Oregon Supreme Court (2 summaries)
Staveland v. Fisher
In non-marital domestic partnership dissolution cases, distribution of assets is determined by the express or implied intent of the parties as a question of fact and is reviewed as such. Beal v. Beal, 282 Or at 115, 121-22, 577 P2d 507 (1978).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Caren v. Providence Heealth System-Oregon
Once an accepted injury is no longer the 鈥渕ajor contributing cause鈥 of a combined condition, an employer may reduce the amount they must pay in compensation by (1) proving the injury is no longer a 鈥渕ajor contributing cause鈥 and (2) issuing a written denial to the employee. ORS 656.262(7)(b); ORS 656.268(1)(b); ORS 656.266(2)(a).
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
Oregon Court of Appeals (32 summaries)
Central Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes County
An amendment to a county鈥檚 acknowledged comprehensive plan, which did not directly or indirectly influence the misclassification of a land, cannot be a basis for requiring review of the amendment in a goal noncompliance claim. Urquhart v. Lane Council of Governments, 80 Or App 176, 180-82, 721 P2d 870 (1986).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
The Bank of New York Mellon v. Lash
To maintain an FED action, the entry must have been by force and the holding of the property must have also been by force. ORS 105.110; Kerr v. Jones, 193 Or App 682, 687, 91 P3d 828 (2004).
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
Berrey v. Real Estate Agency
Having a partial ownership interest in the property one is managing does not negate the fact that the management is being done 鈥渇or another鈥 so as to qualify as professional real estate activity. ORS 696.010(14). The managing member exception only applies to individuals who are a managing member of an LLC managing the property. ORS 696.030(27).
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
State v. Glasby
A court may only deny an invocation of the right to self-representation if, on the record, the court states how it determined the court鈥檚 interests in denying the invocation outweighed the defendant鈥檚 right, and a court may deny an invocation for self-representation if it was made unknowingly, involuntarily, equivocally, unclearly, or if it would disrupt the conduct of the trial. State v. Hightower, 361 Or 412, 417, 393 P3d 224 (2017); State v. Fredinburg, 257 Or App 473, 481, 308 P3d 208 (2013), rev den, 354 Or 490 (2013); see also State v. Williams, 288 Or App 712, 713-14, 407 P3d 898 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Rodriguez
The right against self-incrimination must be 鈥渋nvoked on a question-by-question basis,鈥 and may only be waived by the court if the person testifying is given transactional immunity. Or Const, Art I, 搂12; State v. Tensbusch, 131 Or App 634, 640, 886 P2d 1077 (1994).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Taylor
For crimes resulting in economic damages, the district attorney is required to present evidence of damages 鈥渁t the time of sentencing or within 90 days after entry of the judgement,鈥 but 鈥渢he court may extend鈥the deadline] for good cause (does not 鈥渋nclude prosecutorial inadvertence or neglect鈥). ORS 137.106(1)(a); State v. Martinez, 246 Or App 383, 387, 265 P3d 92, rev den, 351 Or 507 (2011).
Area(s) of Law:- Remedies
De Young v. Brown
Under a substantial benefit theory, for a court to award attorney鈥檚 fees under its inherent equitable authority, the party seeking the award must have done so in a representative capacity either 鈥渇or the benefit of鈥an]鈥 entire organization鈥 or if to not award the seeking party would deny or inhibit equitable relief, and the action must have conferred a 鈥渟ubstantial benefit鈥 on others. Bova v. City of Medford, 264 Or App 763, 767, 333 P3d 1144, re den, 356 Or 574 (2014); Gilbert v. Hoisting & Port. Engrs., 237 Or 130, 142, 384 P2d 136 (1963), cert den, 376 US 963 (1964).
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
Department of Human Services v. A.D.J.
To move from reunification to adoption, a juvenile court must 鈥渄etermine whether [(1) DHS] has made reasonable efforts [towards reunification]鈥(2)] the parent has made sufficient progress鈥for the child]鈥 to safely return,鈥 and (3) there is an existing circumstance to support abandoning or delaying termination of parental rights. ORS 419B.476(2)(a); ORS 419B.476(5)(d); ORS 419B.498(1)-(2).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Evans v. Nooth
Claims of inadequate counsel are reviewed on a case-by-case basis, subject to the judge鈥檚 discretion, regarding the reasonableness of the counselor鈥檚 representation from the counselor鈥檚 鈥減erspective at the time of the alleged error and in light of all the circumstances.鈥 Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 US 365, 381, 106 S Ct 2574 (1986). Some evidence of the 鈥渂roader objectives of [the] litigation鈥 is required to perform this assessment. Evans, at 338.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. Vandruff
To determine if a trial court erred, there must be a record on appeal with sufficient facts to make such a determination. C.P. v. N.L., 274 Or App 180, 181, 359 P3d 1248 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Broeke v. SAIF
Under OAR 436-035-0230(14), so long as there is substantial evidence in the record to support that a worker may not be able to work exactly two hours in an eight-hour period, they may be entitled to 鈥15% of the leg鈥 recovery. Garcia v. Boise Cascade Corp., 309 Or 292, 294, 787 Pd 884 (1990). Under OAR 436-035-0019, a worker is entitled to a chronic condition impairment value if there is substantial evidence and reason to show use of the afflicted body part is restricted one-third, or more, of the time.
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
State v. Wyant
The confrontation clause only applies to hearsay evidence; text messages between a victim and Defendant give context to Defendant鈥檚 admissible texts and are not hearsay. State v. Moore, 334 Or 328, 334, 49 P3d 785 (2002); State v. Davis, 291 Or App 146, 419 P3d 730, 363 Or 481 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Reed
A defendant asking, "[d]o I need one?" is not an invocation of the right to counsel. State v. Roberts, 291 Or App 124, 133, 418 P3d 41 (2018). Erroneous admission of evidence may be harmless if the court's speaking verdict did not cite the challenged evidence, or if it did, the record shows "the court would have found the Defendant guilty" without it. State v. Klontz, 257 Or App 684, 702, 308 P3d 214 (2013); State v. Montgomery, 217 Or App 139, 174 P3d 1040 (2007).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Cannon
Search warrants which authorize the search of electronic devices are overbroad and invalid unless there is probable cause to support the search of each device. State v. Burnham, 287 Or App 661, 403 P3d 466 (2017); State v. Friddle, 281 Or App 130, 381 P3d 979 (2016). Officer training and experience may go towards creating the requisite probable cause if they are connected to 鈥渢he facts of . . . [the] particular case.鈥 Fridde, 281 Or App at 140.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Walker v. Oregon Travel Information Council
To be protected from wrongful-discharge due to whistleblowing, one must have had 鈥渁n objectively reasonable belief鈥 that the conduct violated some law or regulation so as to make the conduct an important public-duty. Love v. Polk County Fire District, 209 Or App 474, 492, 149 P3d 199 (2006). Mere disagreements about practices and procedures that don鈥檛 actually violate the law are not protected by this public-duty exception. Id. at 493-94.
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Gardner v. OHSU
For a medical malpractice claim, "findings of comparative fault can be based on the plaintiff's failure to take reasonable measures which might have prevented or reduced the injury caused by the defendant's negligence."听Son v. Ashland Community 快活视频 Services, 239 Or App 495, 509, 244 P3d 835 (2010).
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
State v. McNutt
If there is 鈥渓ittle likelihood that an error affected . . . [a] verdict,鈥 then it was a 鈥渉armless error鈥 and any conviction in question because of it must be affirmed. State v. Davis, 336 Or 19, 32, 77 P3d 1111 (2003); OEC 103(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Schmitz
Warrantless stops by police require reasonable suspicion (combination of an officer鈥檚 subjective and objective belief), by a showing of specific and articulable facts 鈥減articularized to the individual based on the individual鈥檚 own conduct鈥, that they had, or were about to, commit a crime. State v. Farrar, 252 Or App 256, 260, 287 P3d 1124 (2012); State v. Davis, 286 Or App 528, 532, 400 P3d 994 (2017); State v. Holdorf, 355 Or 812, 825, 333 P3d 982 (2014). An officer鈥檚 training and experience cannot contribute to the requisite particularized facts. Id. 260-62. The emergency aid exception justifies warrantless searches when there鈥檚 an 鈥渙bjectively reasonable belief鈥hat a warrantless entry is necessary to鈥 provide immediate or imminent aid. State v. Baker, 350 Or 641, 649, 260 P3d 476 (2011).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Bank of New York Mellon v. Delaney
The 鈥渉older鈥 of a blank indorsement for a 鈥減romissory note secured by a trust deed鈥 possesses the 鈥渞ight to enforce the note.鈥 ORS 73.0301 (UCC 搂3-301); Nationstar Mortgage, LCC v. Peper, 278 Or App 594, 596, 377 P3d 678 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Business Law
State v. Doyle
A defendant may, in front of a jury, cross-examine a plaintiff about previously made accusations if "(1) the plaintiff recanted; (2) the defendant demonstrates to the court that those accusations were false; or (3) there is some evidence the plaintiff made prior false accusations, unless the 'probative value of the evidence鈥s substantially outweighed by the risk of prejudice, confusion, embarrassment or delay.'鈥 State v. LeClair, 83 Or App 121, 129-30, 730 P2d 9 (1986).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State. Lachat
In a harmless-error analysis, a defendant鈥檚 testimony may be considered if it was obtained voluntarily and in such a manner as to not violate 鈥渃onstitutional protections against compelled confessions.鈥 State v. McGinnis, 335 Or 243, 252-53, 264 P3d 1123 (2003).
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
State v. Olson
Substitution of counsel is required when there is a "'legitimate complaint concerning [appointed counsel]' that might rise to the level of requiring substitution." State v. Langley, 314 Or 247, 257, 839 P2d 692 (1992), adh鈥檇 to on recons, 318 Or 28, 861 P2d 1012 (1993).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Dept. of Human Services v. J. G. K.
Evidence demonstrating a parent鈥檚 ability to sufficiently care for their child is relevant at both initial and established jurisdiction hearings; however, if it is clear such evidence would not influence the court鈥檚 ruling, its exclusion is considered harmless. Dept. of Human Services v. T.L., 279 Or App 673, 678, 684-85, 379 P3d 741 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Jones
"If a term is used in one section of a statute, but not another, then it is assumed that the legislature intended the term to apply only to the section in which it is used." State v. Bailey, 346 Or 551, 562, 213 P3d 1240 (2009).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Payton
"'A defendant's intent to commit a crime at the time of an unlawful entry is central to the crime of burglary. Without it a defendant's conduct cannot constitute burglary of any degree; that intent is, in fact, the essence of the offense.'" State v. J.N.S., 258 Or App, 310, 319, 308 P3d 1112 (2013) (quoting State v. Chatelain, 220 Or App 487, 188 P3d 325 (2008)).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. West
鈥淥RS 166.025 provides that proof of one of the acts specified in ORS 166.025(1)(a) to (f) coupled with proof of one of the alternative mental states specified in ORS 166.025(1) will establish the crime of second-degree disorderly conduct.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. J. J. S.
ORS 426.095(2)(c) 鈥減ermits a 鈥榞ood cause鈥 postponement of a commitment hearing past the five-day judicial deadline, [but] that procedure is available only 鈥榳hen requested鈥 by certain parties, and only 鈥榯o allow preparation for the hearing.鈥欌澨齋tate v. W. B. R., 282 Or App 727, 728, 387 P3d 482 (2016). 听
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
State v. Fudge
When a defendant shows, on the record, that they have an intellectual disability, the trial court must expressly consider the 鈥渃onstitutional implications鈥 the disability may have in the determination of a constitutionally just penalty. State v. Ryan, 361 Or 602, 624, 396 P3d 867 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Perez v. Cain
鈥淚n deciding if a claim may be heard on appeal, the court reviews claims on a case-by-case basis to determine if they reasonably could have been anticipated so as to have been raised and settled earlier.鈥澨齎erduzco v. State of Oregon, 357 Or 553, 571 (2015) (quoting听Long v. Armenakis, 166 Or App 94, 101, 999 P2d 461 (2000)).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Colton and Colton
Under ORAP 5.45(1), "except for discretionary plain error review . . . appellate court will not consider claim of error that was not preserved in lower court."
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
Allianz Global Risks v. ACE Property & Casualty Ins. Co.
Purchasers may be responsible for the liabilities of corporations they buy if they 鈥渆xpressly or impliedly agree to assume鈥 them.听Erikson v. Grande Ronde Lbr. Co., 162 Or. 556, 568, 92 P2d 170 (1939).
Area(s) of Law:- Insurance Law
State v. S.E.R.
To civilly commit a person under ORS 426.005, 鈥渢he evidence must supply a concrete and particularized 鈥榝oundation for a predication of future dangerousness,鈥欌 to themselves or others, absent commitment. State v. S.R.J., 281 Or App 741, 748, 754-55, 386 P3d 99 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment