Block v. DEA Properties-2 LLC
Under听Miller v. Jones, 256 Or App 392 (2013) and听Jantzen Beach Associates v. Jantzen Dynamic Corp., 200 Or App 457 (2005), an appurtenant easement gives the owner of the dominant estate a benefit by virtue of their ownership of the land, is transferred with the land, and is not severable from the ownership of the land.
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
Kurtz v. Cain
Under听State v. Walker, 350 Or 540 (2011), counsel need not engage in detailed, comprehensive analysis in order to 鈥減ut all on notice about the nature of a party鈥檚 arguments鈥 and preserve issues for appeal.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. Dickey
Under ORS 153.042(1), an enforcement officer may issue a citation only for conduct occurring in their presence and not the presence of another officer.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Barnes & Brennan
Under State v. Saunders, 294 Or App 102 (2018), 鈥渨hen a party has invited the trial court to rule in a certain way under circumstances suggesting that the party will be bound by the ruling or * * * will not later seek a reversal in the basis of that ruling鈥 the party cannot then complain based on that invited error.
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
Bo and Lia Holdings LLC v. 2021 Morrison LLC
Prescriptive easements permit a 鈥減erson to acquire an interest in land without paying the owner for it,鈥 Wels v. Hippe, 360 Or 569, 578, (2016), modified on recons, 360 Or 807, (2017), and protect 鈥渆stablished patterns of land possession鈥 by 鈥渞ewarding the long-time user of property, fulfilling expectations fostered by long use, and conforming titles to actual use of the property.鈥 Albany & Eastern Railroad Co. v. Martell, 366 Or 715, 720 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
Dept. of Human Services v. C. C.
Under ORS 419B.815 and ORS 419B.816, 鈥渙nce a parent has failed to personally appear at a hearing for which the parent had proper notice鈥 the juvenile court may choose to either immediately proceed with a hearing on the dependency petition or postpone that hearing to a later date. If the court takes the latter course, nothing [in the statutes] requires the court to notify that parent of the newly set hearing date.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Ingle v. Matteucci
The 鈥渆scape clause鈥 exists to give a person extra time to file a petition for post-conviction relief in 鈥渆xtraordinary circumstances,鈥 personal characteristics are not currently relevant to the escape clause.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Markstrom v. Guard Publishing Co.
Under Laack v. Botello, 314 Or App 268 (2021), without statutory authorization courts lack the inherent authority required to strike pleadings or claims, which ORS 1.010 does not provide. Under ORCP 46, a court may impose sanctions only for the narrowly described conduct contained in the rule.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Bates
Imposing conditions of probation in a judgment that have not been announced in open court at sentencing constitutes reversible error generally entitling a defendant to resentencing.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Fitzgerald
A trial court must have ample opportunity to address a request made to the court in order to preserve an issue on appeal.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Hackett
Testimony that outlines the severe nature of a person's kicking an animal and throwing rocks at the animal is alone sufficient to support a reasonable inference that the animal experienced pain that was more than fleeting or momentary.听State v. Colpo, 305 Or. App. 690, 695, 472 P.3d 277,听rev. den., 367 Or. 290, 476 P.3d 1255 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Hassan
Evidence to prove motive is relevant if it has the tendency to make the motive more or less likely and the evidence is based on a rational relationship between the issues to be proven and the motive.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Huynh
Under ORS 136.785(3), enhancement facts must be found by the jury 鈥渆qual to or greater than the number of jurors that was required to find the defendant guilty of the crime.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. J.D.
Under State v. J.G., 302 Or App 97 (2020) and State v. Bodell, 120 Or App 548 (1993), a person can be found 鈥渄angerous to others鈥 for purposes of ORS 426.005(1)(f)(A) based on verbal threats without acts of violence 鈥渋f the evidence provides a foundation for predicting future violent behavior.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
State v. M. L.
For a person to be involuntarily committed, the State must establish a "particularized" and "highly probable" threat sufficient to show that the person is a danger to self within the meaning of ORS 426.005(1)(f)(A).听State v. S. R. J., 281 Or App 741, 749, 386 P3d 99 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Schumacher
Under听State v. Veatch, 223 OR App 444 (2008), testimonial 鈥淸r]eference to a defendant鈥檚 exercise of a constitutional right鈥 from which a jury is likely to infer guilt 鈥渏eopardizes the right to a fair trial[,]鈥 particularly when it goes uncured.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Thornsberry
Any fact that increases a criminal penalty past a statutory maximum must be a fact found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 US 466, 490, 120 S Ct 2348, 147 L Ed 2d 435 (2000).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
United 快活视频 of OSU v. OSU
A substantial reason argument alleging insufficient reference to the record or consideration of the evidence (or "cherry-picking") misconstrues the standard as laid out in听Jenkins, which does not require a complete recounting of all evidence.听Mendacino v. Board of Parole, 287 Or. App. 822, 838, 404 P.3d 1048 (2017),听rev. den., 362 Or. 508, 424 P.3d 724 (2018). While it may be possible to draw different inferences from the evidence, that does not imply that the inferences drawn by the ERB were unreasonable, and the Court is not empowered, under its standard of review, to displace reasonable and reasoned inferences drawn by the Board.听City of Roseburg v. Roseburg City Firefighters, 292 Or. 266, 271, 639 P.2d 90 (1981).
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Dept. of Human Services v. J. S. E. S.
The determination to terminate parental rights under ORS 419B.500 is focused on the needs of the child. Dept. of Human Services v. T. M. D., 365 Or 143, 166, 442 P3d 1100 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. Carter
Lay opinion testimony is not relevant to prove the truth or falsity of a person鈥檚 statement. See State v. Chandler, 360 Or 323, 334, 380 P3d 932 (2016). 鈥淚f there is little likelihood that the error affected the verdict, [an appellate court] will not reverse on the basis of that error.鈥 State v. Nguyen, 293 Or App 492, 498, 429 P3d 410 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Montgomery
Under ORS 163.545, whether a child is 鈥渦nattended鈥 for purposes of child neglect turns on whether there was or was not a responsible person present who can take care of the child鈥檚 needs. That determination is made considering the totality of the circumstances, including the child鈥檚 age, the location where the child is left, and the period of time the child was left.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Perrodin
Under听State v. Jennings, 220 Or App 1 (2008) and听State v. Dodge, 223 Or App 130 (2008),听when a defendant challenges an arrest based on a facial deficiency to a warrant, the state must either produce the warrant or defend the arrest as a valid warrantless arrest supported by probable cause.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Dalbeck v. Bi-Mart Corp.
Under ORS 659A.403, places of public accommodation may not discriminate against anyone aged 18 or older based on their age unless there is a statute expressly allowing such discrimination.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
Department of Human Services v. J. L. J.
To preserve an error for appeal, 鈥溾榓 party must provide the trial court with an explanation of [his or her] objection that is specific enough to ensure that the court can identify its alleged error with enough clarity to permit it to consider and correct the error immediately.鈥欌 Senvoy, LLC v. Employment Dept., 312 Or App 387, 388-39, ___ P3d ___ (2021) (quoting State v. Vanornum, 354 Or 614, 632, 317 P3d 889 (2013)).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Dept. of Human Services v. H. M. I. F.
In assessing whether a permanency plan should be changed from reunification, 鈥渂oth DHS鈥檚 efforts and a parent鈥檚 progress are evaluated by reference to the facts that formed the bases for juvenile court jurisdiction.鈥 Dept. of Human Services v. N. T., 247 Or App 706, 715, 271 P3d 143 (2012).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Dept. of Human Services v. T. N. M.
A juvenile court may assert jurisdiction over a child under ORS 419B.100(1)(c) when it finds that, considering the totality of the circumstances, the child鈥檚 conditions or circumstances endanger the child鈥檚 welfare. When a parent鈥檚 alleged risk-causing conduct is at issue, DHS has the burden of demonstrating a nexus between the parent鈥檚 conduct and the threatened harm to the child. Dept. of Human Services v. L. E. F., 307 Or App 254, 258, 476 P3d 119 (2020), rev den, 367 Or 559 (2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Ebright and Ebright
Under ORS 107.105(1)(f), which provides, in part, that 鈥渢he court may provide in the judgment . . . [f]or the division or other disposition between the parties of the real or personal property, or both, of either or both of the parties as may be just and proper in all the circumstances.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Harned v. Amsberry
As stated in Jones v. Mississippi, in sentencing a juvenile homicide offender, 鈥渁 State鈥檚 discretionary sentencing system is both constitutionally necessary and constitutionally sufficient.鈥 After Jones, so long as the court is allowed to consider relevant mitigating circumstances and has the discretion to impose a lesser sentence than life without parole, no more is required.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. Buell
Under State v. Korth, 269 Or App 238 (2015), a defendant charged with theft-by-receiving must have particularized knowledge or believe that the goods are stolen and 鈥淸p]ossession [of] or proximity to stolen goods * * * does not, on its own, allow for a finding that a person actually knows or believes that they are stolen.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Halvorson
Double jeopardy may be triggered by an 鈥渙stensibly civil proceeding鈥 if that proceeding is 鈥渟o punitive either in purpose or effect as to transform what was clearly intended as a civil remedy into a criminal penalty.鈥 Hudson v. United States, 522 US 93, 99, (1997). Under ORS 137.106(1)(a), if the victim in a criminal case has suffered economic damages, the defendant must repay those damages in full.
Area(s) of Law:- Remedies
State v. Henry
For restitution award purposes, a trial court may not find that an amount paid was reasonable based solely on the fact of payment by CVCP. State v. J. M. E., 299 Or App 483, 489, 451 P3d 1018 (2019). Medical costs that are at or below the market rate are considered reasonable. State v. Workman, 300 Or App 622, 623-24, 455 P3d 566 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Remedies
State v. Osborn
A defendant can be restrained at trial if they pose an 鈥渋mmediate and serious risk of dangerous or disruptive behavior.鈥 State v. Moore, 45 Or App 837, 839-40 (1980). Further, the trial court鈥檚 decision to restrain a defendant must be supported by developing a record of the basis for choosing to exercise its discretion.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Phillips
The term 鈥渧ehicle鈥 in ORS 164.135(1)(a) covers items such as trailers and conduct such as towing. State v. Eastep, 361 Or 746, 756鈥57, 399 P3d 979 (2017). The failure to include a 鈥渓esser-included offense can impermissibly enhance the risk of an unwarranted conviction鈥 when (1) the 鈥渆lement that elevates the lesser-included offense to the greater one is doubtful鈥 and (2) 鈥渢here must be substantial evidence of a serious lesser offense.鈥 Perida-Alba v. Coursey, 356 Or 654, 665, 342 P3d 70 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Johnson v. Premo
Witness testimony not provided to the trier of fact could have a tendency to affect the verdict even if the testimony only coincides with other evidence.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Koenig v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co.
An award of economic damages including damages paid by PIP in an undetermined amount does not prevent a PIP offset in a UIM claim. Wade v. Mahler, 167 Or App 350, 355-58, 1 P3d 485, rev den, 331 Or 334 (2000).
Area(s) of Law:- Insurance Law
Mouktabis v. M.A.
Statements made as part of a judicial proceeding are absolutely privileged, meaning that they cannot form the basis for a defamation claim. Chard v. Galton, 277 Or 109, 112, 559 P2d 1980 (1977).
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
State v. Jones
For an appellate court to uphold a trial court鈥檚 ruling on the basis that it was 鈥渞ight for the wrong reason,鈥 (1) the facts of record must be sufficient to support the alternative basis for affirmance; (2) the trial court鈥檚 ruling must be consistent with the view of the evidence under the alternative basis for affirmance; and (3) the record must materially be the same one that would have developed had the prevailing party raised the alternative basis for affirmance below. See Outdoor Media Dimensions Inc. v. State of Oregon, 331 Or 634, 659-60, 20 P3d 180 (2001).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Martinez
OEC 404(3) bars the use of other-acts evidence 鈥渢o prove that a person has a propensity to engage in certain types of behavior and that the person acted in conformance with that propensity on a particular occasion.鈥 State v. Skillicorn, 367 Or 464, 476, 479 P3d 254 (2021). When other-acts evidence is offered under OEC 404(3), the proponent must articulate a theory of relevance that does not logically depend on propensity reasoning. See State v. Levasseur, 309 Or App 745, 753, 483 P3d 1167, clarified and adh鈥檇 on recons, 312 Or App 733, 489 P3d 630 (2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Walker v. Oregon Travel Information Council
Under Greist v. Phillips, 322 Or 281, 295, 906 P2d 798 (1995), factual findings made by a jury do not prevent a court from making different factual findings in a separate matter in equity.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure