January 10 summaries
Calderon v. Dept. of Human Services
鈥溾榌F]ounded determinations are not determinations that petitioner in fact abused the [child] in the ways that were alleged, but rather that DHS had 鈥榬easonable cause to believe鈥 that he had done so鈥 the evidence in the record, an objectively and subjectively reasonable person could believe that petitioner had abused the [child] in the ways alleged. Querbach v. Dept. of Human Services, 369 Or 786, 804 (2022).鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
In re Trout and Eitzen
鈥淲hen determining whether a substantial change of circumstances exists to warrant modification or termination of spousal support, the trial court must 鈥榗onsider income opportunities and benefits of the respective parties from all sources[.]鈥欌 ORS 107.135(4)(a). To make that determination, 鈥渢he trial court must consider whether the new spouse鈥檚 income is actually available to the remarried party.鈥 Davis v. Lallement, 287 Or App 323, 329 (2017)
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Kasliner v. Dept. of Human Services
A circuit court must produce 鈥渟pecial findings of fact鈥 when it reverses an agency鈥檚 order in other than a contested case. ORS 183.484(6).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Mantle v. SAIF Corp.
ORS 656.327(1)(a) provides, in relevant part: 鈥淚f an injured worker, an insurer or self-insured employer the Director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services believes that the medical treatment 鈥 that the injured worker has received, is receiving, will receive or is proposed to receive is excessive, inappropriate, ineffectual or in violation of rules regarding the performance of medical services, the injured worker, insurer or self-insured employer must request administrative review of the treatment by the director prior to requesting a hearing on the issue and so notify the parties.鈥 ORS 656.327(2) provides, in relevant part: 鈥淭he worker is not obligated to pay for medical treatment determined not to be compensable under this section.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
State v. Miles
鈥淲hen considering merger and interpreting ORS 161.067(1), a court must answer three questions: 鈥(1) Did defendant engage in acts that are the same conduct or criminal episode, (2) did defendant鈥檚 acts violate two or more statutory provisions, and (3) does each statutory provision require proof of an element that the others do not.鈥欌 State v. Serbin, 324 Or App 792, 795 (2023). 鈥淚f the answer to the first two factors is affirmative, but the answer to the third is negative, merger is required. Id."
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Dept. of Human Services v. G. O.
鈥淸T]he key inquiry in determining whether conditions or circumstances warrant jurisdiction is whether, under the totality of the circumstances, there is a reasonable likelihood of harm to the welfare of the child.鈥 Dept. of Human Services v. C.Z., 236 Or App 436, 440 (2010). 鈥淭he risk of physical violence to a child under one year of age is a threat of serious harm that supports juvenile court jurisdiction.鈥 See, e.g., Dept. of Human Services v. T. J., 302 Or App 531, 538-39, (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
In re Gott-Dinsmore and Dinsmore
鈥淚n the absence of evidence of 鈥榰ncontroverted circumstances鈥 constraining actual income, reliance on evidence of the obligor鈥檚 work history, experience and skills, and past income is not necessarily speculative and can support a determination of earning capacity.鈥 In re Cortese and Cortese, 260 Or App 291, 296-97 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. Cowan
ORS 803.550(1)(c) states in part that 鈥淸a] person commits the offense of illegal alteration or illegal display of a registration plate if the person knowingly 鈥 [o]perates any vehicle that is displaying a registration plate the is illegally altered 鈥 or illegally displayed[.]鈥 ORS 803.550(2)(a) states in part that 鈥淸a] registration plate is illegally altered 鈥 if the plate has been altered, modified, covered or obscured in any manner including but not limited to 鈥 [a]ny change of the color, configuration, numbers, letters, or material of the plate.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Morgan
鈥淸W]hen introducing statements made by a defendant in conjunction with a polygraph examination, [the state] may not introduce evidence that the statements were made in the context of a polygraph examination or details of the polygraph examination.鈥 State v. Harberts, 315 Or 408, 413 (1993). 鈥淸W]hen the issue in the case for which the polygraph evidence is being offered is entirely independent of the questions that were the subject of the polygraph, the evidence may be admissible.鈥 Id. at 414.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Newmann v. Highberger
鈥淔irst, under the state constitution, a petitioner must show that trial counsel 鈥榝ailed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment,鈥 and under the federal constitution, that 鈥榗ounsel鈥檚 performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.鈥欌 Smith v. Kelly, 318 Or App 567, 568-69 (2022). 鈥淪econd, under both constitutions, a petitioner must show that counsel鈥檚 inadequate performance caused prejudice. Id. at 568.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief