Oregon Supreme Court (3 summaries)
State v. Carpenter
"'[C]onceal' requires conduct by the defenant that hides the person who committed a crime punishable as a felony from ordinary observation."
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Toth
There are three requirements for a compensatory fine: 鈥淸t]he first is that the crime must 鈥榬esult[] in injury.鈥欌 State v. Moreno Hernandez, 365 Or 175, __ (2019) (quoting ORS 137.101(1)). Second, "the statutory definition of 'victim' in ORS 137.103(4) must be met, which usually requires a showing that the victim suffered 'economic damages,' defined by ORS 31.710 as 'reasonable charges necessarily incurred for medical, hospital, nursing and rehabilitative services and other health care services***.'" Third, 鈥溾榯hose damages were recoverable against the defendant in a civil action.鈥欌 Moreno Hernandez, 365 Or at __ (quoting State v. Barkley, 315 Or 420, 438, 846 P2d 390 (1993)).
Area(s) of Law:- Remedies
Vasquez v. Double Press Mfg., Inc.
鈥淐laims subject to *** ORS chapter 656鈥 under ORS 31.710(1) 鈥渕ost plausibly encompasses an exception鈥 for claims against noncomplying employers and third parties, and the context of ORS 31.710(1), as part of 鈥渢ort reform鈥 enacted in 1987, does not indicate the damages cap 鈥渨as intended to apply to 鈥 claims in ORS chapter 656.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
Oregon Court of Appeals (50 summaries)
State v. Laune
鈥淭he primary purposes of the preservation rule are to allow the trial court to consider a contention and correct any error, to allow the opposing party an opportunity to respond to a contention, and to foster a full development of the record.鈥 Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209, 219-20, 191 P3d 637 (2008).
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
State v. Strasser
Excluding evidence is harmless if the finder of fact 鈥渨ould have regarded the evidence as duplicative or unhelpful to its deliberations.鈥 State v. Blaylock, 267 Or App 455, 456 n 1, 341 P3d 758 (2014), rev den, 357 Or 299 (2015) (quoting State v. Perkins, 221 Or App 136, 143, 188 P3d 482 (2008) (internal quotation marks, citations, and ellipses omitted)).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v Marmon
An affidavit requires facts be included to show more likely than not that: 鈥(1)鈥 crime has been, or is currently being, committed, and that (2) evidence of that crime (3) will be found in the place to be searched.鈥 State v. Cannon, 299 Or App 616, 626-27, 450 P3d 567 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v Pouncey
The denial of the motion for mistrial is reviewed for abuse of discretion, 鈥渁sking whether the prosecutor鈥檚 unremedied misstatement so affected the jury鈥檚 consideration as to deny defendant a fair trial.鈥 Citing State v. Davis, 345 Or 551, 582-83, 201 P3d 185 (2008), cert den, 558 US 873 (2009).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Dept. of Human Services v. L. C.
DHS bears the burden of persuasion to demonstrate the consequences asserted by Mother and Father were incorrect on the facts or insufficient legally. Dept. of Human Services v. A. B., 362 Or 412, 427, 412 P3d 1169 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Ortiz-Rico
For ORS 161.067(3), a 鈥渟ufficient pause鈥 is considered 鈥渁 temporary or brief cessation of a defendant鈥檚 criminal conduct that occurs between repeated violations and is so marked in scope or quality that it affords a defendant the opportunity to renounce his or her criminal intent.鈥 State v. Huffman, 234 Or App 177, 184, 227 P3d 1206 (2010).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Adams
The Court ruled it would 鈥溾ot presume an implicit finding where the record does not support it or shows that such a finding was not part of the trial court鈥檚 chain of reasoning forming the basis of its ultimate legal conclusion.鈥 See Pereida-Alba v. Coursey, 356 Or 654, 671, 342 P3d 70 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Dept. of Human Services v. M. E.
鈥淚f the involvement of friends and family members sufficiently counters the risk to a child otherwise presented by a parent鈥檚 deficits so that the child is safe, dependency jurisdiction is not warranted.鈥 Dept. of Human Services v. J. G. K., 298 Or App 398, 402, 449 P3d 531 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Rieker
鈥溾RS 137.106 did not prevent the court from imposing restitution [beyond the 90-day deadline] in order to provide the victim a remedy by due course of law, after it was discovered that her constitutional right to restitution was violated.鈥 State v. Wagoner, 257 Or App 749, 395 P3d 528 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Colman-Pinning
鈥淸T]he automobile exception is a subcategory of the warrant exception for exigent circumstances, necessitated by the fact that a vehicle that is mobile can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought.鈥 State v. Brown, 301 Or 268, 275, 721 P2d 1357 (1986). 鈥淭he mobility of the vehicle creates a per se exigency, meaning that there is no need to establish other exigencies or that a warrant could not have been quickly obtained.鈥 Id. at 276.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Middleton
鈥淭he test for whether an encounter is a 鈥榮eizure鈥 is whether the officer 鈥榠ntentionally and significantly restricts, interferes with, or otherwise deprives an individual鈥檚 liberty or freedom of movement,鈥 or whether 鈥榓 reasonable person under the totality of the circumstances would believe that [that] has occurred.鈥欌澨齋tate v. Fair, 353 Or 588, 594, 302 P3d 417 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Drew
"A wound on the forehead and scalp that is four to six inches in length and half an inch wide after five staples had been used to close it is a 'disfigurement' as the term is ordinarily used," and, if it is "readily apparent to others, qualifies as 'serious.'" State v. Kinsey, 293 Or App, 208, 213, 426 P3d 674 (2018).听
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Gallegos
鈥淧lain error is an error that is (1) one of law; (2) obvious, i.e., not reasonably in dispute; and (3) apparent on the record.鈥 State v. Vanornum, 354 Or 614, 629, 317 P3d 889 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Remedies
State v. McCarthy
The automobile exception requires 鈥(1) that the automobile is mobile at the time it is stopped by police or other governmental authority, and (2) that probable cause exists for the search of the vehicle.鈥 State v. Brown, 301 Or. 268, 274, 721 P2d 1357 (1986).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Keyes
"[A] 'sentence imposed' under ORS 137.717 is a sentence initially imposed upon conviction, and not a sentence imposed at the time the probation is revoked."听State v. Orcutt, 280 Or App 439, 446, 380 P3d 1105 (2016), rev den, 361 Or 525 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Yann v. Bowser
In reviewing the trial court's grant of summary judgment for legal error, the Court determines 鈥渨hether there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.鈥 Evans v. City of Warrenton, 283 Or App 256, 258, 388 P3d 1167 (2016); ORCP 47 C.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. M. J. M.
Once a court finds a person is mentally ill by clear and convincing evidence, if the court finds that person is 鈥渨illing and able to participate in treatment on a voluntary basis鈥 and they 鈥渨ill probably do so鈥 the court must order their release under ORS 426.130(1)(a)(A)(i)-(ii).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
State v. Clay
"The legislature did not intend ORS 163.670 to capture a person鈥檚 observation of his own sexual abuse of a child or observation of a child鈥檚 sexual or intimate parts while sexually abusing or preparing to sexually abuse the child." Rather, "the legislature intended to address conduct committed for the purpose of observation or visual recording."
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Dept. of Human Services v C.M.H.
Under ORS 419B.157, 鈥渢he jurisdiction of the juvenile court of the county in which a child is taken into protective custody shall attach from the time the child is taken into custody.鈥 "'Jurisdiction' in that statute is necessarily a reference to subject matter jurisdiction because, at the time a child is taken into custody, the court will not have had the opportunity to make the factual findings and legal determination required by ORS 419.310(3) to assert dependency jurisdiction over a child.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Burris
Whenever the State is proceeding under the aid-and-abet theory, as well as the principle liability theory, "a trial court must charge the jury as to its concurrence obligation." State v. Phillips, 354 Or 598, 606, 317 P3d 236 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Coons
鈥淎n error is 鈥榩lain; if it is (1) of law, (2) obvious and not reasonably in dispute, and (3) it appears on the record such that there is no need to choose among competing inferences.鈥 State v. Clarke, 300 Or App 74, 80, ___ P3d ___ (2019) (second and third internal quotation marks omitted).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
De Lanoy v. Taylor
"[W]hen only one party asks for a declaration, it is incumbent on the court to declare the respective rights of the parties." See Akles v. State of Oregon, 298 Or App 283, 284, 444 P3d 532 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Remedies
State v. Craigen
"The subcategories in OAR 213-018-0070 assign a different degree of criminal seriousness based on the type of contraband in the inmate's possession, not the manner in which the inmate used the contraband."
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
King v. SAIF
The 鈥済oing and coming鈥 rule applies when 鈥渋njuries sustained while an employee is traveling to or from work do not occur in the course of employment.鈥 See SAIF v. Massari, 291 Or App 349, 420 P3d 659 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
Wiggins v. SAIF
The standard in the form ("more than 2/3 of the time") was not the same as the WCD interpretation because under that interpretation, 鈥渁 person is significantly limited in the repetitive use of a body part if the person 鈥榗an use the body part repetitively for up to, but no more than, two-thirds of the time.鈥欌 Broeke v. SAIF, 300 Or App 91 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
State v. Gatewood
The Court followed its approach in State v. Moncada, 鈥淸t]o determine the identity of the 鈥榲ictim鈥 for consecutive-sentencing purposes, we refer to the substantive statute defining the relevant criminal offense.鈥 241 Or App 202, 250 P3d 31 (2011), rev den, 351 Or 546 (2012).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Trent v. Connor Enterprises, Inc.
ORS 652.200(2) requires reasonable attorneys鈥 fees when the court rules for the plaintiff, except if 鈥渢he court finds that the plaintiff鈥檚 attorney unreasonably failed to give written notice of the wage claim to the employer before filing the action.鈥 ORS 652.200(2).
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
P.K.W. v. Steagall
"[I]t is appropriate to continue FAPA restraining orders when there is evidence of post-separation events that established a continuing threat to petitioner's safety." Hubbell v. Sanders, 245 Or App 321, 263 P3d 1096 (2011).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Abuse Prevention Act
State v. S.T.
The question to ask is "whether the evidence described . . . viewed in the light most favoring the state, provides 'a concrete and particularized foundation for a prediction of future dangerousness absent commitment.鈥 State v. S. E. R., 297 Or App 121, 122, 441 P3d 254 (2019) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
Crown Property Management, Inc. v. Cottingham
"The provision must also designate an address where the tenant can mail notices to the landlord and a location where the tenant can affix notices, 'which shall be described with particularity in the written rental agreement, reasonably located in relation to the tenant and available at all hours.'" ORS 90.155(1)(c)(B).
Area(s) of Law:- Landlord Tenant
Bank of New York Mellon v. Owen
鈥淥RS 86.797 cannot provide finality in a fundamentally flawed nonjudicial foreclosure sale鈥 Troubled Asset Solutions v. Wilcher, 291 Or App 522, 530-31, 422 P3d 314 (2018), rev鈥檇 in part on other grounds, 365 OR 397, 445 P3d 881 (2019) (citing DiGregorio v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, 281 Or App 484, 490-91, 381 P3d 961 (2016), rev den, 361 Or 100 (2017)).
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
State v. Hoseclaw
It is appropriate for the court to correct an error if the "plain error [is] based on the defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence given the gravity of the error and intervening change in the law." See State v. Inloes, 239 Or App 49, 54-55, 243 P3d 862 (2010).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Ventris
The 1999 legislative amendment to ORS 138.083 granted the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision the same authority it had to parole persons convicted of murder that it had to parole persons convicted of aggravated murder. State v. Giles, 254 Or App 349-50, 293 P3d 1086 (2012). ).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. McDougal
A trial court's contempt judgment should be reversed and remanded when "the trial court ha[s] applied an incorrect standard in determining that the defendant ha[s] violated a restraining order." State v. Heal, 298 Or App 806, ___ P3d ___ (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Abuse Prevention Act
State v. Steele
鈥淔or an error to be plain error, it must be an error of law, obvious and not reasonably in dispute, and apparent on the record, without requiring the court to choose among competing inferences.鈥 State v. Vanornum, 354 Or 614, 629, 317 P3d 889 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
State v. Eatinger
When testimony is scientific, the State is required to lay foundation using the听Brown/O鈥橩ey听factors.听听State v. O鈥橩ey, 321 Or 285, 899 P2d 663 (1995);听State v. Brown, 297 Or 404, 687 P2d 751 (1984).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Bank of America, N.A., v. Carlson
鈥淭hose statements were not admissible under the hearsay exception for business records under OEC 803(6), which, subject to various requirements, allows for the admission of a 鈥榤emorandum, report, record, or data compilation, in any form鈥欌︹榥o part of that rule purports to render testimony about [the records] admissible over a hearsay objection.鈥欌 U.S. Bank National Assn. v. McCoy, 290 Or App 525, 534-536, 415 P3d 1116 (2018) (emphasis in original).
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
State v. Smartt
In a restitution proceeding under ORS 137.106(1)(a), 鈥渢he state can demonstrate the reasonable value of medical expenses by offering evidence that the medical expenses reflect the usual and customary rate for those services in the market wherein they occur.鈥 State v. Campbell, 296 Or App 22, 31, 438 P3d 448 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Connelly
A UUV conviction will be upheld when 鈥渢here is evidence of 鈥榯ampering鈥 and 鈥榝oul play鈥 that is 鈥榬elevant to defendant鈥檚 knowledge鈥 that [the] [vehicle] was stolen.鈥 State v. Peirce, 296 Or App 829, 838, 440 P3d 98 (2019) (quoting State v. Bell, 220 Or App 226, 271-72, 185 P3d 541 (2008)).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Albany & Eastern Railroad Co. v. Martell
鈥淭o establish a prescriptive easement, a claimant 鈥榤ust establish an open and notorious use of [the owner鈥檚] land adverse to the rights of [the owner鈥 for a continuous and uninterrupted period of ten years.鈥欌 Wels v. Hippe, 360 Or 569, 577, 385 P3d 1028 (2016). The use of property is 鈥渁dverse鈥 if 鈥渋nconsistent with the owner鈥檚 use of the property or if it is undertaken not in subordination to the rights of the owner.鈥澨齀d.听at 578.
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
State v. Cook
鈥淸W]here the issue is presented, a sentencing court must consider an offender鈥檚 intellectual disability in comparing the gravity of the offense and the severity of a mandatory prison sentence on such an offender in a proportionality analysis.鈥 State v. Ryan, 361 Or 602, 620-21, 396 P3d 867 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Bohanan v Amsberry
"For petitioners who are 'unable to pay the expenses of a proceeding,' ORS 138.590 creates an exception to the requirement under ORS 138.560(1) that the filing fee be paid at the time the petition is filed. ORS 138.590(1), (8). In that circumstance, 'all court fees in the circuit court' other than the filing fee are waived; the filing fee, however, 'is not waived but may be drawn from, or charged against, the petitioner's trust account if the petitioner is an inmate in a correctional facility.'" ORS 138.590(8)(b).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Bush and Bush
鈥淎lthough we exercise our discretion to review de novo only in exceptional cases, ORAP 5.40(8)(c), 'a lower court鈥檚 reliance on a crucial finding that does not comport with the evidence in the record can be a reason to exercise our discretion.'鈥 Morgan and Morgan, 269 Or App 156, 159, 344 P3d 81 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Berg v. Benton
鈥淭he pendency of an appeal does not *** prevent a judgment from operating as res judicata or collateral estoppel.鈥 Ron Tonkin Gran Turismo v. Wakehouse Motors, 46 Or App 199, 207, 611 P2d 658, rev den, 289 Or 373 (1980).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Baldwin v. Seida
The legislature鈥檚 intent can be understood by looking at the text of ORS 31.150(2)(a)-(b); in context, under State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160, 171-72, 206 P3d 1042 (2009), the Court examined 鈥渟ubmitted鈥 and 鈥渏udicial proceeding,鈥 determining the plain meaning according to the dictionary definitions was 鈥渟tatements that are sent for consideration or presented for use in a court proceeding or a proceeding initiated to procure an order, decree, judgment, or similar action.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
Fenimore v Blachly-Lane County C.E.A.
The court can 鈥渁ffirm on an alternative basis only if, (1) the facts of the record are sufficient to support the alternative basis for affirmance; (2) the trial court鈥檚 ruling is consistent with the view of the evidence under the alternative basis for affirmance; and (3) the record is materially the same as the one that would have been developed had the prevailing party raised the alternative basis for affirmance below.鈥 Outdoor Media Dimensions, Inc. v. State of Oregon, 331 Or 634, 659-60, 20 P3d 180 (2001).
Area(s) of Law:- Disability Law
State v. Slaviak
Under State v. Ashkins, 357 Or 642, 659, 357 P3d 490 (2015), a defendant is entitled to a concurrence instruction when an indictment charges "a single occurrence of each offense, but the evidence permit[s] the jury to find any one or more among multiple, separate occurrences of that offense involving the same victim and the same perpetrator," unless the state "elect[ed] which occurrence it would prove." 357 Or at 659.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Craigen
"[A] defendant鈥檚 'personal characteristics' are appropriately considered as part of the defendant鈥檚 'situation' for purposes of the EED defense, whereas a defendant鈥檚 'personality characteristics' or 'personality traits' are not permissibly considered as part of the defendant鈥檚 鈥榮ituation.鈥欌 Zielinksi, 287 Or App at 780 (citing State v. Ott, 297 Or 375, 686 P2d 1001 (1984)).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. M. G.
鈥淭o justify continued commitment on the 鈥榙anger to others鈥 ground, the state must do more than establish that [A]ppellant was dangerous to others at one time.鈥 State v. D. S., 243 Or App 328, 333, 258 P3d 1250 (2011). 鈥淸I]t must establish a factual foundation to predict [A]ppellant鈥檚 future dangerousness based on his condition at the time of the hearing in the context of his history.鈥 Id.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
State v. Totland
The court reviews 鈥渁 trial court鈥檚 decision to overrule an objection to closing arguments for abuse of discretion.鈥 State v. Logston, 270 Or App 296, 303, 347 P.2d 352 (2015). "In conducting this review, we review statements made by a party during argument in context, not in a vacuum.鈥 State v. Purrier, 265 Or App 618, 621, 336 P3d 574 (2014).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law