Dep鈥檛 of Hum. Servs. v. N.H.
To terminate a parent鈥檚 rights on the basis of unfitness, a court must find, by clear and convincing evidence, that (1) the parent is 鈥渦nfit by reason of conduct or condition seriously detrimental to the child or ward鈥; (2) 鈥渋ntegration of the child . . . into the home of the parent . . . is improbable within a reasonable time鈥; and (3) termination is in the child鈥檚 best interest. ORS 419B.504; ORS 419B.500. A court cannot consider a parent鈥檚 disability alone as a basis to terminate parental rights, but it may consider evidence of a parent鈥檚 conduct, even when the conduct is based on or caused by a disability, if that conduct interferes with the parent鈥檚 ability to provide proper care for the child for extended periods of time.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Peters v. C21 Investments, Inc.
"The parties鈥 agreement must be the specific place of origin or the source of the legal action to trigger application of the venue agreement.鈥 Black v. Arizala, 337 Or. 250, 267 (2004).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Elbinger
鈥淔or the purposes of Article I, section 9, a seizure occurs when (1) a police officer intentionally and significantly interferes with an individual鈥檚 liberty or freedom of movement; or (2) a reasonable person, under the totality of the circumstances, would believe that his or her liberty or freedom of movement has been significantly restricted.鈥 State v. Arreola-Botello, 365 Or 695, 701 (2019). If an officer does not have reasonable suspicion when a stop occurs, then the stop is unlawful, and all evidence discovered as a result of the unlawful police action is presumed tainted by the violation and must be suppressed. State v. Newton, 286 Or App 274, 288-89 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Harris
鈥淭he unavailability exception to the confrontation guarantee should not be 鈥済ranted routinely鈥 and applies only when a witness is 鈥渢ruly unavailable to testify鈥 so that the state鈥檚 reliance on prior out-of-court statements is 鈥済enuinely necessary.鈥濃 State v. Herrera, 286 Or 349, 355 (1979).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Lugo
A person is physically helpless when that person 鈥渋s unconscious or for any other reason is physically unable to communicate unwillingness to an act.鈥 ORS 163.305(4).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Wang v. Board of Massage Therapists
(1) 鈥淎 court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act if some other exclusive remedy exists to address the dispute鈥 and 鈥淸w]hen the dispute at issue involves an agency鈥檚 action, or refusal to act, the review provisions of the APA provide the sole and exclusive means of obtaining judicial review, and an action for declaratory relief is not available.鈥 Salibello v. Board of Optometry, 276 Or App 363, 367 (2016). (2) ORS 676.165(5) provides that 鈥淸i]nvestigatory information obtained by an investigator and the report issued by the investigator shall be exempt from public disclosure.鈥 However, 鈥淸i]f a health professional regulatory board votes to issue a notice of intent to impose a disciplinary sanction, the board shall disclose to the licensee or applicant all information obtained by the board in the investigation of the allegations in the notice.鈥 ORS 676.175(3).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Dep't. of Human Servs. v. T. S. M.
Parties to dependency proceedings have a right to participate in hearings. See ORS 419B.875(2)(c). 听However, the juvenile court possesses the power 鈥渢o provide for orderly conduct of proceedings before it * * *.鈥 See ORS 1.010(3).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Deschutes County v. Leak
OAR 436-035-0400 (2018) requires an evaluation of the worker鈥檚 permanent condition, specifically including the effects of the permanent changes on activities of daily life and deterioration in work settings, not merely the worker鈥檚 current symptoms at the time of claim closure.
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
Floor Solutions, LLC v. Johnson
A 鈥渃ourt shall vacate an award made in the arbitration proceeding if [a]n arbitrator exceeded the arbitrator鈥檚 powers[.]鈥 ORS 36.705(1)(d). A court may not disturb an arbitration award if the issues that were arbitrated were within the scope of the parties鈥 agreement. Seller v. Salem Womens Clinic, Inc., 154 Or App 522, 527 (1998), rev den 328 Or 40 (1998).
Area(s) of Law:- Arbitration
Maxfield v. Cain
In determining whether a failure to present mitigation evidence at sentencing resulted in prejudice, the totality of the mitigation evidence should be weighed against aggravating evidence to determine whether there was more than a mere possibility that the information could have tended to affect the outcome. The Court engaged in a two-step analysis.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. Beckner
Pursuant to ORS 137.010(3), when a judgment of conviction is vacated and a new sentence is imposed on a lesser included offense of the same crime, a defendant must receive deduction from the maximum and minimum terms of the new sentence for periods of detention and imprisonment already served.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Straub
Admissions of probation violations, unlike guilty pleas, do not automatically trigger sentencing; therefore, a colloquy to ensure a knowing and intelligent waiver in the context of a probation revocation hearing is not required. United States v. Segal, 549 F2d 1293 (9th Cir. 1977).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Gould v. Deschutes County
ORS 197.829(1) requires LUBA to defer to a local government鈥檚 interpretation of its own land use regulations unless the interpretation is inconsistent with the express text of the regulation, the purpose of the regulation, the underlying policy implemented by the regulation, or a state law that the regulation purportedly carries out. See Kaplowitz v. Lane County, 285 Or App 764, 773 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Hill v. Gold
(1) ORS 60.952(6) allows the court to order the election to buy the stock of the shareholders who filed the claim rather than to pursue litigation when faced with an ORS 60.952 (1) claim. (2) A discount is appropriate if the sale of shares is because of misconduct and the price is determined on their fair value rather than fair market value. Cook v. Fresh Express Foods Corp., 169 Or App 101, 115 (2000).
Area(s) of Law:- Business Law
State v. Grant
(1) Generally, a court has no authority to review a conviction when a defendant pleads guilty. See ORS 138.105(5); see, e.g., State v. Jones, 311 Or. App. 685, 688-89 (2021). (2) A judgment imposing sanctions and continuing probation is not appealable. See ORS 138.035(3); see e.g., State v. Flores, 317 Or. App. 288, 292 (2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Hatchell
When refusing a jury instruction the court must determine, 鈥渨hether the record viewed in the light most favorable to the proponent of the instruction, supported giving the instruction.鈥 State v. Owen, 369 Or 288, (2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Tellez-Suarez
A court will affirm the judgment below if it is determined that there was little likelihood that the error affected the verdict. State v. Owen, 369 Or 288 (2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Crosbie v. Asante
In an unlawful discrimination or retaliation suit, a plaintiff must show that a 鈥減rotected trait or their involvement in a protected activity was a substantial factor鈥 in the employer鈥檚 decision to take adverse action. Ossanna v. Nike Inc., 290 Or App 16, 28 (2018). 鈥淐at鈥檚 paw鈥 allows satisfaction of the causation element where the decision-maker was influenced by another person who instead was personally biased against the employee.听Id. at 210.
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Larsen v. Selmet, Inc.
ORCP 26 A allows a court to dismiss an action brought by someone other than the real party in interest without allowing substitution of the real party in interest. However, if the plaintiff made an honest and understandable mistake, the court may allow substitution.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Miller v. Agripac, Inc.
Where 鈥渋njury to the person of another [is] committed in a 鈥榳anton鈥 manner, meaning the doing of an intentional act of an unreasonable character in disregard of a risk known to the actor, or so obvious that he must be taken to have been aware of it and so great as to make it highly probable that harm would follow. . . contributory negligence is no defense.鈥 Cook v. Kinzua Pine Mills Co. et al, 207 Or 34, 58-59 (1956).
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
Myers v. Owners of Certain Real Property
Where a deed provision does not expressly limit the use of adult residential facilities, or in effect allow only other types of residential uses, but instead 鈥渦niformly limits all or nearly all development of the property,鈥 that provision is not in violation of ORS 93.270(1)(b)(B). ORS 93.272(5).
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
Ride PDX v. Tee & B, LLC
鈥淓ven when defendant鈥檚 objectives are not improper, for instance the pursuit of competition or other legitimate interests, defendant may still be liable for using improper means to achieve those objectives.鈥 Top Service Body Shop v. Allstate Ins. Co., 283 Or 201, 209 (1978).
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
State v. Covell
ORS 137.633(1) does not allow room for a sentencing court to deny earned discharge
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Giron-Cortez
ORS 161.610 requires that the state show a mental state, in any given case, the mental state will depend on the underlying charge.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Martin
Under ORS 131.505d(4), 鈥渃riminal episode鈥 is defined as 鈥渃ontinuous and uninterrupted conduct that is so joined in time, place or circumstances that such conduct is directed to the accomplishment of a single criminal objective.鈥 A criminal objective, 鈥渞efers to the pursuit of some object or attainment of some goal beyond the successful commission of the acts constituting the offense charged.鈥 State v. Cloutier, 286 Or 579, 599 (1979).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law