杏十八新茶分享

 

Oregon Court of Appeals

Opinions Filed in February 2020

Int. Assn. Machinist, Woodworkers Local W-246 v. Heil

"When determining whether the offer of judgment under ORCP 54(E) was more favorable than the judgment, the court must compare both amounts."听Mulligan v.听Hornbuckle, 227 Or App 520, 523, 206 P3d 1078 (2008).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

Menten and Deatherage

"ORS 107.105(6) explicitly authorizes parties who have an undivided interest in real property pursuant to a dissolution judgment to maintain a proceeding for the 'partition' of the property." See Abrahram v. Goff, 85 Or App 595, 597, 737 P2d 971 (1987).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

OR-OSHA v. A & B Sheet Metal Works

"As set forth by a leading treatise, federal law dictates that the agency must show, in the absence of proof of actual exposure, that it is reasonably predictable that employees, by 'operational necessity' or otherwise (including inadvertence) in the course of their work or associated activities (e.g., going to rest rooms) will be in the zone of danger created by the cited condition." OR-OSHA v. Moore Excavation, Inc., 257 Or App 567, 577, 307 P3d 510 (2013).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Porter v. Veenhuisen

If an action is first filed within the statute of limitations and then 鈥渋nvoluntarily dismissed without prejudice on any ground not adjudicating the merits of the action,鈥 a new action based on the same claim or claims may be filed within 180 days of the trial court鈥檚 entry of the judgment of dismissal of the original action, notwithstanding that the statute of limitations has run during the interim. ORS 12.220.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Portland Fire Fighters' Assn. v. City of Portland

鈥溾機ollective bargaining鈥 means the performance of the mutual obligation of a public employer and the representative of its employees to meet at reasonable times and confer in good faith with respect to employment relations for the purpose of negotiations concerning mandatory subjects of bargaining鈥︹ ORS 243.650(4). 鈥淢andatory subjects of bargaining are those that affect employment relations.鈥 ORS 243.650(4). 鈥淓mployment relations 鈥榠ncludes, but is not limited to, matters concerning direct or indirect monetary benefits, hours, vacations, sick leave, grievance procedures and other conditions of employment.鈥欌 ORS 243.650(7)(a).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Labor Law

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. Formby-Carter

鈥淓vidence of defendant鈥檚 previous criminal convictions and the underlying facts was relevant and admissible to prove 鈥榙efendant鈥檚 mental state, as well as * * * absence of mistake or accident.鈥欌 State v. Johns, 301 Or 535, 725 P2d 312 (1986); OEC 404(3).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Keys

"In the absence of indictment, preliminary hearing, or waiver, the circuit court lacks jurisdiction to try the defendant and any judgment rendered in that case is void.鈥 Huffman v. Alexander, 197 Or 283, 301, 251 P2d 87 (1952); OR Const, Art VII (Amended), section 5.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Oxford

To determine whether the trial court abused its discretion, the Court took the context of the case into consideration along with other factors.听See State v. Evans, 211 Or App 162, 166-68 (2007), aff鈥檇, 344 Or 358 (2008) (Whether the prejudice was so great a mistrial was the only legally acceptable alternative, whether the prejudice was cured by jury instruction, and whether the incident was sufficiently isolated).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Snelgrove

鈥淚f the defendant does not comply with the conditions of the release agreement, the court having jurisdiction shall enter an order declaring the entire security amount to be forfeited. [...] If, within 30 days after the court declares the forfeiture, the defendant does not appear or satisfy the court having jurisdiction that appearance and surrender by the defendant was, or still is, impossible and without fault of the defendant, the court shall enter judgment for the state, or appropriate political subdivision thereof, against the defendant鈥︹ ORS 135.280(3).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Spieler

鈥淭he 鈥榗ourt鈥檚 speaking verdict and other comments must be considered in context, taking into account the circumstances in which the court made its observations.鈥欌 State v. Reed, 299 Or App 675, 689, 452 P3d 995 (2019).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Stacey

Plain-error review has three requirements: (1) the error was one of law; (2) the error was apparent and not reasonably in dispute; and (3) the error appeared on the record. State v. Coverstone, 260 Or App 714, 715, 320 P3d 670 (2014).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

Dept. of Human Services v. P. W.

鈥淥RS 419B.387 authorizes the juvenile court to order a parent to submit to a psychological evaluation,听but only after听鈥榯he establishment of a need for treatment or training at the evidentiary hearing.鈥欌澨鼶ept of Human Services v. D.R.D., 298 Or App 788, 799, 450 P3d 1022 (2019); see also听Dept. of Human Services v. T.L.H., 300 Or App 606, 453. P3d 556 (2019).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

Growing Green Panda v. Dept. of Human Services

鈥淲hen an agency has interpreted its own rules, 鈥榳e give significant deference to that interpretation and are required to affirm it if it is 鈥減lausible,鈥 [as long as it鈥檚 consistent with itself, its context or other source of law].鈥欌澨鼴oatwright v. Dept. of Human Services, 293 Or App 301, 304-305 (2018).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

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

Stau v. Taylor

Under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution, a party may prove that trial counsel rendered inadequate assistance if they prove (1) a performance element, or a failure to exercise reasonable professional judgement, and (2) a prejudice element, that the party suffered prejudice as a result of the inadequacy.听See Johnson v. Premo, 361 Or 688, 699, 399 P3d 431 (2017).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Post-Conviction Relief

Anantha v. Clarno

The proposed measures must satisfy the two-part framework: 1) whether a 鈥渦nifying principle鈥 can be identified, embracing a single subject, and if so 2) whether 鈥渙ther matters鈥 contained within are 鈥減roperly connected鈥 to that principle. State ex rel Caleb v. Beesley, 326 Or 83, 91-93, 949 P2d 724 (1997).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Ballot Titles

Dayton v. Jordan

鈥淚n order to subdivide or partition any property, the declarant shall include on the face of the subdivision or partition plat, if a partition plat is required, a declaration [鈥 stating that the declarant has caused the subdivision or partition plat to be prepared and the property subdivided or partitioned in accordance with the provisions of this chapter [鈥 any public or private easements created, or any other restriction made, shall be stated in the declaration.鈥 ORS 92.075(1).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Property Law

Miller v. Elisea

"[T]he inquiry into the admissibility of evidence of medical causation focuses on the differential diagnosis and whether the particular use of the differential diagnosis to determine causation has met the general test of scientific validity." Jennings v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 331 Or 285, 307, 14 P3d 596 (2000).听

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

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

Vukanovich v. Kine

When neither party requests a de novo review, and the case does not appear to warrant doing so due to exceptional circumstances, the court reviews a trial court's legal conclusions for errors of law and its factual findings to determine whether the findings are supported by evidence in the record. ORAP 5.40(8)(c); Vukanovich v. Kine, 268 Or App 623,听633, 342 P3d 1075 (Vukanovich II), adh'd to as modified on recons, 271 Or App 133, 349 P3d 567 (2015 (Vukanovich III).听

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Dept. of Human Services v. L. J. W.

鈥淥RS 419B.337(2) grants the court the authority to order a parent to submit to a psychological evaluation to help design services needed, if there is 鈥榓 rational connection between the service to be provided and the basis for jurisdiction.鈥欌 听State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. G. L., 220 Or App 216, 223, 185 P3d 483, rev den, 345 Or 158 (2008).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

M & T Partners, Inc. v. Miller

Under ORS 197.829, LUBA "'shall affirm a local government interpretation of its comprehensive plan and land use regulations,' unless LUBA finds that specified conditions are satisfied."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Reister v. City of Portland Bureau of FPDR

鈥淎n 鈥楩PDR Two Member whose employment with the Bureau of Fire or Police terminates after completing five Years of Service shall be eligible to receive the benefit on vested termination.鈥 That benefit 鈥榮hall be the FPDR Two Member鈥檚 retirement benefit accrued [鈥 to the date of the FPDR Two Member鈥檚 termination of employment鈥 and 鈥榮hall be payable monthly for the life of the FPDR Two Member commencing on Earliest Retirement Date.鈥" Portland City Charter 搂 5-305(b), (c).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

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. Simmons

鈥淎 confession or admission of a defendant, whether in the course of judicial proceedings or otherwise, cannot be given in evidence against the defendant when it was made under the influence of fear produced by threats.鈥 ORS 136.425(1). "Any communication made with the idea of some 'temporal benefit or disadvantage' for the criminal defendant is enough to run afoul with the statute."听State v. Linn, 179 Or 499, 504-07, 173 P2d 305 (1946);听State v. Bell, 281 Or App 208, 383, P3d 327 (2016).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Back to Top