United States Supreme Court (2 summaries)
Shular v. United States
Section 924(e)(2)(A)(ii) of the Armed Career Criminal Act’s definition of “serious drug offense,” requires that the state offense involve the conduct specified in the statute; the state offense need not match certain generic offenses.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
M&G Polymers USA, LLC v. Tackett
Collectively bargained for benefit agreements should be interpreted under ordinary principles of contract law without undue inferences into the intent of the parties.
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted (2 summaries)
Emulex v. Varjabedian
Whether Section 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 supports an inferred private right of action based on a negligent misstatement or omission made in connection with a tender offer.
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
Geneva College v. Burwell
Whether the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive mandate burdens religious exercise of nonprofit organizations.
9th Circuit Court of Appeals (11 summaries)
Chicken Ranch Rancheria v. California
"In a pure federal question case brought in federal court, federal law governs attorney's fees." Disability Law Ctr. of Alaska, Inc. v. Anchorage Sch. Dist., 581 F.3d 936, 940 (9th Cir. 2009). The involvement of state law issues in such a case does not invalidate the rule.
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
Credit One Bank v. Hestrin
Abstention, under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), is appropriate for civil enforcement actions when “(1) there is an ongoing state judicial proceeding; (2) the proceeding implicates important state interests; (3) there is an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise constitutional challenges; and (4) the requested relief seeks to enjoin or has the practical effect of enjoining the ongoing state judicial proceeding.”
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
United States v. Eller
18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) is applicable to a defendant who uses an adult proxy in the coercion of minors because the statute’s purpose would be wholly frustrated if liability could be avoided through the use of an intermediary. United States v. Macapagal, 56 F.4th 742, 744 (9th Cir. 2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Doe v. USDC-NVL
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3663(a)(3) "grants statutory authority to district courts to award restitution whenever a defendant agrees in a plea agreement to pay restitution." U. S. v. McAninch, 994 F.2d 1380, 1384 n.4 (9th Cir. 1993).
Area(s) of Law:- Remedies
JAMES KLEISER, ET AL V. BENJAMIN CHAVEZ, ET AL
The third-party doctrine does not apply as an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement when the government seeks cell site location information. Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206, 2219-21 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights § 1983
Hooper v. Brnovich
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine is the principle that “a state-court decision is not reviewable by lower federal courts,” and federal district courts are prevented from exercising subject matter jurisdiction and the de facto equivalents of such appeals.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Chennette v. Porch.com, Inc.
Plaintiff's standing under TCPA 47 U.S.C. § 227(c), stating that businesses cannot use telephone solicitations if “[a] residential telephone subscriber [] has registered his or her telephone number on the national do-not-call registry,” was permitted based on statutory presumption favoring protection.
Area(s) of Law:- Standing
Metlakatla Indian Community v. Dunleavy
Statutes that touch upon federal Indian law “are to be construed liberally in favor of the Indians, with ambiguous provisions interpreted to their benefit.” Swinomish Indian Tribal Cmty. v. BNSF Ry. Co., 951 F.3d 1142, 1156 (9th Cir. 2020). Rights must be inferred that support a reservation’s purpose. Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564, 576–77 (1908).
Area(s) of Law:- Indian Law
United States v. Orozco
Testimony that a government official had advised a defendant of a “right to consulate” does not necessarily indicate the defendant’s illegal status because all foreign nationals enjoy this right; additionally a defendant must generally invoke his right to testify prior to the close of evidence.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Police Retirement Sys. V. Intuitive Surgical
Forward-looking statements that include sufficient warning fall within the safe harbor provision when there is a heightened Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) pleading requirement.
Area(s) of Law:- Corporations
United States v. Augustine
Defendants sentenced prior to the enactment of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 are not eligible for a reduced sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) because the Act does not apply retroactively.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Oregon Supreme Court (4 summaries)
Dept. of Human Services v. F. J. M.
Under ORS 419B.337, juvenile courts can order parents to engage in “treatment or training” which is “needed by [the] parent to correct the circumstances that resulted in wardship.”
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Chaimov v. State
Under ORS 173.130(2), “[u]pon the written request of a state agency, the Legislative Counsel may prepare or assist in the preparation of legislative measures that have been approved for preparation . . . .”
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Wyers v. American Medical Response Northwest, Inc.
A person does not need to have actual knowledge of abuse to be liable under ORS 124.100(5), which permits an action to be brought against a person who "permit[s]" abuse against a victim.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
Moro v. State of Oregon
In complex cases with multiple parties with different requests for attorney’s fees and costs, it is appropriate for the Court to appoint a special master to make findings of fact and recommendations for the reasonable allocation of attorney’s fees and costs for each party.
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
Oregon Court of Appeals (17 summaries)
Mendoza v. Xtreme Truck Sales, LLC
“To determine whether an offer of settlement under [ORCP 54 E] was more favorable than the amount of the judgment, the court must compare both amounts.” Mulligan v. Hornbuckle, 206 P.3d 1078, 1080 (2009).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Crombie v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
“The necessity of special conditions must be determined in reference to the statutory objectives that are repeated throughout the statutes, namely, the protection of public safety and the reformation of the offender.” Martin v. Board of Parole, 327 Or 147, 159, 957 P2d 1210 (1998).
Area(s) of Law:- Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
State v. Baker
“Criminal negligence requires that a defendant ‘fail[ed] to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk’ such that the ‘failure to be aware of it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.’” ORS 161.085(10).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Roriguez v. Union Pac. R.R. Co.
Summary judgment does not present an opportunity to assert a theory of liability that is not in the pleadings. Permapost Products Co. v. Osmose, Inc., 200 Or App 699, 705 (2005).
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
Harmon v. Oregon Medical Board
Under ORS 676.175(1), the OMB is required to keep confidential and not disclose to the public “any information obtained by the board as part of an investigation of a licensee or applicant, including complaints concerning licensee or applicant conduct and information permitting the identification of complainants, licensees or applicants[.]”
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
State v. Philips
On review of the court’s jury instruction for legal error, “[a] trial court commits reversible error when it incorrectly instructs a jury on a material element . . . And that instructional error allows the jury to reach a legal erroneous outcome,” such as jury unanimity under the due process requirement for conviction. State v. Harper, 296 Or App 125, 126 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Boswell v. State of Oregon
To demonstrate inadequate assistance of counsel under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution, Petitioner must prove (1) that trial counsel failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment and (2) that Petitioner suffered prejudice as a result. Johnson v. Premo, 361 Or 688, 699, 399 P3d 431 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
State v. Roberts
ORS 163.205(1)(b)(D) was enacted as part of a broader amendment to the criminal mistreatment statute to address the problem of elder abuse—particularly the ‘abandonment and financial exploitation of elderly and dependent persons.’ State v. Bevil, 280 Or App 92, 376 P3d 294 (2016) (emphasis in original).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal 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).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
State v. Dendy
“For police officers to make a stop, they must reasonably suspect—based on specific and articulable facts—that the person committed a specific crime or type of crime or was about to commit a specific crime or type of crime.” State v. Maciel-Figueroa, 361 Or 163, 182, 389 P3d 1121 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Gordon v. State Mortuary and Cemetery Board
“[W]hen a court’s decision or ruling is premised on alternative grounds, a party challenging that ruling generally must take issue with all independent and alternative grounds on which it is based to obtain relief.” Cf. Strawn v. Farmers Ins. Co., 350 Or 336, 366, 258 P3d 1199, adh’d to on recons, 350 Or 521, 256 P3d 100 (2011).
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
State v. Anderson
An officer may obtain self-incriminating statements after a person invoked the right to remain silent if that person is not in custody and no compelling circumstances exist. State v. Davis, 350 Or 440, 256 P3d 1075 (2011). Officers may continue to ask questions after a person invokes the right to remain silent if the response is voluntary. State v. Turnidge, 359 Or 364, 374 P3d 853 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Genova v. Veterinary Medical Examining Board
In addition to the substantial evidence requirement for findings, “agencies are also required to demonstrate in their opinions the reasoning that leads the agency from the facts that it has found to the conclusions that it draws from those facts.”
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
State v. B. O.
In a civil commitment case, a trial court commits plain, reversible error if it fails to permit the individual to subpoena witnesses pursuant to ORS 426.100(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
State v. Lucero
Evidence showing the legality of legal proceedings resulting in an eviction is not admissible at trial when those proceedings are final and have no consequence regarding the legality of Defendant's entry or whether Defendant was aware that the entry was otherwise licensed or privileged.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
16th Group, LLC v. Lynch Mechanical Construction, LLC
Under ORS 20.077, attorney fees are awarded to a prevailing party on a “claim-by-claim” basis.
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
Sohn v. Thi
Under ORCP 54 A, dismissal of a case is to be with prejudice where the plaintiff’s dismissed action and prior action was (1) against the same defendant and (2) for the same claim.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Intellectual Property (6 summaries)
Authors Guild v. Hathi Trust
When an association serving people with disabilities creates an online database of copyrighted works they are protected under the Fair Use Doctrine.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
- , Fair Use
Metropolitan Regional Information System, Inc. v. American Home Realty Network, Inc.
If the owner of a copyrighted database also owns the copyright to the individual components of that database they are not required to list each individual copyright as previous work when filing for an updated copyright to the database.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Carpenter Tech. Corp. v. Allegheny Techs., Inc.
To show that a patent is unenforceable because of inequitable conduct, the alleged infringer must show that the patentee intentionally withheld, or misrepresented, material information from the patent examiner. The intent and materiality elements must be shown independently, and each must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Coach, Inc. v. Island Rayz
Counterfeit products create a presumption of likelihood of confusion as to whether the sellers are affiliated with the owner of the senior mark.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
- , Infringement
Disney Enters. v. Rea
A patent claim is invalid for obviousness where it merely combines technologies existing at the time of invention.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
- , Obviousness
Johnston v. Rea
In a civil action to receive a patent after initial rejection, the applicant may submit new, objective evidence and if that evidence relates to a disputed question of fact the PTO's findings of fact are reviewed de novo. If no new evidence is offered, the PTO's findings are entitled to deference and will only be set aside if the PTO's actions were arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or not in accordance with the law.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
- , Review After Initial Rejection
Land Use Board of Appeals (8 summaries)
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife v. Lake County
LCZO 18.05(D)(6) mandates 160-acre minimum parcel size for new land division within big game habitat.
Area(s) of Law:- Municipal Law
Northwest Alliance Corvallis v. City of Corvallis
Under OAR 661-010-0021(5)(e), if no amended notice of intent to appeal is filed or no original notice of intent to appeal is refilled, the appeal will be dismissed.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Simpson v. City of Brownsville
Under OAR 661-010-0021(5)(e), if no amended notice of intent to appeal is filed or no original notice of intent to appeal is refilled, the appeal will be dismissed.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Calef v. City of Seaside
Under OAR 661-010-0021(5)(e), if no amended notice of intent to appeal is filed or no original notice of intent to appeal is refilled, the appeal will be dismissed.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Sum Properties LLC v. City of Gearhart
Under OAR 661-010-0021(5)(e), if no amended notice of intent to appeal is filed or no original notice of intent to appeal is refilled, the appeal will be dismissed.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
The Relief Nursery v. City of Springfield
Under OAR 661-010-0021(5)(e), if no amended notice of intent to appeal is filed or no original notice of intent to appeal is refilled, the appeal will be dismissed.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Columbia Pacific Building Trades Council v. City of Portland
OAR 661-010-0071 requires LUBA to reverse a land use decision if it finds the decision to be unconstitutional.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use