Dept. of Human Services v. A.H.
ORS 419B.476(2)(a) provides that to change a case plan, the court must make certain findings, including the reasonability of DHS鈥檚 efforts to transition the ward back into the home.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Sandu v. Kumar
Plaintiff鈥檚 failure to list the partnership meant it could not be considered by the bankruptcy trustee, it remains part of the bankruptcy estate.
Area(s) of Law:- Corporations
State v. Ashbaugh
Under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution, before denying a defendant the right to waive counsel, a trial court must engage in colloquy with the defendant to assess whether their waiver of counsel is knowing and voluntary and that the defendant 鈥渦nderstand[s] the risks of self-representation.鈥 State v. Meyrick, 313 Or 125, 133, (1992).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
State v. Buell
According to State v. Hubbell, 314 Or App 844, 870, 500 P3d 728 (2021), when ORS 475.005(8) is properly construed, an 鈥渁ttempted transfer鈥 requires proof of an 鈥渋ncomplete or unsuccessful transfer鈥 of a controlled substance from one person to another.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. D.L.
For purposes of ORS 426.130(1)(a)(C) multiple violent acts or a violent act coupled with additional threats will demonstrate that a person is highly likely to engage in future violence; however, 鈥淸a]cts of violence are not required to establish that a person is dangerous; verbal threats may be sufficient, if the evidence provides a foundation for predicting future violent behavior.鈥 State v. J. D., 315 Or App 316, 321, 499 P3d 113 (2021) (citing J. G., 302 Or App at 101 n 3).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Davis
To be relevant, evidence introduced to impeach a need only have a mere tendency to show bias or interest of the witness.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Gilkey
For the state to establish that a officer has not exceeded the scope of a stop, it must present evidence that (1) the officer perceived a circumstance-specific danger, and that perception was objectively reasonable, and (2) the officer decided that the questions asked were necessary to address that danger, and it is objectively reasonable that those questions would ameliorate or clarify the safety concern. Jimenez, 357 Or at 430.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Messer
A sentencing court shall allow a defendant to be considered for a sentence reduction or release programs unless there are substantial and compelling reasons to do otherwise.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. 快活视频
A trial court plainly errs when it orders restitution where there is no evidence establishing that the defendant鈥檚 criminal conduct resulted in economic damages to the victim. See State v. Tippetts, 239 Or App 429, 244 P3d 891 (2010); State v. Martinez, 250 Or App 342, 280 P3d 399 (2012).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Shaw
鈥淸P]rosecutorial knowledge which would bar a second prosecution after a plea of guilty on the first charge has to be knowledge which the prosecutor had or should have had at a time when he was in a position to call the attention of the court to the problem and move for joinder prior to the offer of a guilty plea on the first charge by the defendant and the acceptance of it by the court.鈥 20 Or App at 337.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Thoens v. Safeco Ins. Co.
An insurer can be liable for the insured鈥檚 attorney鈥檚 fees if it leaves the safe harbor provisions of ORS 742.061(3) by injecting other issues that become a matter of live controversy that are not covered in ORS 742.061(3).
Area(s) of Law:- Insurance Law
State v. Lucas
Under ORS 137.545(1)(a), trial courts possess discretionary authority to extend probation, but reversal is appropriate where the record establishes that a court had 鈥渆xtended defendant鈥檚 probation as a means of avoiding a hearing,鈥 rather than having done so based on assessment of public safety or rehabilitation considerations. See State v. Baker, 235 Or App 321, 325, 230 P3d 969 (2010).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Wilson v. Laney
Under OEC 803, a startling event, rather than the will of the declarant, provides the requisite spontaneity to support the 鈥渆xcited utterance鈥 exception to hearsay because the 鈥減ain, excitement or horror of the event had stilled the powers of reflection and had enabled the event itself to speak through the tongue of the declarant.鈥 State v. Hutchison, 222 Or 533, 537, 353 P2d 1047 (1960).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
County of Klamath v. Ricard
Courts will 鈥渄efer to [an] agency鈥檚 plausible interpretation of its own rule,鈥 but otherwise will consider the text and context of the rule and 鈥渢he rule鈥檚 adoption history.鈥 Harris v. Dept. of Public Safety Standards, 287 Or App 111, 115, 400 P3d 1032, rev den, 362 Or 94 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Gillett v. Tucker
鈥淓xpressions of opinion may be considered misrepresentations of fact where the parties are 'on unequal footing and do not have equal knowledge or means of knowledge.鈥欌 Frank v. Fitz Enterprises, Inc., 106 Or App 183, 186, 806 P2d 720 (1991).
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
Gutierrez v. Board of Parole
In determining justiciability, the court considers whether the court鈥檚 decision in the matter will have 鈥渟ome practical effect on the rights of the parties.鈥 Dept. of Human Services v. A. B., 362 Or 412 (2018). To prevent mootness, a collateral consequence must exceed 鈥渕ere speculation鈥 and 鈥渉ave a significant probability of actually occurring[.]鈥 Johnson v. Premo, 302 Or App 578, 592 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Little v. Branch 9 Design and Contracting, LLC
Under ORS 67.105(1), "all partners are liable jointly and severally for all obligations of the partnership unless otherwise agreed by the claimant or provided by law" and a "partnership is liable for loss or injury caused to a person . . . as a result of a wrongful act . . . of a partner acting in the ordinary course of business of the partnership or with the authority of the partnership."听 Oregon case law allows for a partner to engage in "enterprise in his own behalf while he is a member of a partnership" but in such a case "the consent of the other partners must be obtained before one partner may engage in a competitive enterprise." Liggett v. Lester, 237 OR 52, 58-59 (1964).
Area(s) of Law:- Business Law
McGuire v. SAIF
A board may make a determination that in reviewing an award of attorney's fee's, it will not consider any evidence that was "not previously made a part of the record.鈥 Daniel L. Demarco, 65 Van Natta 1837, 1847 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
McKeown v. McKeown
Arbitrators are authorized to decide the law and the facts submitted. Brewer v. Allstate Insurance. Co., 248 Or 558, 561, 436 P2d 547 (1968). Perceived procedural errors during arbitration are not grounds to vacate an award under ORS 36.705(1)(d). Id. at 562.
Area(s) of Law:- Arbitration
State v. Chase
Under ORS 131.135, in consideration of the totality of the circumstances and considering any circumstance, a warrant is 鈥渆xecuted without unreasonable delay鈥 to 鈥渃ommence鈥 the prosecution when the state is 鈥渁ware of a defendant鈥檚 location but fails to take any action to executive the warrant鈥 or 鈥渢akes only de minimis action.鈥 State v. Washington, 266 Or App 133, 150 (2014), rev den, 356 Or 767 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Cotan
A person commits identity theft if they, with the intent to deceive or defraud, obtain, possess, transfer, create, utters, or converts to the person鈥檚 own use the personal identification of another person.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Martineau
The fact that a verdict was unanimous provides assurance in and of itself that no juror was ignored, and all jurors鈥 reasonable doubts were resolved.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. McLaughlin
A burglar must have the intent to commit some other crime once they have entered the premises unlawfully.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Swenson
"Unless otherwise specified, a refusal to submit to a urine test, and a license suspension for refusing to submit to a urine test, have the same consequences as a refusal to submit to a breath test and license suspension for refusing to submit to a breath test." ORS 813.132.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Yerton
A conviction for criminal mistreatment requires the state to show a defendant caused a 鈥減hysical injury鈥 to a 鈥渄ependent person.鈥 ORS 163.205(1)(b). A 鈥減hysical injury鈥 includes an 鈥渋mpairment of physical condition.鈥 Prevention of breathing qualifies as a 鈥減hysical injury,鈥 but strangulation does not necessarily give rise to 鈥減hysical injury鈥 in every case. State v. Merrill, 303 Or App 107, 121, 463 P3d 540 (2020), adh鈥檇 to as modified on recons, 309 Or App 68, 481 P3d 441, rev den, 368 Or 402 (2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
C.J. v .Flores
ORS 163.763(2) provides that, to obtain a SAPO, a petitioner must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: 鈥(A) The petitioner reasonably fears for the petitioner鈥檚 physical safety with respect to the respondent; and (B) The respondent subjected the petitioner to sexual abuse.鈥濃
Area(s) of Law:- Family Abuse Prevention Act
Kaser v. PERS
For the purposes of ORS 238.440, the term 鈥渄etermine鈥 does not necessarily entail a robust investigation. Rather, 鈥渄etermine鈥 is better understood to denote decision-making in which investigation may be incidental but does not play a primary role.
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Phillips Sisson Industries, Inc. v. Hysell
Under the LLC Act, debt repayments are only distributions if they are "in respect of a member's interest." ORS 63.001(6).
Area(s) of Law:- Corporations
Rankin v. Landers
The writ of habeas corpus is appropriate for challenging pretrial detention, including the denial or amount of bail. See Collins v. Foster, 299 Or 90 (1985); Haynes v. Burks, 290 Or 75, 77 n 1, (1980) (both considering denial of pretrial release on writ of habeas corpus).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Rudder v. Hosack
ORS 465.255 provides that 鈥渁ny owner or operator at or during the time of the acts or omissions that resulted in the release* * * shall be strictly liable for those remedial action costs incurred by the state or any other person that are attributable to or associated with a facility and for damages for injury to or destruction of any natural resources caused by a release.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Environmental Law
State v. Benton
Under State v. Samuel, 289 Or App 618 (2017), whether a variance of proof is permissible turns on 鈥渨hether the variance concerns a material element of the crime and whether the variance prejudiced the defendant鈥 and 鈥渨hether the defendant was * * * tried on the offense that was indicted by the grand jury.鈥 Under State v. Smith, 310 Or 1 (1990), a citizen becomes a state agent 鈥渋f the police [are] directly or indirectly involved to a sufficient extent in initiating, planning, controlling or supporting the informant鈥檚 activities.鈥 Under State v. Covington, 291 Or App 514 (2018), to establish a due process violation stemming from 鈥渁 trial court鈥檚 failure to conduct an in camera review,鈥 a defendant must 鈥渄emonstrate that the items of which he sought review would have been material and favorable to his defense.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Brady
Under the Sixth and Fourteenth amendments of the United States Constitution, a defendant's conviction by jury must be unanimous. Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S. Ct. 1390 (2020). 听Under ORS 164.055(1)(c), selling is also an act of disposing of property and satisfies the elements of the statutes for first-degree theft if they commit "theft by receiving committed by buying, selling, borrowing or lending on the security of the property", and "[a] person commits theft by receiving if the person . . . disposes of property of another knowing or having good reason to know that the property was the subject of theft." ORS 164.095(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Reed
For a finding of compelling circumstances, the trial court must determine that the "circumstances of the ... interaction, viewed in their totality ... produce[d] 'the sort of police-dominated atmosphere that听Miranda听warnings were intended to counteract.'"听State v. Roble-Baker, 340 Or 631, 641 (2006).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Woods
Under State ex rel Maney v. Hsu, 308 Or App 822, 827, 482 P3d 136, rev den, 368 Or 273 (2021), it must 鈥減lainly be the case鈥 that subsequent Supreme Court decisions undercut the validity of prior decisions before the Court of Appeals will overrule its precedents.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Cruz-Salazar v. SAIF
By providing a process for claim closure in claims involving combined conditions, ORS 656.268(1)(b) (setting forth procedure for the denial of combined conditions), the legislature had created an exception to the 鈥済eneral rule鈥 that a worker is to be compensated for total impairment that is caused in material part by the compensable injury. Caren, 365 Or at 487.
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
State v. Campoverde
鈥淸F]or the purposes of Article I, section 9, all investigative activities, including investigative inquiries, conducted during a traffic stop are part of an ongoing seizure and are subject to both subject-matter and durational limitations. Accordingly, an officer is limited to investigatory inquiries that are reasonably related to the purpose of the traffic stop or that have an independent constitutional justification.鈥 State v. Arreola-Botello, 365 Or 695, 451 P3d 939 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Carlson
If a defendant is a cardholder, then, under ORS 137.542(2), the trial court must impose supervision conditions related to usable marijuana, medical cannabinoid products, cannabinoid concentrates, and cannabinoid extracts in the same manner as it would impose supervision conditions related to prescription drugs.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Flores
According to ORS 138.035(3), a probation violation judgment is not appealable.
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure