Dep鈥檛 of Hum. Servs. v. J.E.D.V.
鈥淭he test for parental unfitness focuses on 鈥榯he detrimental effect of the parent鈥檚 conduct or condition on the child, not just the seriousness of the parent鈥檚 conduct or condition in the abstract.'鈥 State ex rel SOSCF v. Stillman, 333 Or. 135, 146 (2001).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Peabody v. SAIF Corp.
Absent statutory language indicating otherwise, 鈥渁 party entitled to recover attorney fees incurred in litigating the merits of a fee-generating claim also may receive attorney fees incurred in determining the amount of the resulting fee award.鈥 TriMet v.听Aizawa, 326 Or 1, 3, 403 P3d 753 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
State v. Morales
鈥淥RS 161.095 provides 鈥 a person is not guilty of an offense unless the person acts with a culpable mental state with respect to each material element of the offense that necessarily requires a culpable mental state鈥 (internal quotations omitted).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Zamora
A defendant cannot be convicted of both sexual abuse and using a child in display of sexually explicit conduct "unless a reasonable juror could find that the defendant caused the child to participate...in sexually explicit conduct for the defendant to observe, as opposed to the observation being incidental to the...abuse."听State v. Clay, 301 Or App 599, 605, 457 P3d 330 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
A.B.A. v. Wood
The Court does not possess inherent authority to set aside a judgement for intrinsic fraud upon the court. ORCP 71(c).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Stalking Protective Order
KKMH Properties, LLC v. Shire
鈥淚f the violation described in the notice can be cured by the tenant by a change in conduct, repairs, payment of money or otherwise, the rental agreement does not terminate if the tenant cures the violation by the designated date. The designated date must be: (A) At least 14 days after delivery of the notice鈥︹ ORS 90.392(4)(a).
Area(s) of Law:- Landlord Tenant
State v. Brown
Under State v. Garrett, 300 Or App 671 (2019), to determine if offenses are of the same or similar character, the Court will consider 鈥渇actors such as the temporal proximity of the acts, similarities in the elements of the offenses, whether there will be similar evidence or evidentiary overlap, and whether the charges involve the same or similar victims, locations, intent, modus operandi, or acts.鈥 Under State v. Dewhitt, 276 Or App 373 (2016), 鈥渙ffenses are 鈥榗onnected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan鈥 when they are 鈥榣ogically related, and there is a large area of overlapping proof between them.鈥欌
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Clowdus
鈥淔or purposes of [determining whether there is any evidence to support a defense], the 鈥榪uantum鈥 of evidence is irrelevant, State v. Brown, 306 Or 599, 603 n 3, 761 P2d1300 (1988), as is the existence of contrary evidence, State v. Costanzo, 94 Or App 516, 518 n 1, 766 P2d 415 (1988). 鈥榌T]he court鈥檚 role is not to weigh the evidence, but merely to determine if any evidence would support the defense.鈥 Costanzo, 94 Or App at 518 n 1.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Solis
鈥淸A] trial court鈥檚 overruling of an objection to improper prosecutorial argument is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.鈥 State v. Mayo, 303 Or. App. 525, 530, 465 P3d 267 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Vannoy
鈥淯nder Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, 鈥榓 seizure occurs when (1) a police 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. Arreola-Botello, 365 Or 695, 701 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Williams
鈥淸T]he burden of proving jurisdictional facts in Oregon criminal cases ultimately lies with the state.鈥 State v. Hill, 277 Or. App. 751, 766 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Wright v. Lutzi
Where an obvious clerical error causes a judgment to be internally inconsistent and ambiguous on its face, we may look at the record to determine the court鈥檚 true intent and instruct the trial court to modify the judgment accordingly. State v. Sullivan, 29 Or App 55, 58, 562 P2d 560 (1977).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Guzek v. Bd. of Parole
Under ORS 144.228(1)(b), 鈥淭he board is to set a release date for any person who was originally sentenced . . . as a dangerous offender when [it can] affirmatively find that 鈥榯he condition which made the prisoner dangerous is absent or in remission.鈥欌
Area(s) of Law:- Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
M. F. v. Baker
Under ORS 30.866, "if the contact in question amounts to communication by speech or writing, only a threat will be sufficient to 鈥榗ause apprehension or fear resulting from the perception of danger,鈥 as ORS 163.730 requires.鈥 State v. Rangel, 328 Or 294, 303, 977 P2d 379 (1999).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Stalking Protective Order
Preble v. Centennial School Dist., No. 287
"Where a worker offers evidence that work was the major contributing cause of a combined condition, but the ALJ or board finds that evidence less persuasive than the employer鈥檚 contrary evidence, the worker has 'failed to establish that a work-related incident was the major contributing cause of the worker鈥檚 injury' such that the worker may pursue a civil action under the limitations set out in ORS 656.019." Preble v. Centennial School Dist., No. 287.
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
Baker v. State
鈥淲here the state has not asserted and proved any of the procedural defenses set out in the PCHA, a court must grant post-conviction relief for any denial of a constitutional right that is both consequential and offensive.鈥 Watkins v. Ackley, 370 Or 604, 630-31 (2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Hathaway v. B & J Property Investments, Inc.
鈥淥RS 12.125 states that 鈥榌a]n action arising under a rental agreement or [ORTLA] shall be commenced within one year.鈥欌 ORS 12.010 states that statute of limitations for actions brought under ORS chapter 12 are tolled 鈥渁fter the cause of action shall have accrued.鈥 Under Rice v. Rabb, 354 Or 721 (2014), 鈥淸a] claim 鈥榓ccrue[s]鈥 under ORS 12.010 when the 鈥減laintiff obtained knowledge, or reasonably should have obtained knowledge鈥 of the claim.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Landlord Tenant
Kizer Excavating Co. v. Stout Building Contractors, LLC
Plaintiff did, in fact, argue that the argument made in Defendant's first assignment of error was not preserved.
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
Kragt v. Board of Parole
"[W]hen a party requests to file a supplemental brief, the party should clearly state the reasons for the request and what the party wants to address in the supplemental brief, including notifying the court if the party intends to raise a new assignment of error or make a distinct new argument on an existing assignment of error." Kragt v. Board of Parole, 325 Or App 688, 694 (2023).听
Area(s) of Law:- Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
State v. Acosta
Under听Shedrick, "the property-value element of theft carries, at a minimum, the culpable mental state of criminal negligence."听State v. Shedrick, 370 Or 255 (2022). Further, "a jury instruction that omits an element of an offense constitutes a constitutional error."听Neder v. United States, 527 US 1, 8 (1999).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. D.B.O.
ORS 419C.478(1) states that an order placing a juvenile in the legal custody of the Oregon Youth Authority 鈥渟hall include written findings describing why it is in the best interests of the adjudicated youth to be placed with the youth authority or department.鈥 Also, "[a] juvenile court鈥檚 failure to include findings is legal error." State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. C.N.W., 212 Or App 551, 552, 159 P3d 333 (2007).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Howard
ORS 166.075(2) provides: 鈥淎s used in this section and ORS 166.085, 鈥榓buse鈥 means to deface, damage, defile or otherwise physically mistreat in a manner likely to outrage public sensibilities.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Perkins
鈥淸A] trial court鈥檚 failure to deliver [jury] instructions . . . that the defendant acted with a culpable mental state with respect to the value of the property he took [is erroneous].鈥 State v. Shedrick, 370 Or. 255, 270 (2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Wampler
鈥淩easonable suspicion has a subjective and an objective component: an officer has reasonable suspicion when the officer subjectively believes that the person has committed a crime and that belief is objectively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstance.鈥 State v. Moore, 264 Or App 86, 89, 331 P3d 1027 (2014).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Wecker v. Salem Clinic, P.C.
In reviewing summary judgment, the court will 鈥溾榬eview a trial court鈥檚 grant of summary judgment for errors of law and will affirm if there are no genuine dispute about any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.鈥 Thompson v. Portland Adventist Medical Center, 309 Or. App. 118, 121 (2021). "'No genuine issue of material fact exists if no objectively reasonable juror could return a verdict for the adverse party." ORCP 47 C.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. H.D.E.
鈥淚n assessing the impact of potential evidentiary error in a bench trial, 鈥榯he court鈥檚 speaking verdict and other comments must be considered in context, taking into account the circumstances in which the court made its observations and the extent to which the court鈥檚 explanation of its verdict sheds light on how it viewed the evidence.鈥欌 State v. Reed, 299 Or App 675, 689, 452 P3d 995 (2019), rev den, 366 Or 382 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence