Case In the Matter of the Marriage of Helen Irene Sherman, Petitioner-Appellant, and Mark Douglas Sherman, Respondent-Respondent Court Oregon Court […]
Case State of Oregon v. Dammien Charles Fowler Court Oregon Court of Appeals Date Decided June 10, 2026 Docket No.
Case In the Matter of G. C.-M., a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness; State of Oregon v. G. C.-M.
Case State of Oregon v. Jacob Matthew Nebeker Court Oregon Court of Appeals Date Decided June 10, 2026 Docket No.
Case State of Oregon v. O. A. M. A. Court Oregon Court of Appeals Date Decided June 10, 2026 Docket
Case In the Matter of P. F., a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness; State of Oregon v. P. F.
Case State of Oregon v. Chad Brandon Pitcher Court Oregon Court of Appeals Date Decided June 10, 2026 Docket No.
Case State of Oregon v. Jacob Duschell Weber Court Oregon Court of Appeals Date Decided June 10, 2026 Docket No.
Case State of Oregon v. David Ayon-Urbano Court Oregon Supreme Court Date Decided June 4, 2026 Docket No. S072084 (CC
Case State of Oregon v. Lynn Edward Benton Court Oregon Supreme Court Date Decided June 4, 2026 Docket No. S072292
Case State of Oregon v. Ervan Ronell Herring Court Oregon Supreme Court Date Decided June 4, 2026 Docket No. S070999
Case State of Oregon v. Michael Daniel Farnham Court Oregon Court of Appeals Date Decided June 3, 2026 Docket No.
Case In the Matter of O. R., a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness; State of Oregon v. O. R.
The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed a 180-day involuntary commitment under the expanded chronic mental illness criteria of former ORS 426.005(1)(f)(C), holding as a matter of statutory interpretation that prior hospitalizations resulting from expanded-criteria commitments count toward the two-hospitalization prerequisite in sub-subparagraph (C)(ii), and that three mental health professionals’ testimony provided sufficient evidence that the patient’s current symptoms substantially resembled those preceding his prior commitments.
The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed an order denying father’s motions to enforce parenting time and modify custody after the trial court admitted a child’s recorded statement about sexual abuse without requiring the proponent to comply with OEC 803(18a)(b)’s mandatory prerequisites of 15 days’ advance notice and an affirmative reliability showing, and found the error harmful because the statement was the only evidence of the sexual nature of the alleged abuse.
The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the portion of a supplemental judgment ordering mother to pay 66 percent of her adult child’s college tuition as a freestanding obligation, holding that ORS 107.108 does not authorize education-cost orders outside the Child Support Guidelines and that the trial court plainly erred in concluding it had “a lot more discretion” when setting support for an adult child attending school.
The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed convictions for domestic violence strangulation and harassment because the trial court failed to reread constitutional jury instructions—including the presumption of innocence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt—as part of its oral charge to the jury at the close of evidence, applying State v. Shine, 375 Or 112 (2026), and holding the error was plain, not harmless, and warranted discretionary correction even without a trial-level objection.
The Oregon Court of Appeals remanded for resentencing after holding that the trial court violated the Sixth Amendment by imposing a true-life sentence under ORS 163.107(2)(b) based solely on its own factual findings, confirming that a constitutionally valid LWOP sentence for first-degree murder requires jury-found enhancement facts submitted through the Blakely-remedy procedure of ORS 136.760–136.792.
The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed DSL’s decision to issue a removal/fill permit to Walmart after remand from the Oregon Supreme Court, holding that a general “further proceedings” remand gives an agency broad discretion to reopen the record, and that neither issue preclusion nor the law-of-the-case doctrine barred DSL from revisiting previously inconclusive findings about public benefits.
The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the striking of lis pendens notices as invalid encumbrances under ORS 205.460 because the notices falsely identified the object of the suit as enforcing a CC&R lien that did not exist, and held that the $5,000 minimum statutory penalty under ORS 205.470 applies on a per-lot basis when an invalid encumbrance clouds multiple individually titled parcels.
The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of a pro se mandamus petition, holding that the trial court erred by denying a motion to disqualify the assigned judge without any judge challenging the movant’s good faith — a prerequisite under ORS 14.260(1) before the motion may be denied.