��ʮ���²����

Reed v. Goertz

In a procedural due process claim, the plaintiff has a complete and present claim when “the state fails to provide due process,” not when the deprivation occurs. Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 125 (1990).

Wash. State Health Care Auth. v. Ctrs. For Medicare & Medicaid Servs.

State licensure and scope of practice standards must be tied to “factors external to the Medicaid program.” Planned Parenthood Ariz. Inc. v. Betlach, 727 F.3d. 960, 971 (9th Cir. 2013).

• Tribal Law

Smith v. Johnson

“Even where a trial court has discretion to reach a certain outcome, it may not rely on a mistaken legal premise to reach that outcome.” Anderson v. Sullivan, 311 Or App 406, 413, 492 P3d 118, rev den, 368 Or 702 (2021).

• Landlord Tenant

Peabody v. SAIF Corp.

Absent statutory language indicating otherwise, “a party entitled to recover attorney fees incurred in litigating the merits of a fee-generating claim also may receive attorney fees incurred in determining the amount of the resulting fee award.” TriMet v.��Aizawa, 326 Or 1, 3, 403 P3d 753 (2017).

• Workers Compensation

State v. Zamora

A defendant cannot be convicted of both sexual abuse and using a child in display of sexually explicit conduct "unless a reasonable juror could find that the defendant caused the child to participate...in sexually explicit conduct for the defendant to observe, as opposed to the observation being incidental to the...abuse."��State v. Clay, 301 Or App 599, 605, 457 P3d 330 (2019).

• Criminal Law

Baker v. State

“Where the state has not asserted and proved any of the procedural defenses set out in the PCHA, a court must grant post-conviction relief for any denial of a constitutional right that is both consequential and offensive.” Watkins v. Ackley, 370 Or 604, 630-31 (2022).

• Constitutional Law

Lavelle-Hayden v. Emp. Dep’t

“Under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, a state generally cannot deny unemployment benefits to a worker if the misconduct was the result of the worker adhering to a sincerely held religious belief.” Sherbert, 374 US at 403.

• First Amendment

State v. Redding

“A lane is an area of a highway designated for a particular use by a single line of vehicles, and to which specific driving duties apply.” State v. Thomas, 104 Or App 126, 129, (1990).

• Criminal Law

Sunny Oaks, Inc. v. Dep’t of Hum. Servs.

The court may remand for further agency action only “when the petitioner demonstrates that the agency’s failure to adhere to the rule or rules compromised the petitioner’s ability to have a fair hearing.” Gleason v. Oregon Racing Comm., 233 Or App 164, 169, 225 P3d 123 (2010).

• Administrative Law

State v. Johnson

A case becomes moot when the Court’s decision “will no longer have a practical effect on the rights of the parties.” State v. K.J.B., 362 Or 777, 785, 416 P3d 291 (2018).

• Criminal Law

State v. P.B.S.

“An error is ‘plain’ when it is an error of law, the legal point is obvious and not reasonably in dispute, and the error is apparent on the record without our having to choose among competing inferences.” State v. Vanornum, 345 Or 614, 629, 317 P3d 889 (2013).

• Civil Commitment

Dept. of Human Services v. J.A.

“An appeal is moot when ‘the court’s decision no longer will have a practical effect on the rights of the parties.’” Dept. of Human Services v. G.D.W., 353 Or 25, 292 P3d 548 (2012).

• Juvenile Law

State v. H.D.E.

“In assessing the impact of potential evidentiary error in a bench trial, ‘the court’s speaking verdict and other comments must be considered in context, taking into account the circumstances in which the court made its observations and the extent to which the court’s explanation of its verdict sheds light on how it viewed the evidence.’” State v. Reed, 299 Or App 675, 689, 452 P3d 995 (2019), rev den, 366 Or 382 (2020).

• Evidence

State v. An Ngoc Le

“Evidence used ‘to demonstrate the sexual predisposition’ of a defendant towards a ‘particular victim’ is admissible ‘to show the sexual inclination of [the] defendant towards the victim.’” State v. McKay, 309 Or 305, 308, 787 P2d 479 (1990). The factors to be considered in determining whether a sentence would be unconstitutionally disproportionate 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; (3) the criminal history of the defendant.” State v. Rodriguez/Buck, 437 Or 46, 58, 217 P2d 659 (2009).

• Criminal Law

State v. J.H.

When determining witness competency under OEC 601, “[t]he proper inquiry is not whether the person is able to perceive and communicate in any capacity, but rather ‘whether [the] person has sufficient ability to perceive, recollect, and communicate so it is worthwhile for the person to testify.’” State v. Sarich, 352 Or 601, 616, 291 P3d 647 (2012).

• Juvenile Law