United States Supreme Court (5 summaries)
Chicago v. Fulton
The retention of estate property, post-bankruptcy filing, does not violate §362(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code because that provision is a "stay" of "any act" to "exercise control" over the assets of the estate which refers to affirmative acts disrupting the status quo of property.
Area(s) of Law:- Bankruptcy Law
Carney, Governor of DE v. Adams
For a judicial candidate to have standing to bring a claim regarding eligibility for the position, it must be shown that the candidate is “able and ready” to apply for a judicial vacancy in the immediate future and thus would suffer a concrete injury.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Trump v. Vance
Neither the Supremacy Clause, nor Article II categorically preclude, or necessitate a heightened standard for, state criminal subpoenas issued to a sitting President.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Agency for Int'l Development v. Alliance for Open Society Int'l, Inc.
The Policy Requirement in the Leadership Act does not violate the First Amendment as applied to United States corporation's foreign affiliates because the U.S. Constitution does not apply to non-U.S. citizens outside of U.S. soil.
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
Bostock v. Clayton County
Title VII is violated when an employee is fired on the basis of being gay, lesbian, or transgender.
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted (6 summaries)
Wooden, William D. v. United States
Did the Sixth Circuit err by expanding the score of 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1) in the absence of clear statutory definition with regard to the vague term "committed on occasions differed from one another"?
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Americans For Prosperity Foundation v. Becerra, Att'y Gen. of CA
Whether the exacting scrutiny this Court has long required of laws that abridge the freedoms of speech and association outside the election context—as called for by NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449 (1958), and its progeny—can be satisfied absent any showing that a blanket governmental demand for the individual identities and addresses of major donors to private nonprofit organizations is narrowly tailored to an asserted law-enforcement interest.
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
United States v. Gary, Michael A.
Whether a defendant who pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) and 924(a), is automatically entitled to plain-error relief if the district court did not advise him that one element of that offense is knowledge of his status as a felon, regardless of whether he can show that the district court’s error affected the outcome of the proceedings.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski
Whether a government's post-filing change of an unconstitutional policy moots nominal-damages claims that vindicate the government's past, completed violation of a plaintiffs constitutional right.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Henry Schein, Inc., Petitioner v. Archer and White Sales, Inc.
Whether a provision in an arbitration agreement that exempts certain claims from arbitration negates an otherwise clear and unmistakable delegation of questions of arbitrability to an arbitrator.
Area(s) of Law:- Arbitration
Edwards v. Vannoy
Petition granted limited to the following question: Whether the Supreme Court's decision in Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), applies retroactively to cases on federal collateral review.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Oregon Supreme Court (3 summaries)
State v. Link
The prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment has been interpreted to require a sentence “be graduated and proportioned to both the offender and the offense.” Miller v. Alabama, 567 US 460, 479, 132 S Ct 2455, 183 L Ed 2d 407 (2012). “[I]mposition of a state’s most severe penalties on juvenile offenders cannot proceed as though they were not children.” Id. at 474.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
State v. Haji
Under Article VII (Amended), section 5(6), “The district attorney may file an amended indictment or information whenever, by ruling of the court, an indictment or information is held to be defective in form.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Citizens for Resp. Devel. in The Dalles v. Walmart
Under Morse v. Oregon Division of State Lands, 285 Or 197, 204 (1979), while issuing a permit pursuant ORS § 196.825, “public need” for the proposed project only needs to be weighed when the project “unreasonably interferes with the paramount policy of the state,” however, the “unreasonably interferes” standard always applies.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Oregon Court of Appeals (61 summaries)
Bruntz-Ferguson v. Liberty Mutual Ins.
Under the work-connection test, in order to be compensable, an injury must “arise out of” and be “in the course of” employment. Norpac Foods, Inc. v. Gilmore, 318 Or 363, 366, 867 P2d 1373 (1994).
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Dunn v. Board of Parole
"Collateral consequences may prevent a dispute from becoming moot in certain instances." Barnes v. Thompson, 159 Or App 383, 386, 977 P2d 431, rev den, 329 Or 447 (1999).
Area(s) of Law:- Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
Lobo v. Cain
A post-conviction court must assess whether, the failure to include within the amended petition, petitioner’s additional claims, “counsel has failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment.” Bogle v. State of Oregon, 363 Or 455, 473, 423 P3d 715 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Samson v. Brown
ORS 137.635(1) provides, “The person shall not be eligible for any reduction in sentence pursuant to ORS 421.120 or for any reduction in the term of incarceration pursuant to ORS 421.121.”
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
State v. Hernandez-Sanchez
A “true Brady violation” occurs when undisclosed evidence is “favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory, or because it is impeaching; that evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently; and prejudice must have ensued.” Strickler v. Greene, 527 US 263, 281-82, 119 S Ct 1936, 144 L Ed 2d 286 (1999).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Parkerson
“[I]f there is sufficient evidence to charge a witness of the crime with which a defendant is charged, then the trial court ‘may determine, as a matter of law, that the witness is an accomplice.” State v. Torres, 207 Or App 335, 359-60, 142 P3d 99 (2006) (quoting Oatney, 335 Or at 284)).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Laux v. Akebono Brake Corp.
"Evidence must be present that asbestos is contained in the defendant’s product, not just the industry as a whole." See, e.g., Austin, v. A.J. Zinda Co., 196 Or App 262, 269-270, 101 P3d 918 (2004), rev den, 338 Or 374 (2005).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Cano
OEC 609, which allows the impeachment of a witness by certain criminal convictions, prohibits balancing under OEC 403. See, e.g., State v. Venegas, 124 Or App 253, 256; State v. King, 307 Or 332, 337 (2021); State v. Dick, 91 Or App 294, 298-99 (1988).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
A. K. F. v. Burdette
A person is substantially limited regarding a major life activity if the impairment is restrictive “as compared to most people in the general population.” ORS 659A.104(3).
Area(s) of Law:- Elder Law
Sova v. Vital Auto Brokers, LLC
Certification of title to an automobile is prima facie evidence of rightful ownership. ORS 802.240. If title is established, the burden is on the proponent of title to rebut the prima facie evidence. Brunk v. Horton, 280 Or 239, 242, 570 P2d 382 (1977).
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
State v. Chitwood
“[T]he ease with which any error could have been avoided or corrected should be a significant factor in an appellate court’s decision whether to exercise its discretion to correct a plain, but unpreserved, error.” State v. Inman, 275 Or App 920, 935, 366 P3d 721 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Gassner
There may be no structural error when a trial court fails to instruct a jury that a nonunanimous verdict is allowable when such error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Flores Ramos, 367 Or 292, 334, 478 P3d 515 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Heaton
For a choice-of-evils instruction to be presented to the jury, a defendant must show: “(1) his conduct was necessary to avoid a threatened injury; (2) the threatened injury was imminent; and (3) it was reasonable for him to believe that the need to avoid that injury was greater than the need to avoid the injury that the statute that he was found to have violated seeks to prevent.” State v. Boldt, 116 Or App 480, 483, 841 P2d 1196 (1992). Under ORS 161.200(1)(a), "necessary" may be established where there is no reasonable alternative but for a defendant to commit the crime. State v. Paul, 289 Or App 408, 409, 410 P3d 378 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Heine
When the State elects to provide a defendant with a jury trial, then the jury trial must comport with the Due Process Clause. Evitts v. Lucey, 469 US 387, 105 S Ct 830, 83 L Ed 2d 821 1985).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Lara-Vasquez
A court has no discretion regarding a Measure 11 sentence other than the consideration that a sentence must not be cruel and unusual and must be proportioned to the offense. State v. Rodriguez/Buck, 347 Or 46, 52-57, 217 P3d 659 (2009). A sentence may be cruel and unusual if it “shock[s] the moral sense” of a reasonable person. Id. at 57-58.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Mead
Sexual contact as required for a conviction under ORS 163.427(1)(a)(A) means “any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person or causing such person to touch the sexual or other intimate parts of the actor for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of either party.” ORS 163.305(6).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Ramirez
The harmless error analysis focuses on “the possible influence of the error on the verdict rendered, not whether this court, sitting as a fact-finder, would regard the evidence of guilt as substantial and compelling.” State v. Davis, 336 Or 19, 32, 32 P3d 1111 (2003).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Rashad
An evidentiary error is harmless where the trial court’s verdict clearly establishes unaffected credibility determinations. State v. Reed, 299 Or App 675, 694, 452 P3d 995 (2019), rev den, 366 or 382 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Tennant
“[A]cquiescence occurs when an individual is not given a reasonable opportunity to choose to consent.” State v. Berg, 223 Or App 387, 392, 196 P3d 547 (2008), adh’d to as modified on recons, 28 Or App 754, 208 P3d 1006, rev den, 346 Or 361 (2009). Additionally, acquiescence may be clear when “a search will occur regardless or whether consent is given.” Id.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
T. W. v. C. L. K.
To “avoid affecting the substantial rights of a parent, a juvenile court cannot base its jurisdictional decision on facts that depart from the petition or jurisdictional judgment when neither the petition nor the jurisdictional judgment would put a reasonable parent on notice of what the parent must do to prevent the state from asserting or continuing jurisdiction over the child.” Dept of Human Services v. J.R.L., 256 Or App 437, 448 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Goldberg
“One indication of whether a government action intrudes on a person’s privacy right is whether a private individual would offend social and legal norms of behavior by engaging in the same kind of intrusion.” State v. Portrey, 134 Or App 460, 464, 896 P2d 7 (1995).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Love-Faust
Compelling circumstances are such that viewed as a whole, a reasonable person in defendant’s shoes would feel compelled to reply to an officer’s questions. State v. Dunlap, 215 Or App 46, 57, 168 P3d 295 (2007). The court must ask whether the questioning took place in a “police dominated atmosphere.” State v. Roble-Baker, 340 Or 631, 641, 136 P3d 22 (2006).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. K. R. B.
“One circumstance in which we will not and cannot exercise our discretion to correct a plain error is when that error is harmless.” State v. Kerne, 289 Or App 345, 349-50, 410 P3d 369 (2017), rev den, 363 Or 119 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Varde v. Run! Day Camp For Dogs, LLC
"An appellate court cannot exercise appellate jurisdiction over an appeal unless a statute authorizes an appeal from the judgment or order that the trial court entered.” Rauda v. Oregon Roses, Inc., 329 Or 265, 268, 986 P2d 1157 (1999). ORS 19.245 outlines when an appeal from a stipulated judgment may occur: when specifically provided by the judgment and when an “appeal presents a justiciable controversy.”
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Forbus v. Board of Parole
“[S]entencing for aggravated murder is provided for solely by ORS 163.105 and is not covered under the guidelines.” State v. Davilla, 157 Or App 639, 647, 972 P2d 902 (1998), rev den, 334 Or 76 (2002).
Area(s) of Law:- Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
Ellis v. Kyker
“[A] new development may be considered a legally sufficient change in circumstances only if it is shown that the change has ‘injuriously affected the child’ or affected the custodial parent’s ‘ability or inclination to care for the child in the best possible manner.’” Botofan-Miller, 365 Or 504, 520-21 (2019)(quoting Boldt and Boldt, 344 Or 1,9 (2008)).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Kirresh v. Gill
ORS 93.910 provides, “Whenever a contract for transfer or conveyance of an interest in real property provides a forfeiture remedy . . . default under the contract may be enforced only after notice . . . .” In conjunction, ORS 93.930(1) provides, “When a contract for conveyance of real property has been forfeited in accordance with its terms . . . .”
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Johnson v. Keiper
“A plaintiff in a medical malpractice case must offer expert testimony that, to a reasonable medical probability, the alleged breach of the standard of care caused the plaintiff’s injuries.” Cleland v. Wilcox, 273 Or 883, 887-88, 543 P2d 1032 (1975). However, certainty of the degree of harm is not by definition required to prove causation. Hansen v. Bussman, 274 Or 757, 759, 549 P2d 1265 (1976).
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
State v. Moore
“The appellate decision becomes effective when the appellate judgment issues, and that appellate judgment is effective in itself, without any action of the lower court.” International Brotherhood v. Oregon Steel Mills, Inc., 180 Or App 265, 271-271, 44 P3d 600 (2002).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Kennedy
Evidence to show the bias of a witness is always relevant. State v. Crum, 287 Or App 541, 551-52, 403 P3d 405 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. S. A. R.
“A person is ‘dangerous to self’ for [the] purposes [of ORS 426.005(1)(f)(A)] if the person’s mental disorder puts her at a non speculative risk of serious physical harm or death in the near future, absent commitment.” State v. S.E.R., 297 Or App 121, 122, 441 P3d 254 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
Sanders v. Vigor Fab, LLC
Tort claims are barred in Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA) complaints when multiple entities are subject to single management which in turn functionally operates as a “single entity.” Claudio v. United States, 907 F Supp 581, 588 (EDNY 1995). The elements to find a single entity are: (1) operations are interrelated; (2) both entities have central management; (3) labor relations are centrally run; and (4) there is common ownership. Id. at 588.
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
State v. Alapai
Relevant circumstances when considering the efficacy of delayed Miranda warning are (1) “the nature of the violation”; (2) “the amount of time between the violation and any later statements”; (3) “whether the suspect remained in custody before making any later statements”; (4) “subsequent events that may have dissipated the taint of the earlier violation”; and (5) “the use that the state has made of the unwarned statements.” State v. Jarnagin, 351 Or 703, 716, 277 P3d 535 (2012) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Gibson v. Walsh
“For an issue to be preserved for purposes of appeal, it must have been raised with sufficient clarity in the trial court to put the trial court on notice that it needs to rule on the issue and for the opposing party to have an opportunity to address the issue.” Ploplys v. Bryson, 188 Or App 49, 58, 69 P3d 1257 (2003).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Scott v. Kesselring
Under OEC 401, evidence is pertinent if it has “any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.”
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Troubled Asset Solutions v. Wilcher
“The rights of the parties are measured by the instrument as originally intended, and the effect of the reformation, as a whole, is to give all the parties all the rights to which they are equitably entitled under the instrument that they intended to execute.” Reformation of Instruments, 66 Am Jur 2d § 9 (2011).
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
M. W. V. H. v. Van Hoff
To receive an SPO, the victim must show that it was “objectively reasonable for a person in the victim’s situation to have been alarmed or coerced.” ORS 30.866(1)(a),(b). Further, the conduct must have caused “reasonable apprehension,” referring to the victim’s own personal safety. ORS 30.866(1)(c).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Stalking Protective Order
State v. McQueen
ORS 163.700 provides that “a person commits the crime of invasion of personal privacy in the second degree if: [t]he person knowingly makes or records a photograph, motion picture . . . without the consent of the other person; and the person being recorded has a reasonable exception of privacy concerning the intimate area.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Dept. of Human Services v. S. S.
DHS must show the jurisdictional judgment has no “practical effect on the rights of the parties” by rebutting the parent’s showing of “continuing practical effects or collateral consequences that, in the parent’s view, render the appeal justiciable.” Dept. of Human Services v. A. B., 362 Or 412, 426, 412 P3d 1169 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Rowden v. Hogan Woods, LLC
Finding causation under the “major contributing cause standard”—a stricter standard than under common law—does not permit preclusive effect regarding the issue of causation in the course of a negligence action. Smothers v. Gresham Transfer, Inc., 332 Or 83, 134, 23 P3d 333 (2001), overruled on other grounds by Horton v. OSHU, 359 Or 168, 376 P3d 998 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Running v. Kelly
“[A] petitioner must show more than it is possible that the outcome of the prosecution would have been different if counsel had performed reasonably, but need not show that it is more likely than not that the outcome would have changed.” Stomps v. Persson, 305 Or. App. 47, 56, 469 P.3d 218 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Alvarado-Depineda v. SAIF
When ambiguities are present in medical information regarding a claimant, it is the insurer’s duty to pursue clarification. Walker v. Providence Health Systems Oregon, 267 Or. App. 87, 407-408 P.3d 91 (2014) (Walker I), modified on recons, 269 Or. App. 404, 344 P.3d 1115 (2015) (Walker II).
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
Dept. of Human Services v. K. G. T.
“[W]hen a parent complains that DHS has not provided adequate services, a court making ‘reasonable efforts’ determination must consider not only the burdens that the state would shoulder in providing those services, but also what benefit might reasonably be expected to flow from them.” Dept. of Human Services v. M. K., 257 Or. App. 416, 416, 306 P.3d 763 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Dept. of Human Services v. R. A. C.-R.
Where there is no feasible way to supply a program to a parent, DHS is not required to provide such a service in an effort to reunify a parent with a child because this would leave a child in limbo. See Dept. of Human Services v. K. G. T., 306 Or. App. 368, 381, _ P.3d _ (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Nichols
“A person who through the tort of another has been required to act in the protection of his interests by bringing or defending an action against a third person is entitled to recover compensation for the reasonably necessary loss of time.” Restatement § 914.
Area(s) of Law:- Remedies
Baker v. Board of Parole
The Coding Rules allow prior offenses to be counted as both “non-sexual violence” and a “sexual offense” when the same victim is effected in both convictions. Coding Rules at 60.
Area(s) of Law:- Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
State v. Kelly
The State has the burden of showing that, in the officer’s subjective belief, getting a warrant was unreasonable due to dissipating evidence and that belief is objectively reasonable, rooted in the officer’s “contemporaneous perspective based on information known or reasonably discernible in the totality of the circumstance.” Martinez-Alvarez, 245 Or. App. 369, 376, 263 P.3d 1091 (2011).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Hollister
ORS 33.460 provides a legal "change of sex” is appropriate when an applicant can “attest” that they have received “treatment” that is fitting “for the purpose of affirming gender identity.”
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
State v. Perez-Cardenas
Reconsideration of a claim may be sought when “there has been a change in the statutes or case law since the decision of the Court of Appeals.” ORAP 6.25(1)(c).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Chang v. Chun
The tort of trespass is considered strict-liability and occurs when a person intentionally goes on another’s land. Berschauer v. State Dept. of Gen. Admin., 1 Wash App 2d 1044, 2017 WL 6343652 (2017). It follows that if damages occur from the emotional distress one suffers as a result of trespass, one may recover under trespass damages. Id. at 7.
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
Kamps-Hughes v. City of Eugene
Once certain factors have been met, ORS 197.312(5)(a) requires “the development of at least one [ADU] for each detached single family dwelling,” hindered only by sitting and design specific regulations.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
State v. Ramirez
In order to overcome a warrantless search on the officer safety exception, the state must prove that an officer’s subjective safety threats are objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. State v. Hendricks, 213 Or. App. 360, 364, 160 P.3d 1014, rev den, 343 Or. 467 (2007).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Moore
For a sentence to be upheld, “[t]he record must affirmatively show that the court sentenced the defendant solely upon the facts of the case and his personal history, and not as punishment for his refusal to plead guilty.” State v. Fitzgibbon, 114 Or. App. 581, 587, 839 P.2d 154 (1992) (citing State v. Smith, 52 Or. App. 681, 629 P.2d 420 (1981)).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Ghiglieri v. Tomalak
To determine if reasonable necessity for an implied easement exists, the court is to consider “what a reasonable grantee would be justified in expecting as a part of his bargain when he purchases land under the particular circumstances.” Dressler et al v. Isaacs et al, 217 Or. 586, 598-599, 343 P.2d 714 (1959).
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
State v. Parsons
Under Ramos, the damage caused by a defendant and thus would be applied in a restitution award to the plaintiff, would need to be a “reasonable foreseeable” consequence of the defendant’s actions. State v. Ramos, 358 Or. 581, 596-597, 368 P.3d 446 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Dept. of Human Services v. K. H. H.
The interpretation of “reasonable time” is evaluated as a matter of law and thus must be looked at for abuse of discretion. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. D.J., 215 Or. App. 146, 154-155, 168 P.3d 798 (2007).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Coleman v. SAIF
Under ORS 656.267(1), a new medical condition claim can be initiated “at any time,” hindered by ORS 656.267(2)(a) which states: only properly initiated claims “related to an initially accepted claim” are subject to the time restraints of ORS 656.262. When new medical condition claims are instituted before the first claim has been accepted, the procedure for those additional claims is “just like any other claim,” which means the 60 day turn around does not apply. Johansen v. SAIF, 158 Or. App. 672, 681, 976 P.2d 84, adh’d to on recons, 160 Or. App. 579, 987 P.2d 524, rev den, 329 Or 527 (1999).
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
State v. De Verteuil
"Hall 'subsequently limited the reasoning in Barber . . . to personal effects, such as household furniture' and Barber’s reasoning is 'limited to situations where fair market value is not equivalent to just compensation for the loss incurred.'" Hayes Oyster Co., 170 Or App at 227-28.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Gatto
The standard to discern whether all privacy interests subject to Article I, section 9, have been given up is “whether the defendant’s statements and conduct demonstrated that he [or she] relinquished all constitutionally protected interests in the articles of property.” State v. Cook, 332 Or. 601, 608, 34 P.3d 156 (2001).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Rodrigues and Gerhards
When a judgment is unambiguous, the judgment is given force by its “clear terms.” Anderson and Anderson, 65 Or. App. 16, 19, 670 P.2d 170 (1983); see Tough and Tough, 259 Or. App. 259, 270, 313 P.3d 326 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. Goacher
ORS 163A.140 does not violate Article I, section 20 of the Oregon Constitution because, when certain sex offenders are required to register as opposed to similarly situated sex offenders, there is no separate group benefiting from such unequal treatment.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law