Dept. of Human Services v. A. H.
鈥淚n determining whether a parent was on notice that his or her progress would be assessed based upon particular facts, we look to the petition, the jurisdictional judgment, and documentation attached to the jurisdictional judgment providing the parent notice as to the conditions for reunification.鈥 Dept. of Human Services v. C. E., 288 Or App 649, 656-57, 406 P3d 211 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Homes Assoc. of Cedar Hills v. Craig
If 鈥渁 contract is ambiguous, and there is relevant competing extrinsic evidence to resolve the ambiguity, ascertaining the meaning of the contract involves a question of fact and the dispute over the contract鈥檚 meaning cannot be resolved on summary judgment.鈥 Adair Homes, Inc. v. Dunn Carney, 262 Or App 273, 278 (2014). If there is no relevant competing extrinsic evidence, the court applies 鈥渆stablished maxims of construction to determine the meaning of the disputed provisions.鈥 Cryo-Tech, Inc. v. JKC Bend, LLC, 313 Or App 413, 423-24 (2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
Martineau v. McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center
鈥淸Jury i]nstructions which mislead or confuse are ground for a reversal or a new trial.鈥 Estate of Michelle Schwarz v. Philip Morris Inc., 235 P3d 668, adh鈥檇 to on recons, 246 P3d 479 (2010) (quoting Williams et al. v. Portland Gen. Elec., 247 P2d 494 (1952).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
McCorquodale v. Oxford House, Inc.
Under ORCP 15 D, a court 鈥渕ay, in its discretion, and upon any terms as may be just, allow any pleading to be made, or allow any motion after the time limited by the procedural rules.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Arbitration
Shepard Investment Group LLC v. Ormandy
The legislature would have chosen specific language if it was their intention to allow a tenant to recover either one month鈥檚 rent or twice the amount wrongfully charged for each violation. Therefore, the tenant can recover twice the amount he was wrongfully charged for the entire year
Area(s) of Law:- Landlord Tenant
State v. Hilding
Defendant did not withhold attention from C because it was Defendant鈥檚 abusive attention that posed the safety risk. A person can not withhold necessary care from a dependent person by continuing to care for them.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Palacios-Romero
The less-satisfactory-evidence instruction is to be given when (1) 鈥渙ther evidence was reasonably available on a fact in issue鈥 and (2) 鈥渢here is a basis for the jury to conclude that the other evidence is a stronger and more satisfactory than the evidence offered,鈥 and in determining whether a defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to be present, the court can consider its own knowledge of what transpired during trial, defense counsel鈥檚 statements, the court鈥檚 own judicial experience in matters of this kind, and 鈥渁 certain measure of common sense.鈥 State v. West, 289 Or App 415, 418 (2017); State v. Harris, 291 Or 179, 185-86 (1981).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
1000 Friends of Or. v. Clackamas Cnty.
Short-term rental use of "dwellings" and "residences" on resource land is neither explicitly nor implicitly permitted pursuant to state law.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Dept. of Human Services v. T.B.-L
鈥淭o establish a basis for juvenile court jurisdiction for purposes of ORS 419B.100(1)(c), the state must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a child鈥檚 welfare is endangered because, under the totality of the circumstances, there is a current threat of serious loss or injury to the child that is reasonably likely to be realized.鈥 Dept. of Human Services v. K. C. F., 282 Or. App 12, 19 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Harmon v. State of Oregon
鈥淪everal factors are commonly examined to determine if a particular duty can be considered judicial or quasi-judicial for the purpose of extending immunity to the official performing the action.鈥 Praggastis v. Clackamas County, 305 Or 419, 426 (1988). Those factors include 鈥渨hether the official鈥檚 actions are functionally comparable to judicial actions or involve decisions normally performed by judges in their judicial capacity, whether the action depends on legal opinions or discretionary judgments comparing the facts of a present situation with general legal questions, and whether the acts in question are primarily concerned with the official鈥檚 role as a judicial or quasi-judicial officer.鈥 Id.
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
State v. Ochoa-Perez
ORS 162.315, resisting arrest, does not require that a defendant intentionally create a substantial risk of harm.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Travis
Courts should determine whether the evidence is relevant for non-propensity purpose(s) under OEC 404(3) and, if so, determine if the probative value outweighs the potentially prejudicial value under OEC 403. If evidence is not relevant for non-propensity purpose(s), then a trial court must determine if the evidence is relevant under OEC 404(4) and further weigh the probative versus prejudicial value pursuant to OEC 403.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
DHS v. J.D.
When a juvenile court relies on facts concerning an 鈥渦nderlying cause鈥 for jurisdiction, the underlying cause must be sufficiently identified in the jurisdictional judgment to provide a parent with the information needed to address the issue.听 Dep鈥檛. of Human Services v. C.E., 288 Or App 649, 658 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
DHS v. J.N.A.
To terminate a parent鈥檚 rights, a court must determine a parent unfit within the meaning of ORS 419B.504 and that it is in the best interests of the child to terminate rights pursuant to ORS 419B.500.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
DHS v. R.H.
Per ORAP 5.45(3), 鈥淓ach assignment of error must identify precisely the legal, procedural, factual, or other ruling that is being challenged.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Neal v. Neal
To prevail on an appeal motion to reopen a probate estate, the petitioner must offer arguments addressing a lower court鈥檚 abuse of discretion in the matter.听 Neal v. Neal, 320 Or App 398 (2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Trusts and Estates
Precision Castparts Corp. - PCC Structurals v. Cramer
鈥淎n insurer鈥檚 conduct is not unreasonable if the insurer had a legitimate doubt about its liability.鈥 Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp. v. Olvera-Chavez, 267 Or App 55 (2014).
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Stancliff and Stancliff
In determining whether relocation is in the children鈥檚 best interests, a court must consider all of the relevant factors in ORS 107.137(1), bearing in mind that no one factor is dispositive. Sjomeling v. Lasser, 251 Or App 172, 188 (2012).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. Dippre
A defendant commits the inchoate crime of attempted delivery of a controlled substance when that person takes a substantial step towards transferring a controlled substance. ORS 161.405(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Jacob
A motion in limine does not preserve OEC 403 objections to specific testimony at trial. State v. Pergande, 270 Or App 280, 282-83, 348 P3d 245 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. M.D.M.
The 鈥渨ell-settled principle鈥 that an issue generally must be raised in the trial court to be considered on appeal 鈥渁pplie[s] equally to civil commitment cases.鈥 State v. K.J.B., 282 Or App 862, 867-68 (2016), aff鈥檇, 362 Or 777 (2018); see also State v. Wyatt, 331 Or 335 (2000).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. McLarrin
A confession alone is insufficient to convict a defendant, and even so, 鈥渢here must be some proof, aside from the confession, as to the relevant facts.鈥 State v. Chatelain, 347 Or 278, 287 (2009).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Portulano
The Fourth Amendment, as the Court articulated its requirements in Missouri v. McNeely, 569 US 141 (2013), requires the state to establish, under a totality of the circumstances approach, specific facts establishing exigency.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Riverman
A defendant 鈥渕ay be ordered to pay restitution for a victim鈥檚 objectively verifiable monetary losses, including 鈥榬easonable鈥 medical and hospital charges that were 鈥榥ecessarily incurred.鈥欌 State v. Dickinson, 298 Or App 679, 680 (2019); ORS 31.705; ORS 137.103(2)(a) (generally adopting the definition of 鈥渆conomic damages鈥 in ORS 31.705).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Wave Form Systems, Inc. v. Hanscom
Under Aguire v. Albertson鈥檚, 201 Or App 31 (2005) and Restatement (Second) of Judgments 搂 26(1)(a), parties that acquiesce to a split claim 鈥渨aive[] the ability to assert the defense of claim preclusion[,]鈥 even in the context of sequential proceedings.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Aponte v. State of Oregon
鈥淯nder Perez . . . the relevant question for escape-clause purposes is 鈥榳hether a claim reasonably could have been raised from counsel鈥檚 perspective; petitioner鈥檚 age and other personal characteristics have no role in the analysis.鈥欌 Perez v. Cain, 367 Or 96, 113, 473 P.3d 540, 549 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Dep't of Hum. Servs. v. M.E.M.
"On a motion to dismiss dependency jurisdiction, DHS bears the burden of proving by the preponderance of the evidence there is a present, credible threat of actual harm to the child and demonstrating 'a nexus between the allegedly risk-causing conduct and the harm to the child.'" DHS v. JM, 267 P.3d 402 (Or. Ct. App. 2015); DHS v. CJT, 308 P.3d 307 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Dep鈥檛 of Hum. Servs. v. J. H.
鈥淸W]here one is holding over after expiration of his term under claim or color of right, his official acts are those of a de facto officer, and are valid as to the public and third persons,and cannot be collaterally assailed.鈥 Hamlin v. Kassafer, 15 Or. 456 (1887).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
OR-OSHA v. Loy Clark Pipeline, Co.
OAR 438-085-0526 provides: 鈥(1) Unless otherwise provided by the Administrative Law Judge, amendments to the citation and to the request for hearing, including affirmative defenses, shall be allowed up to the date and time set for hearing. (2) An amendment made by OR-OSHA under this rule may not allege a new violation or increase a penalty.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
State v. Delaurent
District attorneys are not law enforcement officers for the purpose of the wiretapping statute, ORS 165.540.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Garcia
The trial court has discretion to dismiss criminal charges before trial, and scientific evidence is admissible if it is relevant under OEC 401, if it would assist the trier of fact under OEC 702, and if its probative value is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice under OEC 403. State v. Stough, 148 Or App 353, 355 (1997); Jennings v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 331 Or 285, 381 (2000).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Glickert
鈥淭he 鈥榗ritical question鈥 that distinguishes 鈥榬elaxed conversation鈥 from 鈥榗oercive questioning鈥 is 鈥 whether, given all the circumstances, a reasonable person would believe that their freedom of movement [is] being significantly restricted.鈥 State v. Reyes-Herrera, 500 P.3d 1 at 61-62 (Or. 2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Horn-Garcia
Informing the jury of the consequences of a particular verdict does not in and of itself violate a defendant鈥檚 due process rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments or deprive the defendant of a fair trial, and 鈥淸a] trial court does not err in refusing to give a requested instruction 鈥榠f the substance of the requested jury instruction, even if correct, was covered fully by other jury instructions given by the trial court.鈥欌 State v. Amini, 174 Or App 370, 383 (2001); State v. Harrison, 292 Or App 232. 240 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Morris
鈥淎 stop is lawful if the officer had an actual subjective belief that the person stopped committed a specific crime or was about to commit a specific crime, and the officer鈥檚 subjective belief was objectively reasonable based on the totality of the circumstances at the time of the stop.鈥 State v. Maciel-Figueroa, 361 Or. 163, 165-6 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Raygosa
Under听State v. Kammeyer, 226 Or App 210, an error is invited when a party is 鈥渁ctively instrumental in bringing about an alleged error.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Reyes Castro
The preservation rule requires parties to present their challenges to a trial court prior to an appeal, and 鈥渞estitution may be awarded under ORS 137.106 if defendant鈥檚 crime was a factual cause of the victim鈥檚 economic damages and those damages were the reasonably foreseeable consequence of the crime.鈥 Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209, 219 (2008); State v. Gerhardt, 360 Or 629, 636 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Westom
While the dictionary 鈥渆stablishes that, at its core, contact [used as a noun] involves a direct communication or a meeting,鈥 鈥渃ontact鈥 can, in context, have a broader meaning. Boyd v. Essin, 170 Or App 509, 516. Knowledge, proximity, and the duration of the contact are factors to consider in assessing the term鈥檚 meaning.
Area(s) of Law:- Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
Tenorio v. Bowser
A petitioner may raise a challenge to the constitutional adequacy of their counsel鈥檚 assistance on post-conviction review. See ORS 138.530(1)(a). 鈥淭o prevail on a post-conviction claim of inadequate assistance of counsel, the burden is on the petitioner to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, facts demonstrating that trial counsel failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment and that the petitioner suffered prejudice as a result.鈥 Lambert v. Palmateer, 182 Or App 130, 135 (2002).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Timber Town Living v. Dept. of Human Services
Violation severity is defined by ORS 4 41.731(2)(b), which creates four levels of severity: (1) a Level 1 violation 鈥渞esults in no actual harm or in potential for only minor harm鈥; (2) a Level 2 violation 鈥渞esults in minor harm or potential for moderate harm鈥; (3) a Level 3 violation 鈥渞esults in moderate harm or potential for serious harm鈥; and (4) a Level 4 violation 鈥渞esults in serious harm or death.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Elder Law
Dept. of Human Services v. K. J. V.
Pursuant to ORS 418.270(4), 鈥渁 relinquishment becomes irrevocable once a child is placed in the physical custody of people for the purpose of adoption, unless 鈥榝raud or duress is affirmatively proved.鈥欌
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
DHS v. M.H. and T. H.
ORS 419B.809(6) allows a juvenile court to direct that a petition be amended. See ORS 419B.809(6). 鈥淎 court is bound by the juvenile court鈥檚 findings so long as there is any evidence in the record to support them.鈥 Dept. of Human Services v. J.F.D., 255 Or App 742 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Johnson-Chandler v. The Reed Institute
鈥淕ood cause鈥 is evaluated on a reasonable worker standard; if the worker knew enough facts that a reasonable worker could conclude that worker鈥檚 compensation liability was a reasonable possibility then notice to the employer would be appropriate. Juan Estrada, 69 Van Natta 71, 74 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
State v. Finley
ORS 419C.370 provides: 鈥(1) The juvenile court may enter an order directing that all cases involving: (a) Violation of a law or ordinance relating to the use or operation of a motor vehicle, boating laws or game laws be waived to criminal or municipal court[.]鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. McKibben
鈥淎 person is 鈥渟eized鈥 for purposes of Article I, Section 9 in either one of two situations: 鈥(a) if a law enforcement officer intentionally and significantly restricts, interferes with, or otherwise deprives an individual of that individual鈥檚 liberty or freedom of movement; or (b) if a reasonable person under the totality of the circumstances would believe that (a) above has occurred.鈥 State v. Ashbaugh, 349 Or 297, 316 (2010) (emphasis in original; footnote omitted).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Moala
A photograph illustrating nonverbal behavior intended to constitute an assertion鈥攁 "statement," OEC 801(1)(b)鈥攖hat is intended to prove the truth of the claim in the statement is hearsay.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Reyes Prado
鈥淸P]robable cause is not a necessary prerequisite to asking a defendant for consent to perform field sobriety tests in the context of a DUII stop.鈥 State v. Ramos, 149 Or. App. 269, 272 (1997) (emphasis in original). 鈥淚n contrast, if an officer compels a defendant to participate in field sobriety tests, the officer must have probable cause, in conjunction with a recognized exception to the warrant requirement鈥o do so.鈥 State v. Nagel, 320 Or 24 (1994).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Rodriguez
An officer鈥檚 initiation of a stop must be based on an objectively reasonable inference of illegal activity by that person, under the totality of the circumstances existing at the time of the stop. State v. Dampier, 244 Or App 547, 551, 260 P3d 730 (2011).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure