviction court must assess whether, the failure to include within the amended petition, petitioner鈥檚 additional claims, 鈥渃ounsel has failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment.鈥 Bogle v. State of Oregon, 363 Or 455, 473, 423 P3d 715 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Oregon Racing, Inc. v. Oregon State Lottery
Under ORS 167.117(21)(b), the terms "house bank" and "house income" encompass their ordinary meanings. Operating a "house bank" includes keeping, selling, and redeeming chips, and "house income" includes income related to securing the premises and soliciting players.
Area(s) of Law:- Business Law
Samson v. Brown
ORS 137.635(1) provides, 鈥淭he person shall not be eligible for any reduction in sentence pursuant to ORS 421.120 or for any reduction in the term of incarceration pursuant to ORS 421.121.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
State of Oregon v. Lira
Under Article I, Section 9 and State v. Fair, 353 Or 588, 302 P3d 417 (2013), the 鈥渕aterial witness鈥 exception to the warrant requirement does not justify seizure unless the seizure is 鈥渞easonably necessary to verify the identity of a material witness or obtain an account of a crime.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State V. Bock 310 Or App 329 (2021)
The plain view doctrine does not apply to digital searches because 鈥渆lectronic devices contain 鈥榰nprecedented鈥 amounts of personal information, and, unlike physical searches, searches of electronic devices require examination of at least some information that is beyond the scope of the warrant.鈥 State v. Mansor, 363 Or 185, 208, 220, 421 P3d 323 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Bolton
Under OEC 702, expert evidence is 鈥渟cientific鈥 when: (1) it is expressly presented to the jury as scientifically grounded; (2) "draws its convincing force from some principle of science"; or (3) "implies a grounding in methods and procedures of science" and is characterized as having the "persuasive appeal of science.鈥 State v. Henley, 363 Or 284, 422 P3d 217 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Hernandez-Sanchez
A 鈥渢rue Brady violation鈥 occurs when undisclosed evidence is 鈥渇avorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory, or because it is impeaching; that evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently; and prejudice must have ensued.鈥 Strickler v. Greene, 527 US 263, 281-82, 119 S Ct 1936, 144 L Ed 2d 286 (1999).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. L.D.
A person with a mental illness is a person who is a danger to themselves because of their mental disorder. ORS 426.005(1)(f)(A).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
State v. 快活视频erson
鈥淸I]f there is sufficient evidence to charge a witness of the crime with which a defendant is charged, then the trial court 鈥榤ay determine, as a matter of law, that the witness is an accomplice.鈥 State v. Torres, 207 Or App 335, 359-60, 142 P3d 99 (2006) (quoting Oatney, 335 Or at 284)).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Dept. of Human Services v. D.M.
Under ORS 419B.476(2)(a), a child鈥檚 permanency plan may be changed from reunification to adoption when a parent fails to make 鈥渟ufficient progress鈥 and DHS reunification efforts are 鈥渞easonable.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Laux v. Akebono Brake Corp.
"Evidence must be present that asbestos is contained in the defendant鈥檚 product, not just the industry as a whole." See, e.g., Austin, v. A.J. Zinda Co., 196 Or App 262, 269-270, 101 P3d 918 (2004), rev den, 338 Or 374 (2005).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Cano
OEC 609, which allows the impeachment of a witness by certain criminal convictions, prohibits balancing under OEC 403. See, e.g., State v. Venegas, 124 Or App 253, 256; State v. King, 307 Or 332, 337 (2021); State v. Dick, 91 Or App 294, 298-99 (1988).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
A. K. F. v. Burdette
A person is substantially limited regarding a major life activity if the impairment is restrictive 鈥渁s compared to most people in the general population.鈥 ORS 659A.104(3).
Area(s) of Law:- Elder Law
Carrillo v. SAIF
A combined condition involves the combination of two separate conditions. Brown v. SAIF, 361 Or 241, 255-56, 391 P3d 773 (2017); Multifoods Specialty Distribution v. McAtee, 333 Or 629, 634, 43 P3d 1101 (2002).
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
Sky Lakes Medical Center v. Dept. of Human Services
A court must defer to an agency鈥檚 interpretation of its own administrative rule if the interpretation is 鈥減lausible鈥 and not 鈥渋nconsistent with the wording of the rule itself, or with the rule鈥檚 context, or with any other source of law.鈥 Don鈥檛 Waste Oregon Com. v. Energy Facility Siting, 320 Or 132, 142, 881 P2d 119 (1994).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Sova v. Vital Auto Brokers, LLC
Certification of title to an automobile is prima facie evidence of rightful ownership. ORS 802.240. If title is established, the burden is on the proponent of title to rebut the prima facie evidence. Brunk v. Horton, 280 Or 239, 242, 570 P2d 382 (1977).
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
State v. Chitwood
鈥淸T]he ease with which any error could have been avoided or corrected should be a significant factor in an appellate court鈥檚 decision whether to exercise its discretion to correct a plain, but unpreserved, error.鈥 State v. Inman, 275 Or App 920, 935, 366 P3d 721 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Gassner
There may be no structural error when a trial court fails to instruct a jury that a nonunanimous verdict is allowable when such error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Flores Ramos, 367 Or 292, 334, 478 P3d 515 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Heaton
For a choice-of-evils instruction to be presented to the jury, a defendant must show: 鈥(1) his conduct was necessary to avoid a threatened injury; (2) the threatened injury was imminent; and (3) it was reasonable for him to believe that the need to avoid that injury was greater than the need to avoid the injury that the statute that he was found to have violated seeks to prevent.鈥 State v. Boldt, 116 Or App 480, 483, 841 P2d 1196 (1992). Under ORS 161.200(1)(a), "necessary" may be established where there is no reasonable alternative but for a defendant to commit the crime. State v. Paul, 289 Or App 408, 409, 410 P3d 378 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Heine
When the State elects to provide a defendant with a jury trial, then the jury trial must comport with the Due Process Clause. Evitts v. Lucey, 469 US 387, 105 S Ct 830, 83 L Ed 2d 821 1985).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Lara-Vasquez
A court has no discretion regarding a Measure 11 sentence other than the consideration that a sentence must not be cruel and unusual and must be proportioned to the offense. State v. Rodriguez/Buck, 347 Or 46, 52-57, 217 P3d 659 (2009). A sentence may be cruel and unusual if it 鈥渟hock[s] the moral sense鈥 of a reasonable person. Id. at 57-58.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Lara-Vasquez
A punishment which is so disproportionate to the offense as to 鈥渟hock the moral sense of reasonable people鈥 violates Article I, section 16. State v. Rodriguez/Buck, 347 Or 46, 58, 217 P3d 659 (2009). Courts consider three factors when determining disproportionality: (1) severity of penalty versus gravity of offense; (2) 鈥減enalties imposed for other, related crimes鈥; and (3) criminal history of the defendant. Id.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Mead
Sexual contact as required for a conviction under ORS 163.427(1)(a)(A) means 鈥渁ny touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person or causing such person to touch the sexual or other intimate parts of the actor for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of either party.鈥 ORS 163.305(6).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Ramirez
The harmless error analysis focuses on 鈥渢he possible influence of the error on the verdict rendered, not whether this court, sitting as a fact-finder, would regard the evidence of guilt as substantial and compelling.鈥 State v. Davis, 336 Or 19, 32, 32 P3d 1111 (2003).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Rashad
An evidentiary error is harmless where the trial court鈥檚 verdict clearly establishes unaffected credibility determinations. State v. Reed, 299 Or App 675, 694, 452 P3d 995 (2019), rev den, 366 or 382 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Stockton
Other misconduct evidence, to be relevant to a defendant鈥檚 motive, must 鈥渟how a common motive among the charged acts and the acts against former partners.鈥 State v. Tena, 362 Or 514, 523-24, 412 P3d 175 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Tennant
鈥淸A]cquiescence occurs when an individual is not given a reasonable opportunity to choose to consent.鈥 State v. Berg, 223 Or App 387, 392, 196 P3d 547 (2008), adh鈥檇 to as modified on recons, 28 Or App 754, 208 P3d 1006, rev den, 346 Or 361 (2009). Additionally, acquiescence may be clear when 鈥渁 search will occur regardless or whether consent is given.鈥 Id.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
T. W. v. C. L. K.
To 鈥渁void affecting the substantial rights of a parent, a juvenile court cannot base its jurisdictional decision on facts that depart from the petition or jurisdictional judgment when neither the petition nor the jurisdictional judgment would put a reasonable parent on notice of what the parent must do to prevent the state from asserting or continuing jurisdiction over the child.鈥 Dept of Human Services v. J.R.L., 256 Or App 437, 448 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Hisey v. Patrick
"The presumption of adversity applies where 'the person claiming the easement by prescription is a stranger to the landowner.'" Wels v. Hippe, 360 Or at 579.
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
Johnson and Johnson
The standard for a change of circumstances for the purposes of custody modification is: (1) 鈥渢he custodial parent is no longer competent to care for the child鈥 or (2) the custodial parent鈥檚 continued care and custody is 鈥渋nimical to the child鈥檚 welfare.鈥 Merges v. Merges, 94 Or 246, 254, 186 P 36 (1919). The 鈥減rimary purpose鈥 of this requirement is 鈥渢o avoid repeated litigation over custody and to provide a stable environment for children.鈥 Ortiz and Ortiz, 310 Or 644, 649, 801 P2d 767 (1990).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. Bradley
In State v. Herfurth, 307 Or App 534, 478 P3d 601 (2020), the court allowed the defendant to raise new arguments in his third appeal on the basis of a nonunimaous verdict because the legal landscape in Oregon had changed significantly changed and the defendant raised other claims that were not frivolous in each appeal.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Burris
"Where the trial court fails to elaborate on the meaning of an element of the charged crime, we have held the arguments of the state at trial combined with the instructions as a whole, can operate together to permit the jury to reach a legally erroneous conclusion." State v. Bistrika, 261 Or. App. 710, 729-30 (2014).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Goldberg
鈥淥ne indication of whether a government action intrudes on a person鈥檚 privacy right is whether a private individual would offend social and legal norms of behavior by engaging in the same kind of intrusion.鈥 State v. Portrey, 134 Or App 460, 464, 896 P2d 7 (1995).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Love-Faust
Compelling circumstances are such that viewed as a whole, a reasonable person in defendant鈥檚 shoes would feel compelled to reply to an officer鈥檚 questions. State v. Dunlap, 215 Or App 46, 57, 168 P3d 295 (2007). The court must ask whether the questioning took place in a 鈥減olice dominated atmosphere.鈥 State v. Roble-Baker, 340 Or 631, 641, 136 P3d 22 (2006).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Newton
"[A]s to unanimous verdicts, a trial court鈥檚 nonunanimous jury instruction [does] not amount to structural error and [is] harmless beyond a reasonable doubt."听State v. Flores Ramos, 367 Or. 292, 319, 334, 478 P.3d 515 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Scott
"[With]... the burden on the beneficiary of the error... before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Thompson v. Marshall
Under ORS 19.415(2), 鈥渢he erroneous grant of a directed verdict on a claim does not categorically require reversal; if the verdict on the claims that were submitted to the jury demonstrates that the jury necessarily would have rejected one or more elements of the claim鈥. then [the court] will not deem the鈥irected verdict to have substantially affected the plaintiff鈥檚 rights.鈥 Yoshida鈥檚 Inc. v. Dunn Carney Allen Higgens & Tongue, 272 Or App 436, 458, 356 P3d 121 (2015), rev den, 358 Or 794 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
Bowers v. Board of Parole
The party asserting that a matter has become moot bears the burden of demonstrating that a court鈥檚 decision no longer has the required practical effect. State v. K.J.B., 362 Or. 777, 786 (2018). This includes establishing that any collateral effects that have been identified either do not exist or are legally insufficient. State v. K.J.B., 362 Or. 777, 786 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Rohrer v. Oswego Cove, LLC
Under ORS 659.199, a plaintiff may bring a claim if they 鈥渞eported evidence of unlawful activity and were terminated.鈥 Hall v. State of Oregon, 274 Or App 445, 451, 366 P3d 345 (2015). A common law wrongful termination claim may be brought if ORS 659A.199 does not apply or provide an appropriate remedy.
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
State v. Arivett
鈥淸T]he smell of marijuana generally no longer has the significance it once had as a basis for reasonable suspicion, in light of decriminalization. A strong odor can signal the presence of marijuana, but not necessarily the presence in a quantity that is illegal for persons 21 and older to lawfully possess.鈥 State v. T.T., 308 Or. App. 408, 437 (2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Deshaw
Evidence of uncharged acts can be admitted to establish a timeline of events in appropriate circumstances. State v. Grubb, 279 Or App 458, 460, 468, 379 P3d 715, rev den, 360 Or 423 (2016). Admittance of 鈥渉ighly inflammatory鈥 uncharged-misconduct evidence is not harmless if it affected the verdict. State v. Wright, 283 Or App 160, 178, 387 P3d 405 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. K. R. B.
鈥淥ne circumstance in which we will not and cannot exercise our discretion to correct a plain error is when that error is harmless.鈥 State v. Kerne, 289 Or App 345, 349-50, 410 P3d 369 (2017), rev den, 363 Or 119 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Morgan
鈥淎lthough the state necessarily must prove that the person charged with committing a crime is, in fact, the person who committed the crime, that does not mean that the state is required to prove that a particular person sitting at counsel table with defense counsel is the person who is charged with a crime.鈥 See ORS 132.540.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. R.L.M.
Under ORS 426.005(1)(f)(B) and for the purposes of a basic-needs civil commitment, the evidence must establish not only that a person鈥檚 inability to attend to a basic need risks the person suffering an adverse medical consequence, but also how soon that adverse consequence is likely to occur.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Russell
A trial court must evaluate "the nature of a defendant鈥檚 offenses * * * as well as the defendant鈥檚 willingness to commit more than a single offense" to decide whether it should impose consecutive sentences under subsection (5)(a). State v. Martinez, 270 Or. App. 423, 429 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Shelnutt
鈥溾楾he restriction on the possession of firearms by a felon has a well-established, historical, and obvious relationship to public safety. Even under intermediate scrutiny, ORS 166.270 is substantially related to an important governmental objective.鈥欌 State v. Beeman, 290 Or App 429, 417 P3d 541, rev den, 363 Or 119 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
State v. Shields
"Under OAR 213-004-0011(1), prior out-of-state convictions are to be included in a defendant鈥檚 criminal history only 'if the elements of the offense would have constituted a felony or Class A misdemeanor under Oregon law.'"
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Zimmerman
The aid-and-abet statute, ORS 161.155, 鈥渁pplies only to conduct prior to or during the commission of a crime鈥; aid-and-abet theories of criminal liability do not apply after a crime has been committed. State v. Barboe, 253 Or App 367, 375, 290 P3d 833 (2012), rev den, 353 Or 714 (2013). Under ORS 164.015, the theft-by-taking theory requires a defendant to exercise dominion or control and physically move the property of another. State v. Spears, 223 Or App 675, 699, 196 P3d 1037 (2008).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law