��ʮ���²����

Gould v. Deschutes County

“[W]hen ORS 19.260(1)(a)(B) refers to a class of delivery ‘calculated to achieve delivery within three calendar days,’ it is referring to a class that is designed or purposefully estimated by the delivery service to achieve delivery in that time period….the class of delivery need not be one that is designed or estimated to achieve delivery as a class and in all circumstances within three calendar days; rather, the class of delivery must be designed to achieve delivery of the particular notice of appeal within that time period.”

• Appellate Procedure

Mathis v. St. Helens Auto Center, Inc.

Under the reasoning of Powers v. Quigley, the “reasonable” attorney fee required by ORS 652.200(2) cannot be categorically limited through ORCP 54 E(3). 345 Or 432, 438, 198 P3d 919 (2008).

• Employment Law

State v. Chapman

ORS 19.260(1)(a)(B) provides that "the date of filing a notice appeal is the date of mailing or dispatch if the notice is mailed or dispatched by a class of delivery within three calendar days and the party filing notice has proof of the mailing or dispatch date."

• Appellate Procedure

Harper v. Washburn

The proponent of impeachment evidence must “lay a sufficient foundation for” the evidence’s admission; “reasonable inferences are permissible,” but speculation and guesswork are not. State v. Hubbard, 297 Or 789, 796, 688 P2d 1311 (1984); State v. Bivins, 191 Or App 460, 467, 83 P3d 379 (2004).

• Post-Conviction Relief

McCormick v. State Parks & Recreation Dept

"Except as provided in subsections (4) to (7) of this section, the immunities provided by ORS 105.682 (Liabilities of owner of land used by public for recreational purposes, gardening, woodcutting or harvest of special forest products) do not apply if the owner makes any charge for permission to use the land for recreational purposes, gardening, woodcutting or the harvest of special forest products." ORS 105.688(3).

• Tort Law

Moore v. City of Eugene

“A land use regulation is defined by Measure 49 to include a “provision of a city comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance or land decision ordinance that restricts the residential use of private real property zoned for residential use.” ORS 195.300(14)(c).

• Land Use

Rodriguez v. Keystone RV – Thor Industries

• Employment Law

Sanders v. Vigor Fab, LLC

Tort claims are barred in Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA) complaints when multiple entities are subject to single management which in turn functionally operates as a “single entity.” Claudio v. United States, 907 F Supp 581, 588 (EDNY 1995). The elements to find a single entity are: (1) operations are interrelated; (2) both entities have central management; (3) labor relations are centrally run; and (4) there is common ownership. Id. at 588.

• Workers Compensation

State v. Alapai

Relevant circumstances when considering the efficacy of delayed Miranda warning are (1) “the nature of the violation”; (2) “the amount of time between the violation and any later statements”; (3) “whether the suspect remained in custody before making any later statements”; (4) “subsequent events that may have dissipated the taint of the earlier violation”; and (5) “the use that the state has made of the unwarned statements.” State v. Jarnagin, 351 Or 703, 716, 277 P3d 535 (2012) (internal quotation marks omitted).

• Criminal Procedure

State v. Emerine

For the court to order restitution, “the record must support a nonspeculative inference that there is a causal relationship between the defendant’s criminal activities and the victim’s economic damages.” State v. Akerman, 278 Or App 486, 490 (2016).

• Criminal Law

State v. Zamora-Skaar

“As Mink made clear, due to Oregon’s statutory scheme, a voluntary non-compliance with a court order, hence, violating a defendant’s due process rights, cannot be blamed on “lack of funds, staff, facilities.” See Oregon Advocacy Center v. Mink, 322 F3d 1101, 1121 (9th Cir 2003).

• Criminal Procedure

TPC, LLC v. Water Resources Dept.

ORS chapter 539 vests exclusive subject matter jurisdiction for a stream adjudication to a particular circuit court once the stream adjudication process under that chapter is initiated.

• Land Use

Whitehead v. Clarno

"An elector may sign an initiative petition if they meet the requirements of Article II, section 2 of the Oregon Constitution: United States citizenship, age, Oregon residency, and voter registration as provided by law."

• Election Law

State v. Chorney-Phillips

In Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. ___, 140 S Ct 1390, 206 L Ed 2d 583 (2020), the Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment requires a jury to be unanimous in order to convict a defendant of a serious offense. Even in light of that decision, for the court to address a defendant’s assignment of error which turns entirely on the sufficiency of the record to demonstrate jury unanimity “would be contrary to the basic goal of procedural fairness to the parties and to the trial court that motivates the preservation requirement.” State v. Dilallo, 367 Or 340, 348, ___ P3d ___ (2020) (internal citations omitted).

• Criminal Law

State v. Dilallo

Considerations that may weigh in the balance in examining preservation of an assignment of error include: “the competing interests of the parties; the nature of the case; the gravity of the error; the ends of justice in the particular case; how the error came to the court’s attention; and whether the policies behind the general rule requiring preservation of error have been served in the case in another way, i.e., whether the trial court was, in some manner, presented with both sides of the issue and given an opportunity to correct any error.” Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or at 382 n 6.

• Evidence

State v. Flores Ramos

A structural error is a “structural defect affecting the framework within which the trial proceeds,” and a reversal of the conviction is the result. Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 US 279, 310, 111 S Ct 1246, 113 L Ed 2d 302 (1991). “When a federal constitutional error is not structural, the conviction can be affirmed only if the error ‘was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Fulminante, 499 US at 307-08.

• Criminal Law

State v. Kincheloe

Under the Supreme Court’s decision in Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. ___, 140 S Ct 1390, 206 L Ed 2d 583 (2020), the Sixth Amendment requires a jury to be unanimous in order to convict a defendant of a serious offense.

• Criminal Law

Clackamas County Employees’ Assn. v. Clackamas County

Under ORS 243.672(1)(a), to determine if an employer violates an employee rights in regards to labor organizing, you must apply the relevant test which is “whether, objectively viewed, the action that the employer took under the particular circumstances would chill union members generally in their exercise of protected rights.” Portland Assn. Teachers v. Mult. School Dist. 1, 171 Or App 616, 624, 16 P3d 1189 (2000).

• Employment Law

Dept. of Human Services v. D.L.

DHS has the burden of proof to maintain jurisdiction and, where the parent “has not internalized better techniques,” evidence that “links the ‘lack of insight to the risk of harm” will satisfy that burden. Dept. of Human Services v. J.M., 275 Or App 429, 441 364 P3d 705 (2015), rev den, 358 Or 833 (2016).

• Juvenile Law

Gibson v. Walsh

“For an issue to be preserved for purposes of appeal, it must have been raised with sufficient clarity in the trial court to put the trial court on notice that it needs to rule on the issue and for the opposing party to have an opportunity to address the issue.” Ploplys v. Bryson, 188 Or App 49, 58, 69 P3d 1257 (2003).

• Civil Procedure

McClusky v. City of North Bend

Under ORS 659A.001(4)(a), it is the one who reserves the right to control who is the employer, and not the agent acting on behalf of the person or entity who reserves the right to control.

• Employment Law

Querbach v. Dept. of Human Services

The standard for founded dispositions of abuse is “reasonable cause to believe” abuse occurred. OAR 413-015-1010. The “reasonable cause” standard is akin to the “reasonable suspicion” standard; on review, the court must only determine “whether a reasonable person could reach” DHS’s determination. A. F. v. Oregon Dept. of Human Services, 251 Or App 576, 583-84, 284 P3d 1189 (2012).

• Family Law

State v. Benson

This is because “land mapped as a wildlife could never be designated and zoned NR-5.” The court found that “LUBA’s reading of those provisions to bar a plan amendment and zone change” is only “one plausible interpretations of those provisions,” but it is not the only one. Under Siporen v. City of Medford, 349 Or 247, 262, 243 P3d 776 (2010),

• Criminal Law

State v. Buckendahl

A legislatively specified penalty violates the proportionality clause of Article I, section 16, if the penalty shocks the moral sense of reasonable people because the penalty is so disproportionate when compared to the offense. State v. Rodriguez/Buck, 347 Or 46, 58 (2009). Three non-exhaustive factors that bear on that determination are “(1) a comparison of the severity of the penalty and the gravity of the crime; (2) a comparison of the penalties imposed for other, related crimes; and (3) the criminal history of the defendant.” State v. Rodriguez/Buck, 347 Or 46, 58 (2009).

• Sentencing

Jensen v. DMV

"The court shall set aside or remand the order if the court finds that the order is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding." ORS 183.482(8)(c).

• Administrative Law

M.A.B. v. Buell

"The court’s task... [in protective order cases is]... to determine whether respondent continued to be a credible threat to petitioner’s physical safety and whether she was in imminent danger of further abuse from respondent. At its core, that task required the court to forecast the future by evaluating past conduct and discerning the likelihood that abuse would occur again: a calculation laden with the peril of uncertainty that is intrinsically human." P.K.W. v. Steagall, 299 Or App 820, 825 (2019).

• Family Law

Scott v. Kesselring

Under OEC 401, evidence is pertinent if it has “any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.”

• Evidence

State v. Daly

The court determined that a “‘proper occasion’ to give the witness-false-in-part instruction exists when, considering the testimony and other evidence a party has brought to the court’s attention in support of the requested instruction, the trial court concludes that sufficient evidence exists for the jury to decide that at least one witness consciously testified falsely and that the false testimony concerns a material issue.” State v. Payne, 366 Or 588, 468 P3d 445 (2020) (Payne II).

• Criminal Procedure

State v. McConnell

"A trial court’s pretrial ruling is reviewed for abuse of discretion." State v. Pitt, 352 Or 566, 573-74 (2012).

• Appellate Procedure

State v. Smith

Under ORS 162.247(1)(b), a “lawful order” must be given by a peace officer, and—in the case at hand—it has to be supported by reasonable suspicion.

• Criminal Law

State v. Taylor

During a traffic stop, an officer is precluded from asking investigatory questions that are unrelated to the original purpose of the investigation and “without independent constitutional justification.” State v. Arreola-Botello, 365 Or 695, 712 (2019).

• Criminal Law

B. M. v. Deaton

ORS 30.866 requires courts to "assess the objective reasonableness of a person's apprehension over personal safety by examining the cumulative effect of the relevant unwanted contacts on that person." P.M.H. ex rel. M.M.H. v. Landolt, 267 Or App 753, 759 (2014).

• Civil Stalking Protective Order

State v. Beeson

Determining whether a breath test derived from a violation of Miranda requires a “totality-of-the-circumstances” examination of the facts to determine whether the causal chain between the violation and the test was broken. State v. Swan, 363 Or 121, 131, 420 P3d 9 (2018). This fact-specific analysis may include “the nature of the violation,” the time between the violation and statements, whether the suspect remained in custody, subsequent events that “may have dissipated the taint,” and other circumstances. State v. Jarnagin, 351 Or 703, 716, 277 P3d 535 (2012).

• Criminal Procedure

State v. Dykstra

Under ORS 131.525 (1)(b)(B), manifest necessity includes “a legal defect in the proceeding that would make any judgment entered…reversible as a matter of law.” Without a written jury waiver, a trial court “errs in going to trial at all” and any decision made by the court must be reversed on appeal. State v. Barber, 343 Or 525, 530, 173 P3d 827 (2007).

• Criminal Procedure

State v. Hallam

During a traffic stop, an officer is precluded from asking investigatory questions that are "unrelated to the original purpose of the investigation" and “without independent constitutional justification.” State v. Arreola-Botello, 365 Or 695, 712 (2019).

• Criminal Law

State v. Rusen

OAR 213-012-0040(2)(a) states that “[i]f more than one term of probationary supervision is revoked for a single supervision violation, the sentencing judge shall impose the incarceration sanctions concurrently.”

• Criminal Procedure

Callen and Callen

"[I]f a court considers a party’s objective reasonableness in pursuing settlement as a basis to award a discretionary attorney fee, it must make that assessment ‘in the light of the parties’ circumstances and knowledge at the time the settlement was tendered and rejected and not by some post hoc reference to the result actually obtained." Erwin v. Tetreault, 155 Or App 205, 214, (1998).

• Attorney Fees

Magno, LLC v. Bowden

Under ORS 19.245(2), a defendant may not challenge a default judgment. Under ORS 18.235(7), if a court determines an applicant is entitled to relief, “the court shall issue an order providing that” a money award has been satisfied in full.

• Remedies

Neal v. Behind the Gates, LLC, et al.

A bankruptcy petition operates as a stay of “the commencement [...] of a judicial [...] proceeding against the debtor[.]” 11 USC §362(a)(1), without exception.

• Bankruptcy Law

State v. Garibay

“A person commits the crime of unlawful use of a weapon (UUW) if the person ‘[a]ttempts to use unlawfully against another, or carries or possesses with intent to use unlawfully against another, any dangerous or deadly weapons.’” ORS 166.220(1)(a).

• Criminal Law

State v. McKerrall

Under ORS 137.106, restitution must be awarded to victims for economic damages resulting from crimes of which a defendant has been convicted.

• Criminal Law

State v. Ruiz-Espinosa

Under Article I, section 9, to show a defendant was unreasonably seized three standards must be met: (1) the state has the burden to establish that the officer acted lawfully; (2) the state must meet the Middleton test previously stated from the Defendant’s argument; and (3) the court must determine “whether the officer’s stated basis for extending the detention is objectively reasonable.”

• Criminal Law

Troubled Asset Solutions v. Wilcher

“The rights of the parties are measured by the instrument as originally intended, and the effect of the reformation, as a whole, is to give all the parties all the rights to which they are equitably entitled under the instrument that they intended to execute.” Reformation of Instruments, 66 Am Jur 2d § 9 (2011).

• Property Law

Wood v. Taylor

"A person may acquire fee simple title to real property by adverse possession only if: the person entering into possession had the honest belief that the person was the actual owner of the property." ORS 105.620(1)(b).

• Property Law