�����Ƶ

JGB Enterprises, LLC, dba Twisted River Saloon v. Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission

Where a licensee requested a late hearing, licensee must show good cause, which requires more than "the proceedings in total" suggest licensee would request that hearing. Additionally, ORS 471.333(3), which limits the Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission (OCCL)'s discretion in suspending licenses in certain circumstances, may still suspend licenses where licensee violated health and safety guidelines set by Oregon Health Authority (OHA) or executive orders.

• Administrative Law

Giltner v. SAIF Corp.

The insurer must make the requested lump sum payment unless the award “has not become final by operation of law.” ORS 656.230(1)(b). An award of PPD in a notice of closure generally becomes final by operation of law “60 days after its issuance.” SAIF v. Coburn, 159 Or App 413 (1999).

• Workers Compensation

Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc v. OHA

Under 42 USC section 1396r-8(d)(5), a state can “require, as a condition of coverage or payment for a covered outpatient drug . . . the approval of the drug before its dispensing for any medically accepted indication[.]”

• Administrative Law

Sodaro v. Boyd

"A substantial-factor instruction is not required in all multiple causation cases." Haas v. Estate of Mark Steven Carter, 370 Or 742, 525 P3d 451 (2023).

• Tort Law

State v. Baca

"[T]he legislature intended ORS 164.775 to 'punish and deter the discarding as refuse of an object in or within 100 yards of the waters of the state, regardless of any utility that the object might have in a different context.'"��State v. Essex, 215 Or App 527, 531, 170 P3d 1094 (2007).

• Criminal Law

State v. Ovalle

“[ORS 14.210(1)(c)] provides: ‘A judge shall not act as judge if the judge is related to any party, or to the attorney for any party, or to the partner or office associate of any such attorney, by consanguinity or affinity within the third degree.’”

• Post-Conviction Relief

State v. Priester

“A criminal defendant has the right to have their sentence announced in open court.” ORS 137.030(1). A probation condition is unconstitutionally vague under the Due Process Clause if people with common intelligence would “necessarily guess at its meaning” or if it would “allow[] those who enforce it to do so in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner.” State v. Farris, 312 Or App 618, 624, (2021).

• Criminal Law

State v. Severson

“Under its ‘possession theory of UUW,’ the state had to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant ‘possessed the [weapon] with the intent either (1) to employ the [weapon] to inflict harm or injury or (2) to employ the [weapon] to threaten immediate harm or injury.'” State v. McAuliffe, 276 Or. App. 259, 265 (2016). Also, “[a] person commits the crime of menacing if by word or conduct the person intentionally attempts to place another person in fear of imminent serious physical injury” ORS 163.190(1).

• Criminal Law

State v. Wiltse

A person commits third-degree assault if the person recklessly causes a “serious physical injury” by means of a dangerous or deadly weapon. ORS 163.165(1)(a).

• Criminal Law

Steltz v. Cain

“[ORS 34.355 provides ‘discretionary and implicit authority’ for the court to appoint counsel for indigent petitioners in habeas cases. Combs v. Baldwin, 161 Or App 270, 276, 984 P2d 366 (1999).” Under State v. Kacin, 237 Or. App. 66, 73, 240 P3d 1099 (2010), the Court held that the habeas court “must provide enough information to enable appellate court to engage in meaningful review of the court's exercise of discretion.”

• Habeas Corpus

Aaron v. Kelly

To establish that trial counsel rendered inadequate assistance under Article I, section 11 of the Oregon Constitution, one must prove that 1) counsel “‘failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment,’” and 2) that Defendant “‘suffered prejudice as a result of counsel’s inadequacy.’” Johnson v. Premo, 360 Or 688, 699, 399 P3d 431 (2017). Similarly, under a Sixth Amendment argument, one must to prove that 1) “‘trial counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness,’” and 2) but for counsel’s errors, there was a reasonable probability that the result would have been different. Strickland v. Washington, 466 US 668, 694, 104 S Ct 2052, 80 L Ed 2d 674 (1984)

• Criminal Law

ADL v. Lane

“To properly exercise discretion, a court must inquire into the nature of and reasons for a party’s continuance request and evaluate its merits." State v. Keerins, 145 Or App 491, 494, 932 P2d 65 (1996).

• Family Law

Crombie v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision

“The necessity of special conditions must be determined in reference to the statutory objectives that are repeated throughout the statutes, namely, the protection of public safety and the reformation of the offender.” Martin v. Board of Parole, 327 Or 147, 159, 957 P2d 1210 (1998).

• Parole and Post-Prison Supervision

Friends of Yamhill County v. Yamhill County

"[A] 'dwelling' or 'residence' requires use as a home. A home is occupied by a group of people sharing a household - not by individuals and groups who share no social or legal relationship - on a long-term or permanent basis - not in a transitory way." 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Clackamas County, 309 Or App 499 at 453, 483 P3d 706,rev den, 368 Or 347 (2021).

• Land Use

Hargreaves v. Matteucci

ORS 34.340 permits a court to issue a writ of habeas corpus upon a petition of the party for whose relief it is intended, "or of some other person in behalf of the party."

• Criminal Procedure

State v. Pierpoint

A legal error constitutes a plain error if it is “so prejudicial that an instruction to disregard [it] would not have been sufficiently curative to assure the court, in its consideration of all the circumstances, that the defendant received a fair trial.” State v. Chitwood, 370 Ore. 305, 312 (2023).

• Criminal Procedure

State v. Robintree

The Court "must affirm a defendant's conviction despite evidentiary error if there is little likelihood that the particular error affected the verdict." State v. Jones, 274 Or App 723, 728, 362 P3d 899 (2015).

• Evidence

State v. Serrano

• Criminal Procedure

State v. Wimmer

"A person commits the crime of private indecency if they expose the genitals of the person with the intent of arousing the sexual desire of the person or another person and: (a) the person is in a place where another person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.” ORS 163.467(1)(a). A place where another has a reasonable expectation of privacy “includes, but is not limited to, residences, yards of residences, working areas, and offices.” ORS 163.467(4).

• Criminal Law

Cantu v. Progressive Classic Ins. Co.

“Insurance policy provisions in the written contract that are less favorable in any respect to the insured or the beneficiary are unenforceable. A policy may exclude or soften an authorized term that disfavors insureds or add a term that is neutral or favors insureds without violating the statute.” ORS 742.504

• Insurance Law

Davis & Galm, LLC v. Neve

“[U]nder Oregon law, ‘the plaintiff’s concrete stake in the outcome must continue throughout the pendency of the case.’ [Couey v. Atkins, 357 Or 460, 469 (2006)]. If plaintiffs’ concrete stake in the outcome evaporates after initiation of the action, the case becomes moot and must be dismissed for want of justiciability. Id.”

• Civil Procedure

Dep't of Human Services v. L.B.

“Active efforts” are those that are “affirmative, active, thorough, timely, and intended to maintain or reunite an Indian child with the Indian child's family,” and require a higher standard than reasonable efforts. ORS 419B.645(1),(3).

• Juvenile Law

Petix v. Gillingham

"Declaratory judgement actions are generally not the proper subject of a motion to dismiss, unless there is 'want of a justiciable controversy'." Doe v. Medford School District, 549C, 232 Or App 38 at 45 (2009)

• Civil Procedure

State v. Ortiz

"Evidence perceived by lay jurors to be scientific in nature possesses an unusually high degree of persuasive power. The function of the court is to ensure that the persuasive appeal is legitimate." State v. O'Key, 321 Or 285, 291, 899 P2d 663 (1995).

• Evidence

State v. Redding

“A lane is an area of a highway designated for a particular use by a single line of vehicles, and to which specific driving duties apply.” State v. Thomas, 104 Or App 126, 129, (1990).

• Criminal Law

State v. Baker

“Criminal negligence requires that a defendant ‘fail[ed] to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk’ such that the ‘failure to be aware of it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.’” ORS 161.085(10).

• Criminal Law