���Ӷ���Ƶ

Dept. of Human Services v. A. F.

“If evidence in the record rationally leads the juvenile court to believe that a parent’s mental health might be contributing to an established jurisdiction basis, it is permissible for the court to order an evaluation of the parent to determine whether a mental health issue in fact exists.” Dept. of Human Services v. L.G., 250 Or App 290, 291, 280 P3d 396 (2012).

• Juvenile Law

Smith v. DLCD

"If [a] petition (including any information added under the provisions of Section 2) fails to meet the requirements of ORS 197.319 to 197.[3]24 and this division in a way that substantially prejudices the affected local government or district or is materially deficient, the department shall reject the petition.” OAR 660-045-0070(3).

• Administrative Law

State v. Cardona

Under OEC 404(3), “evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is admissible in a criminal trial for noncharacter purposes, including to establish defendant’s motive for the charged act.” State v. Tena, 362 Or 514, 520, 412 P3d 175 (2018). Whether evidence is relevant to motive is a question of law. State v. Carreiro, 185 Or App 19, 22, 57 P3d 910 (2002). “Motive is a cause or reason that moves the will and induces action, an inducement which leads to or temps the mind to commit an act. State v. Wright, 283 Or App 160, 171, 387 P3d 405 (2016).

• Evidence

State v. Taylor

There must be an unreasonable and obvious legal error drawn from the irrefutable facts of the record for there to be plain error. Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc.. 312 Or 376, 823 P2d 956 (1991). If the Court finds an error, the Court has discretion to correct the error, but must also articulate its reason for doing so. Id. at 382. The Court may take into consideration the “competing interest of the parties; the nature of the 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 another way” when determining whether to exercise Court discretion. Id. at 382.

• Criminal Procedure

State v. Tolbert

Under ORS 164.395, “immediate use of physical force” is required to establish robbery, which is interpreted as “hot pursuit in which the thief uses force against his pursuer,” without an “interruption of a cognizable interval of time, space, or incident.” State v. Rios, 24 Or App 393(1976), State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160 (2009).

• Criminal Law

City of Eugene v. Gannon

While a university campus may be open to the public, “it does not follow that the University must allow all members of the public on its premises regardless of their conduct.” Souders v. Lucero, 196 F.3d 1040, 1044( 9th Cir 1999)

• Criminal Law

OR OSHA v. CBI Services, INC.

Under a reasonable diligence standard, the “agency must show why the employer could, with the exercise of reasonable diligence, have been aware of the violation that the agency inspector observed.” OR-OSHA v. Tom O’Brien Construction Co., Inc. 148 Or App 453, 459, 941 P2d 550 (1997), aff’d, 329 Or 348, 986 P2d 1171 (1999).

• Employment Law

State v. Nelson

“When an officer ‘makes a direct and unambiguous accusation’ that an individual has committed a violation or crime, the officer has stopped that individual.” State v. Jackson, 268 Or app 139, 149, 342 P3d 119 (2014).

• Criminal Procedure

State v. Simon

"[The Court] review[s] only to determine if the record and all reasonable inferences that could be drawn from the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the trial court's decision, supports the court's findings." See generally Ball v. Gladden, 250 Or 485, 487, 443 P2d 621 (1968) (stating general standard)."

• Criminal Law

Wolfe v. Brown

Under ORS 183.450(1), “Irrelevant, immaterial or unduly repetitious evidence shall be excluded but erroneous rulings on evidence shall not preclude agency action on the record unless shown to have substantially prejudiced the rights of a party.” “Evidence is relevant so long as it increases or decreases, even slightly, the probability of the existence of a fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.” State v. Davis, 269 Or App 532, 541, 345 P3d 499, rev den, 358 Or 69 (2015).

Central Oregon LandWatch v. Crook County

“A local government may still find land unsuitable for farm uses due to its size or location, but size or location may not be the sole basis for that finding if the land ‘can reasonably be put to farm or forest use in conjunction with other land.’” ORS 215.284(2)(b).

• Land Use

Dept. of Human Services v. M. F.

"To endanger the child's welfare, the condition or circumstances must create a current threat of serious loss or injury to the child and there must be a reasonable likelihood that the threat will be realized. The focus must be on the child's current conditions and circumstances and not on some point in the past." Dept. of Human Services v. S.A.B.O., 291 Or App 88, 99, 417 P3d 555 (2018).

• Juvenile Law

DHS v. T.L.M.H

Under ORS 419B.500, “the applicable standard of proof is the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard,” to which must show “that it is highly probable that termination of mother’s parental rights is in [the child’s] best interest.” Dept. of Human Services v. M. P.-P., 272 Or App 502, (2015).

• Juvenile Law

Drown v. Persson

“To prevail on a post-conviction claim of inadequate assistance of counsel, the burden in on the petition to show, by 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.” Lambert v. Palmateer, 182 Or App 130, 135 (2003).

• Post-Conviction Relief

Grudzien v. Rogers

“Stipulated judgments, as court-approved contracts, ‘can be set aside only on grounds adequate to rescind a contract.’ Kneefel v. McLaughlin, 187 Or App 1, 6, 67 P3d 947 (2003).”

• Civil Procedure

Pena v. Travelers Ins. Co.

The Court will ordinarily extend deference only to a plausible agency interpretation of its own rule and applies the same principles of interpretation that are used to construe statutes.

• Administrative Law

Reeves v. Nooth

Under ORS 138.530(1), “a court must grant petitioner post-conviction relief if he established, ‘more likely than not,’ that he is actually innocent of a conviction in the challenged judgment.” To meet the ‘more likely than not’ standard, a petitioner must “persuade the district court that, in light of the new evidence, no juror, acting reasonably, would have voted to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Schlup v. Delo, 513 US 298, 327, 115 S Ct 851, 130 LEd 2d 808 (1995).

• Post-Conviction Relief

State v. C.C.W.

"A judge may change his mind concerning the proper disposition between the time of a hearing and his final action which takes place when he signs the order disposing of the matter,” State v. Swain/Goldsmith, 267 Or 527, 530, 517 P2d 684 (1974), but “once a trial court enters a written judgment or similarly final order” the court is bound by it. State v. Cardwell, 48 Or App 93, 96, 615 P2d 1198 (1980).

• Juvenile Law

State v. F.R.S.

“The state’s line of reasoning cannot make ‘too great an inferential leap,’ or require ‘the stacking of inferences to the point of speculation’ to draw a particular conclusion.” State v. Bivins, 191 Or App 460, 467, 83 P3d 379 (2004).

• Juvenile Law

State v. Henderson

To establish that person has committed burglary, the state must prove that the defendant committed a trespass with the “intent to commit a particular crime in the building that he unlawfully entered.” State v. Chatelain, 347 Or 27, 283 (2009)

• Criminal Law

State v. S.T.

Under ORS 426.005(1)(f)(B), a person has a mental illness if, because of a mental disorder, the person is “[u]nable to provide for basic personal needs that are necessary to avoid serious physical harm in the near future, and is not receiving such care as is necessary to avoid such harm.”

• Disability Law

State v. Wright

A party who wishes to challenge a trial court’s refusal to strike a juror for cause must have exhausted all of their peremptory challenges and must create a record that they were forced to accept an objectionable juror. Lambert v. Srs. of St. Joseph, 277 Or 223, 229, 560 P2d 262 (1977); State v. Megorden, 49 Or 259, 263-64, 88 P 306 (1907).

• Civil Procedure