�����Ƶ

Bundy v. Nustar GP LLC

ORS 656.019 “imposes a procedural limitation on when the claims described in the statute can be brought” and does not create an exception to the exclusive remedy provision of ORS 656.018.

• Workers Compensation

Dept. of Human Services v. J. J. J.

Under��State ex rel Dept. of Human Services v. G. R., 224 Or App 133 (2008), “the ‘excusable neglect’ standard in ORS 419B.923 must be construed liberally in favor of a parent’s fundamental interest in not having their parental rights ‘irrevocably terminated’ in their absence[,]” and asks whether there are “reasonable grounds to excuse the default.”

• Family Law

I.K. v. Banana Republic, LLC.

A plaintiff under Oregon law can sue for negligent infliction of emotional distress where there is emotional harm from physical impact or violation of a legally protected interest. Norwest v. Presbyterian Intercommunity Hosp., 293 Or 543, 558-561(1982). A legally protected interest is "an independent basis of liability separate from the general duty to avoid foreseeable risk of harm" and must be "of sufficient importance as a matter of public policy to merit protection from emotional impact."�� Philibert v. Kluster, 360 Or 698, 704-705.�� The emotional distress must also be one that could have been foreseeable result of the violation of the protected interest. Id.��

• Employment Law

Moody v. Oregon Community Credit Union

Although a party to a contract may only bring a breach of contract claim, an exception applies when the tort claim is predicated on a violation of a standard of care that exists independent of the contract.����See Georgetown Realty v. The Home Ins. Co., 313 Or 97, 106 (1992).��

PNW Metal Recycling, Inc. v. DEQ

Under��Smith v. TRCI, 259 Or App 11 (2013) and ORS 183.310(9), an agency directive is a “rule” if it is “(1) of ‘general applicability’ and (2) not ‘necessarily required’ by a statute or validly promulgated rule.”

State v. Black

Hightower requires a trial court to consider if the record could have developed in a materially different way but for the erroneous exclusion.

• Appellate Procedure

State v. Meacham

Attempts to elude an officer may support a conclusion that a person is the subject of an outstanding felony warrant.��State v. Maciel-Figueroa, 361 Or 163, 181 (2017).

• Criminal Procedure

State v. Phillips

A defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed on a properly raised defense if there is any evidence to support the presence of each element of the defense.

• Criminal Law

State v. Wilcox

When a party unsuccessfully offers evidence as a whole, without segregating admissible from inadmissible parts of the offer, the trial court’s ruling sustaining an objection will be affirmed on appeal if part of the offer is inadmissible. See State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 358-59, 800 P2d 259 (1990).

• Criminal Law

State v. Pohle

The “suspension of driving privileges is civil and administrative, rather than criminal, in nature.” State v. Phillips, 138 Or App 468, 471, 909 P2d 882, rev den, 323 Or 114 (1996). Under ORS 801.557, a traffic violation is a “traffic offense that is designated as a traffic violation in the statute defining the offense, or any other offense defined in the Oregon Vehicle Code” punishable by a fine, but not imprisonment.

• Criminal Procedure

Watt v. SAIF

Under ORS 656.005(7)(a), an injury is compensable if it arises out of and in the course of employment. The two prongs of the work-connection inquiry—the “arising out of” prong and the “in the course of” prong—must each be evaluated. Norpac Foods, Inc. v. Gilmore, 318 Or 363, 366, 867 P2d 1373 (1994).

• Workers Compensation

Albrecht v. Emmert

“ORCP 68 governs the pleading, proof and award of attorney fees in all cases.” Anderson v. Dry Cleaning To-Your-Door, 249 Or App 104, 108, 275 P3d 181 (2012).

• Attorney Fees

State v. Bales

After an appellate court remands based on an erroneous trial-court ruling, a trial court must not limit itself to considering whether it might again rule similarly (but on a permissible basis), but must also consider what effect its erroneous ruling had at the time it was made and whether the evidentiary record or the parties’ arguments might have developed in a materially different way at that time had the trial court not erred. See State v. Hightower, 368 Or 378, 491 P3d 769 (2021).

• Criminal Law

State v. Keene

When a defendant is convicted of a lesser-included offense but lacks actual notice that a lesser-included offense is under consideration, her conviction is the product of a due process violation. State v. Barrie, 227 Or App 378, 206 P3d 256 (2009).

• Constitutional Law

State v. Pitz

Under ORS 135.335(3), when a defendant enters a conditional guilty, reserving the right on appeal to “a review of an adverse determination of any specified pretrial motion,” and subsequently prevails on appeal, the defendant may withdraw the plea.

• Criminal Procedure

State v. Street

Conduct that puts multiple persons at risk can support separate convictions under ORS 161.067(2). Jones v. State of Oregon, 246 Or App 253, 260 n 3, 265 P3d 75 (2011).

• Criminal Procedure

Dept. of Hum. Servs. v. N.S.C

The Department of Human Services (DHS) and juvenile court relied on ORS 419B.476 which says “’if the court determines that further efforts will make it possible for the ward to safely return home within a reasonable time,’ the court may ‘order that the parent participate in specific services for a specific period of time and make specific progress within that period of time.’”

• Juvenile Law

Dept. of Human Services v. R. O.

To determine if good cause exists, courts "need not identify the universe or totality of considerations that might bear on good cause” because “the trial court’s ‘good cause’ determination [is] ultimately predicated on a consideration that is legally sufficient by itself to establish ‘good cause’ and that is supported by evidence in this record.” Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold at 553.

• Juvenile Law

Gibson v. ESIS

“[W]hether an agency’s ultimate conclusions from its findings of fact are supported by substantial reason turns on whether the agency’s order supplies a rational connection between the facts and the legal conclusions it draws from them such that the conclusions are sufficiently reviewable by an appellate court.” United �����Ƶ of OSU, 315 Or App at 355-56.

• Workers Compensation

Michael v. Pugel

ORCP 71 B(1)(a) allows a court to relieve a party or legal representative from a judgment for: mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.

• Civil Procedure

Oregon Psychiatric Partners, LLP v. Henry

ORS 653.295(1) provides that a non-competition agreement between an employer and an employee “is voidable and may not be enforced by a court of this state unless” five criteria are met. The five criteria require that the agreement was presented in a certain manner and timeframe, the employee is a person described in ORS 653.020(3), the employer has a protectable interest, the employee’s salary exceeds a certain threshold, and the employer took certain action within 30 days after the employment termination date.

• Employment Law

State v. F. T.

To determine whether an issue is “likely to evade review,” the question is not whether a person in youth’s same circumstances would also fail to obtain appellate review, but “whether the general type or category of challenge at issue is likely to evade being fully litigated.” Eastern Oregon Mining Association v. DEQ, 360 Or 10, 17, 376 P3d 288 (2016)

• Juvenile Law

State v. Juarez-Hernandez

It applies only if either the declarant “testifies at the proceeding and is subject to cross-examination,” or the declarant “is unavailable as a witness” and certain criteria are met. OEC 803(18a)(b).

• Evidence

State v. Leers

To obtain a conviction under ORS 165.572(1) for interference with making a report, the state must prove three elements: (1) that the defendant took an action—removing, damaging or interfering with a telephone; (2) that the action “had the effect of preventing or hindering another person from making a report to 9-1-1”; and (3) that the defendant did so intentionally. 259 Or App at 40.

• Criminal Procedure

Twigg v. Opsahl

Under ORS 18.775, a court may find a garnishee liable for an amount equal to the value of unreported garnishable property held by the garnishee at the time of garnishment. According to ORS 18.615, “garnishable property” includes “monetary obligations owing to the debtor that are then in existence.”

• Bankruptcy Law

Dept. of Human Services v R. D.

The Department of Human Services has the burden of proof to show a connection between a parent’s risk-causing conduct and harm to the children, and that the risk is current, not speculative. Dept. of Human Services v. C. J. T., 258 Or App 57, 61–62, 308 P3d 307 (2013).

• Juvenile Law

Antoine v. Taylor

To obtain relief… a post-conviction petitioner must show ‘that counsel failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment, and that the petitioner suffered prejudice as a result of counsel’s inadequacy.’ Johnson v. Premo, 361 Or 688, 699, 399 P3d 431 (2017).”

• Post-Conviction Relief