Adelsperger v. Elkside Development LLC
Substantive arguments must be made against a theory on which the pleadings have been implicitly amended in order to preserve such arguments for appeal. Under Bates v. Bankers Life and Casualty Co., 362 Or, 337 (2018), rights under a contract are not 鈥渕oney or property鈥 for the purposes of ORS 124.110(1)(b). Under Church v. Woods, 190 Or.App. 112 (2003) and Northwest Natural Gas Co. v. Chase Gardens, Inc., 328 Or. 487 (1999), 鈥渋mproper motive鈥 under ORS 124.110(1)(a) requires that the actor鈥檚 鈥減urpose must be to inflict injury on the plaintiff 鈥榓s such.鈥欌
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
State v. Lewis
The court 鈥淸r]eviews the denial of an Motion for Judgment of Acquittal for whether a rational fact-finder could find, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state and making reasonable inferences and credibility choices, that the state proved every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.鈥 State v. Davis, 261 Or App 38, 39, (2014). Reasonable inferences are permissible; mere speculation is not. State v. Bivins, 191 Or App 460, 467, (2004).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Ybarra v. Dominguez Family Enterprises, Inc.
Cases determining 鈥渇air value鈥 under dissenter鈥檚 rights statute inform the meaning of 鈥渇air value鈥 for purposes of ORS 60.952(5). The appropriateness of applying marketability or minority discount to determination of fair value 鈥渘ecessarily depends on the circumstances of the particular case.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Corporations
Barrett v. Bd. of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
鈥淚n reviewing a rule challenge we may declare the rule invalid only if we conclude that it violates the constitutional provision, exceeds the statutory authority of the agency that adopted the rule, or was adopted without complying with rulemaking procedures.鈥 Assn. of Acupuncture v. Bd. of Chiropractic Examiners, 260 Or App 676 P3d 575 (2014).
Area(s) of Law:- Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
Cowles v. Flormoe-Cowles
If a court finds a party in remedial contempt it must be supported by a specific finding of willfulness. Southworth and Southworth, 113 Or App 607, 610 (1991), rev den, 314 Or 574 (1992).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Lewis v. Varde
鈥淥n petition of a person showing an agreement to arbitrate and alleging another person鈥檚 refusal to arbitrate under the agreement: (b) If the refusing party opposes the petition, the court shall proceed summarily to decide the issue and order the parties to arbitrate unless it finds that there is no enforceable agreement to arbitrate.鈥
ORS 36.625(1).
If the parties to an arbitration agreement have not determined a method for appointing an arbitrator, 鈥渢he court, on the petition of a party to the arbitration proceeding, shall appoint the arbitrator.鈥 ORS 36.645(1).
- Arbitration
State v. C.J.
Under ORS 426.130(1)(a)(C), the court 鈥淸m]ay order commitment of the person with mental illness to the Oregon Health Authority for treatment if鈥 they find the person has a mental illness and institutional treatment is in their best interest. ORS 426.005(1)(f)(A) explains that 鈥渁 person with mental illness鈥 means a person who, because of a mental disorder, is dangerous to self or others.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Freeborn v. Dow
鈥淸T]he doctrine of merger does not categorically apply when [a] deed constitutes only part performance of a preexisting contract.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
Ramos v. Potkowksi
鈥淏oundary-by-agreement is a common law doctrine with three elements; (1) There must have been an initial and mutual uncertainty about the true location of the boundary; (2) There must have been a resolution to the uncertainty by either an express or implied agreement mutually agreed upon by both parties to recognize the boundary line permanently; and (3) Evidence of the agreement by subsequent action by parties such as a written agreement, or occupying the property up to the borderline in the case of an oral agreement.鈥 Powers Ranch Company v. Plum Creek Marketing, 243 Or App 371 (2011).鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
Rinne v. Matteucci
Under ORS 34.620, habeas corpus is not an alternative remedy to judicial review by which a person may directly challenge an order, judgment, or process of a competent tribunal.
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
State v. Cuffy
To impeach by contradiction, it is necessary to state a precise fact statement to which the rebuttal evidence contradicts. State v. Hayes, 117 Or App 202, 205-06 (1992), rev den, 316 Or 528 (1993). The 鈥渟tate [is] entitled to introduce contradic颅tory testimony [that] relate[s] to the circumstances of the crime.鈥 State v. Gibson, 338 Or 560, 572听cert den, 546 US 1044 (2005).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Didlot
鈥淸C]onfessions made by a defendant in custody that were induced by the influence of hope or fear, applied by a public officer having the prisoner in his charge, are inadmissible against the defendant.鈥 State v. Jackson, 364 Or 1, 21 (2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). A defendant is induced if 鈥渢he听 defendant听 has听 been听 told听 something听 that听 communicates听 the听 idea听 of听 a听 temporal听 benefit or disadvantage attached to confessing鈥 State v. Pryor, 309 Or App 12, 19 (quoting State v. Chavez-Meza, 301 Or App 373, 387). Under State听 v.听 Center,听听 a听听 promise听 of听 help听 need听 not听 be听 tied听 to听 prosecutorial听 leniency;听 rather, a promise of some benefit, by itself, could suffice to improperly compel a confession. 314听 Or听 App听 813,听 823 (2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Johnson
鈥淎n encounter rises to a seizure when (1) a law enforcement officer intentionally and significantly interferes with an individual鈥檚 liberty or freedom of movement, or (2) a reasonable person under the totality of circumstances would believe that his or her liberty or freedom of movement has been significantly restricted.鈥 State v. Ashbuagh, 349 Or 297 (2010).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Orman
Article I, Section 9, of the Oregon Constitution protects individuals鈥 rights against unreasonable searches or seizures. When听 an听 encounter听 advances听 from听 a听 conversation听 to the point of an investigatory stop, and thus a seizure of the听 individual,听 the听 stop听 must听 be听 accompanied听 by听 reasonable听 suspicion.听 State v. Backstrand, 354 Or 392, 399 (2013) (citing听 State听 v.听 Fair,听 353听 Or听 588,听 593-94 (2013)). Absent reasonable suspicion, a听 stop听 is听 unlawful,听 and听 all听 evidence听 discovered听 as听 a听 result听 of听 the听 unlawful听 police听 action听 is听 presumptively听 tainted听 by听 the violation and must be suppressed. State v. Newton, 286 Or听 App听 274,听 288 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Thier
Under Article I, section 9, a seizure occurs when 鈥(1) a law enforcement officer intentionally and significantly interferes with an individual鈥檚 liberty or freedom of movement; or (2) a reasonable person, under the totality of the circumstances, would believe that his or her liberty or freedom of movement has been significantly restricted.鈥 State v. Reyes-Herrera, 369 Or 54, 58 (2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Urban Renewal Comm. of Oregon City v. Williams
鈥淸T]he validity of local action depends, first, on whether it is authorized by the local charter or by a statute, or if taken by initiative, whether it qualifies as 鈥榣ocal, special (or) municipal legislation鈥 under [A]rticle IV, section 1(5); second, on whether it contravenes state or federal law.鈥 La Grande/Astoria v. PERB, 281 Or 137, 142, 284 Or 173 (1978). A new city charter amendment contravenes state law when the local rule is incompatible with the legislative policy. Id. If the local rule is incompatible with the legislative policy, the local rule is preempted.
Area(s) of Law:- Preemption
Winamaki v. Umpqua Bank
鈥淎 contract term is ambiguous if, when examined in the context of the contract as a whole and the circumstances of contract formation, it is susceptible to more than one plausible interpretation.鈥 Adair Homes, Inc. v. Dunn Carney Allen Higgins & Tongue, LLP, 262 Or App 273, 277, (2014).
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
State v. Sullivan
"To determine whether an officer's belief was objectively reasonable, we consider the totality of the circumstances presented to the officer and reasonable inferences that may be drawn from those circumstances.听State v. Keller, 280 Or. App. 249, 253 (2016). For traffic infractions, an officer's subjective belief is objectively reasonable, "if...the facts as the officer perceived them actually satisfy the elements of a traffic infraction."听State v. Tiffin, 202 Or. App. 199, 204 (2005).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure