United States Supreme Court (1 summary)
Tanzin v. Tanvir
In suits against government officials, damages are an appropriate form of relief.
Area(s) of Law:- Remedies
United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted (4 summaries)
Mahanoy Area School District v. B. L.
Whether Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969), which holds that public school officials may regulate speech that would materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school, applies to student speech that occurs off-campus.
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc.
Whether a defendant in a patent infringement action who assigned the patent, or is in privity with an assignor of the patent, may have a defense of invalidity heard on the merits.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Goldman Sachs Group v. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System
(1) Whether a defendant in a securities class action may rebut the presumption of classwide reliance recognized in Basic Inc. v. Levinson by pointing to the generic nature of the alleged misstatements in showing that the statements had no impact on the price of the security, even though that evidence is also relevant to the substantive element of materiality. (2) Whether a defendant seeking to rebut the Basic presumption has only a burden of production or also the ultimate burden of persuasion.
Area(s) of Law:- Corporations
Collins v. Mnuchin
(1) Whether the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s (FHFA) structure violates the separation of powers; and (2) whether the courts must set aside a final agency action that FHFA took when it was unconstitutionally structured and strike down the statutory provisions that make FHFA independent.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Oregon Supreme Court (4 summaries)
State v. Skillicorn
Evidence is barred by OEC 404(3) if “the chain of logical relevance” connecting the evidence to the fact it is proffered to prove relies on “an inference relating to a person’s character or propensities.”
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Haltom
Mental state definitions applicable to conduct don’t just apply to particular body movements, they apply more broadly to additional elements of that nature – such as the essential character – of a prohibited act. State v. Simonov, 358 Or. 531, 540-41 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Busch v. McInnis Waste Systems, Inc.
The legislature must act in a sufficient reason to counterbalance Art. 1, § 10’s substantive right that a person injured has a right to remedy those injuries. Horton v. OHSU, 359 Or. 168, 376 P.3d 998 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Remedies
Buel/Markley v. Rosenblum
In reviewing a ballot title, the court determines if the ballot title provided a concise and impartial statement of the purpose of the measure. Priestly v. Paulus, 297 Or. 141, 145 (1979). A court will not modify an explanatory statement unless the insufficiency extends beyond reasonable argument. Sizemore v. Myers, 327 Or. 456, 467 (1998).
Area(s) of Law:- Ballot Titles
Oregon Court of Appeals (28 summaries)
State v. Burris
"Where the trial court fails to elaborate on the meaning of an element of the charged crime, we have held the arguments of the state at trial combined with the instructions as a whole, can operate together to permit the jury to reach a legally erroneous conclusion." State v. Bistrika, 261 Or. App. 710, 729-30 (2014).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Newton
"[A]s to unanimous verdicts, a trial court’s nonunanimous jury instruction [does] not amount to structural error and [is] harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Flores Ramos, 367 Or. 292, 319, 334, 478 P.3d 515 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Bowers v. Board of Parole
The party asserting that a matter has become moot bears the burden of demonstrating that a court’s decision no longer has the required practical effect. State v. K.J.B., 362 Or. 777, 786 (2018). This includes establishing that any collateral effects that have been identified either do not exist or are legally insufficient. State v. K.J.B., 362 Or. 777, 786 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Arivett
“[T]he smell of marijuana generally no longer has the significance it once had as a basis for reasonable suspicion, in light of decriminalization. A strong odor can signal the presence of marijuana, but not necessarily the presence in a quantity that is illegal for persons 21 and older to lawfully possess.” State v. T.T., 308 Or. App. 408, 437 (2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Russell
A trial court must evaluate "the nature of a defendant’s offenses * * * as well as the defendant’s willingness to commit more than a single offense" to decide whether it should impose consecutive sentences under subsection (5)(a). State v. Martinez, 270 Or. App. 423, 429 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Poston
“All convictions for serious offenses that were based on nonunanimous verdicts involved constitutional error - a violation of the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to jury unanimity.” State v. Flores Ramos, 367 Or. 292, 295 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Smith
“[W]hen a party objects to testimony as improper vouching, a court must determine whether the testimony provides an opinion on truthfulness or, instead, provides a tool that the factfinder could use in assessing credibility. That determination does not necessarily require an assessment of whether that specific tool is permitted under the rules of evidence.” State v. Black (Black II), 364 Or. 579, 593 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Nelson
Concerns addressed by the instruction are not present when the testimony of accomplice witnesses does not shift blame. State v. Simson, 308 Or. 102, 110 (1989).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Peterson
“When legal disputes are encompassed in the arguments for and against a motion for judgment of acquittal, we resolve them as we would any other legal question.” State v. Turnidge, 359 Or. 364, 455 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Simington Gardens, LLC v. Rock Ridge Farms, LLC
Trespass in ORS 105.815 refers to the unauthorized injury to or severance of timber or produce.
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
State v. Heaston
Enacting SB 302 shows the legislature’s intent that the phrase “controlled substances” generally would not include cannabis, and that the legislature made the purposeful decision to either amend or not amend statutes that previously referenced “controlled substances” but did not reference cannabis.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Ceccoi
"[A] proponent may still 'need to establish "unavailability" by showing pursuit of "other reasonable means."' . . . In determining what, if any, further efforts are required, the totality of the circumstances" applies. State v. Iseli, 366 Or 151, 173 (2020)(quoting OEC 804(1)(e)).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
TPC, LLC v. Water Resources Dept.
ORS chapter 539 vests exclusive subject matter jurisdiction for a stream adjudication to a particular circuit court once the stream adjudication process under that chapter is initiated.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Whitehead v. Clarno
"An elector may sign an initiative petition if they meet the requirements of Article II, section 2 of the Oregon Constitution: United States citizenship, age, Oregon residency, and voter registration as provided by law."
Area(s) of Law:- Election Law
McClusky v. City of North Bend
Under ORS 659A.001(4)(a), it is the one who reserves the right to control who is the employer, and not the agent acting on behalf of the person or entity who reserves the right to control.
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
State v. Buckendahl
A legislatively specified penalty violates the proportionality clause of Article I, section 16, if the penalty shocks the moral sense of reasonable people because the penalty is so disproportionate when compared to the offense. State v. Rodriguez/Buck, 347 Or 46, 58 (2009). Three non-exhaustive factors that bear on that determination 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; and (3) the criminal history of the defendant.” State v. Rodriguez/Buck, 347 Or 46, 58 (2009).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Callen and Callen
"[I]f a court considers a party’s objective reasonableness in pursuing settlement as a basis to award a discretionary attorney fee, it must make that assessment ‘in the light of the parties’ circumstances and knowledge at the time the settlement was tendered and rejected and not by some post hoc reference to the result actually obtained." Erwin v. Tetreault, 155 Or App 205, 214, (1998).
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
State v. Drumbor/Day
ORS 813.635(1) establishes that a notation requires that the installation and use of an IID remain on a diversion participant’s driving record until the participant presents a certificate which states that the IID didn’t record a negative report for 90 consecutive days.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Setere
Under ORS 161.067(2), when the same conduct or criminal episode, though violating only one statutory provision involves two or more victims, there are as many separately punishable offenses as there are victims.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Murphy
“[A] proscribable threat is a communication that instills in the addressee a fear of imminent and serious personal violence from the speaker, is unequivocal, and is objectively likely to be followed by unlawful acts.” State v. Rangel, 328 Or 294, 303 (1999).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Rundgren v. Hood River County
The legislature's intent under ORS 92.170(1)(d) is for the eligibility of correction to be determined by whether a licensed surveyor could ascertain of an error.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Daniels v. Johnson
Attorney fees under ORS 20.105(1) are awarded only when the moving party defeats a claim which has a record entirely devoid of supporting evidence.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Case v. Cain
During sentencing, there’s a substantive requirement to consider the offender’s youth before imposing the most severe sentences. Hardegger v. Amsberry, 305 Or. App. 726, 734 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Nobles
Significant differences in sentencing under statute versus sentencing according to sentencing guidelines extend only towards the length of the term of incarceration, and not the length of the post-prison supervision term. State v. Morgan, 316 Or. 553, 560 (1993).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Chittenden
“Knowing the identity of and the information to be provided by a witness to or a victim of a crime is as fundamental to our criminal justice system as is apprehension of a potential offender.” State v. Fair, 353 Or. 588 (2013). Additionally, reasonable suspicion that suspects are involved in illegal drug activity warrants further investigation. State v. Acuna, 264 Or. App. 158, 168-69 (2014).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Hopkins
The circumstances of a case will support the inference that when a victim reacts against a defendant, the victim impliedly revokes the defendant’s permission to remain on the premises. State v. Felt, 108 Or. App. 730, 733 (1991).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. DeJong
“[I]n suppression hearings involving a search pursuant to a warrant allegedly tainted by earlier police illegality, the defendant bears the initial burden of production, while the state bears the ultimate burden of persuasion.” State v. James, 339 Or. 476, 490 (2005). Consequently, a defendant has the initial burden to establish a factual nexus between the prior illegal conduct by the police and evidence gained prior to a valid warrant. State v. Johnson, 334 Or. 511(2003).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Shepherd
When there is evidence of a witness’s relationship with another person where the bias resulting from the relationship is a matter of reasonable inference rather than mere speculation, the party may impeach that witness for bias. State v. Naudain, 300 Or. App. 222, 230 (2019). An error is reversible “if it denies the jury an adequate opportunity to assess the credibility of a witness whose credibility is important to the outcome of the trial.” State v. Andrew, 297 Or. App. 299, 300 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure