��ʮ���²����

Bighorn Logging Corp. v. Truck Ins. Exchange

When a word or phrase is not defined in an insurance policy, the court will seek out plausible interpretations; should multiple plausible interpretations exist, "any reasonable doubt as to the meaning of the word or phrase will be resolved in favor of the insured and against the insurer." Hunters Ridge Condo. Assn. v. Sherwood Crossing, 285 Or App 416, 423, 395 P3d 892 (2017).

• Insurance Law

Liberty Metal Fabricators v. Lynch Co.

“‘Reasonable medical probability’ describes the level of proof required to establish medical causation by a preponderance of the evidence. Robinson v. SAIF, 147 Or App 157, 160, 935 P2d 454 (1996).

• Workers Compensation

State v. Ellingsen

Under ORS 164.055(1), “[t]he legislature did not intend theft by receiving committed by selling to include a theft, * * * that is both committed by an initial thief and committed by fraudulently returning property to its owner in accordance with the owner’s return policy rather than by selling that property to a third party in the market for stolen goods.” State v. Fonte, 363 Or 327 (2018).

• Sentencing

Dept. of Human Services v. C. L. R.

“A juvenile court may assert dependency jurisdiction over a child whose ‘condition or circumstances are such as to endanger the welfare of the [child] or of others.’” ORS 419B.100(1)(c).

• Juvenile Law

Emon Enterprises, LLC v. Kilcup

"In pursuing statutory remedies sequentially, as permitted by the statute, a landlord may pursue them ‘in a series,' ‘one right after the other often with small interviewing intervals.’” Webster’s Third New Int’l Dictionary 2071 (unabridged ed 2002).

State v. Rondeau

"Police conduct that is 'beyond that reasonably related to the traffic violation *** must be justified on some basis other than the traffic violation.'" State v. Rodgers/Kirkeby, 347 Or 610, 623, 227 P3d 695 (2010).

• Criminal Procedure

Willamette Oaks, LLC v. City of Eugene

Under ORAP 5.45(1) provides, in part, that “[n]o matter claimed as error will be considered on appeal unless the claim of error was preserved in the lower court” and must “demonstrate that the question or issue presented by the assignment of error timely and properly was raised and preserved in the lower court.” Barnes v. City of Hillsboro, 239 Or App 73, 81, 243 P3d 139 (2010).

• Land Use

Cervantes v. Department of Human Services

“In the absence of such an agreement or concession [by the parties] summary judgment is not permissible if the party opposing summary judgment demonstrates that there are factual disputes going to the merits of the challenged agency decision.” Bridgeview Vineyards, Inc. v. State Land Board, 258 Or App 351 (2013).

• Administrative Law

Morris v. Kanne

"Adverse possession depends on the intent of the occupant to claim and hold real property in opposition to all the world."��Sertic v. Roberts, 171 Or 121, 134, 136 P2d 248 (1943).

• Property Law

S. P. Z. v. Kirkwood

“Intimate partner is defined as a person to be ‘the person’s spouse, the person’s former spouse, a parent of the person’s child or another person who has cohabitated or is cohabitations with the person in a relationship akin to a spouse.’” ORS 166.255(3)(d).

• Civil Stalking Protective Order

State v. B.K.

“Whether the trial court committed plain error in failing to advise appellant of all the possible results of the proceedings depends on whether the error was one of law, whether the error was ‘apparent’ so that the legal point is obvious and not reasonably in dispute, and whether the error appears on the record so that we ‘need not go outside the record or choose between competing inferences to find it, and the facts that comprise the error are irrefutable.’” State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 355, 800 P2d 259 (1990).

• Civil Commitment

State v. Gillispie

Interviews must immediately cease when a suspect invokes “the rights to remain silent and council.” State v. Boyd, 360 Or 302, 318, 380 P3d 941 (2016). If the interview continues after the suspect invokes the right to counsel, the interview is considered unlawful. State v. Schmidtke, 290 Or App 880, 884, 417 P3d 563 (2018).

• Criminal Procedure

State v. R.J.C.

Under State v. E.A., to correct a judgment containing a scrivener’s error, the judgment should be vacated and remanded with regard to the basis for commitment. State v. E.A., 295 Or App ��265 (2018).

• Sentencing

State v. Roberts

ORS 163.205(1)(b)(D) was enacted as part of a broader amendment to the criminal mistreatment statute to address the problem of elder abuse—particularly the ‘abandonment and financial exploitation of elderly and dependent persons.’ State v. Bevil, 280 Or App 92, 376 P3d 294 (2016) (emphasis in original).

• Criminal Law

T. G. W. v. B. J. V.

Under ORS 109.324, willful neglect looks at the failure of parent to maintain substantial expressions of concern which show that the parent has a "deliberate, intentional, and good faith interest in maintaining a parent-child relationship” with the relevant further inquiry being whether there is “just and sufficient cause” that excuses the parent’s neglect. Eder v. West, 312 Or 244 (1991). C. R. H. v. B. F., 343 Or 690 (2007).

• Juvenile Law

Dept. of Human Services v. K. J.

“Because ORS 419B.343(1)(a) requires DHS to ensure that its case planning for family reunification ‘bears a rational relationship’ to the findings that brought the child within the court’s jurisdiction, ORS 419B.337(2) grants the juvenile court authority to order DHS to provide a service only if the service bears a ‘rational relationship to the jurisdictional findings.’” State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. G. L., 220 Or App 216, 222, 185 P3d 483, rec den, 345 Or 158 (2008).

• Juvenile Law

J. K. v. Kargol

Under ORS 107.718, in order for a FAPA restraining order to be issued, petitioner must prove by a preponderance of evidence that respondent (1) “abused” petitioner in the 180 days preceding the filing of the petition, (2) presents an “imminent danger of further abuse” to petitioner, and (3) “represents a credible threat to the physical safety of the petitioner”, with a subjective fear being insufficient. T. K. v. Stutzman, 281 Or App 388 (2016).

• Family Abuse Prevention Act

Maxfield v. Cain

In determining whether the Court can answer the question of prejudice on remand, the Supreme Court has ruled “it is inappropriate to affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment on prejudice grounds” when a court has applied the wrong standard for prejudice. Green v. Franke, 357 Or 301, 350 P3d 188 (2015).

• Post-Conviction Relief

State v. Lyness

"In the absence of legally sufficient evidence that the defendant has the ability to pay the amount imposed, it is plain error for a trial court to require a defendant to pay court-appointed attorney fees." State v. Mendoza, 286 Or App 548, 549, 401 P3d 288 (2017) (citing State v. Coverstone, 260 Or App 714, 716, 320 P3d 670 (2014)).

• Attorney Fees