United States Supreme Court (11 summaries)
Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts v. Goldsmith
If an original work and a secondary use share the same or highly similar purposes, and the secondary use is of a commercial nature, the first factor is likely to weigh against fair use, absent some other justification for copying.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
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
Mission Products Holdings, INC., v. Tempnology, LLC, NKA Old Cold LLC
A debtor's rejection of an executory contract in bankruptcy has the same effect as a breach outside bankruptcy under 11 U.S.C. § 365.
Area(s) of Law:- Bankruptcy Law
Donnika Ivy, et. al. v. Morath
Whether the relationship between a public entity and a private vendor can trigger obligations to accommodate persons with disabilities when no prior express contractual relationship exists between the public entity and private vendor?
Area(s) of Law:- Disability Law
McDonnell v. United States
The government’s interpretation of the term “official act” in the federal bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. 201(a)(3), was overly broad and would lead to the criminalization of a variety of legitimate acts that public officials perform daily in their duty as representatives of the will of the voters.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
When granting attorney fees in a copyright infringement case, a district court may examine the objective reasonableness of the losing party’s claim because doing so is in keeping with the legislative purpose of §505 of the U.S. Copyright Act.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Dietz v. Bouldin
Federal courts have an inherent limited power to call a jury back into the courtroom for continued deliberation after the jury has been dismissed but before the court has issued a final judgment in a civil case, however a district court should use discretion when exercising this power to ensure that the jury has not been prejudiced during the time they were dismissed.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co.
"Approved jurisdictional determinations,” issued by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, are final agency actions that are judicially reviewable under the APA.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
United States v. Shaw
Whether “scheme to defraud a financial institution” in subsection (1) of the bank-fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. §1344, requires proof of a specific intent not only to deceive, but also to cheat a bank?
Area(s) of Law:- Corporations
BANK MARKAZI v. PETERSON
22 U.S.C. §8772, a provision of the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012, does not violate constraints placed on the Executive and Legislative Branches by the separation of powers principles in the Constitution.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional 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 (8 summaries)
303 Creative LLC v. Elenis
It is a violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution for a state to compel speech with which the speaker does not agree.
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College
Under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, schools are prohibited from using race-based affirmative action in admissions decisions.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Allen v. Milligan
The Gingles framework itself imposes meaningful constraints on proportionality. Forcing proportional representation is unlawful and inconsistent with this Court’s approach to implementing §2.
Area(s) of Law:- Election Law
Halkbank v. United States
Whether U.S. district courts may exercise subject matter jurisdiction over criminal prosecutions against foreign sovereigns and their instrumentalities under 18 U.S.C. § 3231 and in light of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1330, 1441(d), 1602-1611.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Barton v. Barr, Att'y. Gen.
Whether a lawfully admitted permanent resident who is not seeking admission to the United States can be “render[ed] . . . inadmissible” for the purposes of the stop-time rule, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
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.
United States v. Wurie
Whether the Fourth Amendment permits the warrantless search of an arrestee's cell phone.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
9th Circuit Court of Appeals (51 summaries)
United States v. Boam
(1) The “plain meaning” of the term “use” in the context of sec. 2251(a) means “to put into action or service,” “to avail oneself of,” or to “employ.” United States v. Laursen, 847 F.3d 1026, 1033 (9th Cir. 2017). (2) Three of the Dost factors were used to determine whether the videos were sexually explicit conduct: "whether the focal point of the visual depiction is on the child’s genitalia or pubic area; whether the child is fully or partially clothed, or nude; and whether the visual depiction is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer." United States v. Dost, 636 F. Supp. 828, 832 (S.D. Cal. 1986).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Petrick
Absent exceptional circumstances, failure to raise arguments before an agency, such as in comments during a public-comment process, usually waives a litigant’s rights to make those arguments in court. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. EPA, 217 F.3d 1246, 1249 (9th Cir. 2000). Under HFRA, the wildland-urban interface is “an area within or adjacent to an at-risk community that is identified . . . in a community wildfire protection plan.” 16 U.S.C. § 6511(16)(A).
Area(s) of Law:- Environmental Law
Federal Trade Commission v. Hewitt
Rule 60(b)(4) applies “only in the instance where a judgment is premised either [1] on a certain type of jurisdictional error or [2] on a violation of due process that deprives a party of notice of the opportunity to be heard.” United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260, 271 (2010). “[I]t is hardly extraordinary” if a decision rests on a “then-prevailing interpretation” of the law and the Supreme Court later “arrive[s] at a different interpretation”—and such a change “is all the less extraordinary” where a party has displayed a “lack of diligence” in the original proceedings. Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 536-37 (2005).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Skagit Indian Tribe v. Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe
A court must interpret Final Decision I “so as to give effect to the intention of the issuing court.” Muckleshoot Tribe v. Lummi Indian Tribe, 141 F.3d 1355, 1359 (9th Cir. 1998) (citing Narramore v. United States, 852 F.2d 485, 490 (9th Cir. 1988)).
Area(s) of Law:- Tribal Law
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
Galanti v. Nevada Dep't of Corrections
Heck does not preclude an ex-prisoner’s § 1983 claim challenging denial of good-time credits because he could no longer bring that claim in a habeas petition Nonnette v. Small, 316 F.3d 872, 875-76 (9th Cir. 2002).
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
Cal. Rest. Ass’n v. City of Berkeley
“EPCA’s preemption clause establishes that, once a federal energy conservation standard becomes effective for a covered product, ‘no State regulation concerning the energy efficiency, energy use, or water use of such covered product shall be effective with respect to such product[.]’ 42 U.S.C. § 6297(c).”
Area(s) of Law:- Preemption
York County v. HP, Inc
“[A] defendant establishes that a complaint is time-barred under §1658(b)(1) if it conclusively shows that either (1) the plaintiff could have pleaded an adequate complaint based on facts discovered prior to the critical date and failed to do so, or (2) the complaint does not include any facts necessary to plead an adequate complaint that were discovered following the critical date.”
Area(s) of Law:- Business Law
Silk v. Bond
The probate exception is limited to cases in which the federal courts would be called on to “(1) probate or annul a will, (2) administer a decedent’s estate, or (3) assume in rem jurisdiction over property that is in the custody of the probate court.” Goncalves v. Rady Children’s Hosp. San Diego, 865 F.3d 1237, 1252 (9th Cir. 2017) (internal citations omitted).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Khalulyan v. Garland
An alien who is convicted of an offense that “involves fraud or deceit in which the loss to the victim or victims exceeds $10,000” may be removed from the United States. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(43)(M)(i), 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
City of Los Angeles v. FAA
“NEPA requires that a federal agency consider every significant aspect of the environmental impact of a proposed action … [and] inform the public that it has indeed considered environmental concerns in its decision-making process.” Earth Island Inst. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 351 F.3d 1291, 1300 (9th Cir. 2003).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
State of Alaska Dep't of Fish and Game v. Federal Subsistence Board
There is an exception to the mootness doctrine and that exception is met when (1) the duration of the challenged action is too short to allow full litigation before it ceases or expires, and (2) there is a reasonable expectation that the plaintiffs will be subjected to the challenged action again. Karuk Tribe of Cal. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 681 F.3d 1006, 1018 (9th Cir. 2012).
Area(s) of Law:- Wildlife Law
Buero v. Amazon.com Services, Inc.
According to the Oregon Supreme Court, “Oregon law aligns with federal law regarding what activities are compensable. Therefore, under Oregon law, as under federal law, time that employees spend on the employer’s premises waiting for and undergoing mandatory security screenings before or after their work shifts is compensable only if the screenings are either (1) an integral and indispensable part of the employees’ principal activities or (2) compensable as a matter of contract, custom, or practice.”
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Wide Voice, LLC v. FCC
“Under § 706, [the court] must determine whether the agency’s decision was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
No On E v. David Chiu
“The district court applied exacting scrutiny, which requires a ‘substantial relation’ between the disclosure requirement and a ‘sufficiently important’ governmental interest.” Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310, 366–67 (2010).
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
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
US v. Farias-Contreras
“[W]hen a plea rests in any significant degree on a promise or agreement of the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the inducement or consideration, such promise must be fulfilled.” Santobello v. New York , 404 U.S. 257, 262 (1971).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Oberstein v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.
An enforceable agreement may be found where “(1) the website provides reasonably conspicuous notice of the terms to which the consumer will be bound; and (2) the consumer takes some action, such as clicking a button or checking a box, that unambiguously manifests his or her assent to those terms” Berman v. Freedom Fin. Network, LCC, 30 F.4th 849, 855 (9th Cir. 2022)
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
San Diego County Credit Union v. Citizens Equity First Credit Union
A plaintiff has standing to seek declaratory relief of non-infringement if he demonstrates a real and reasonable apprehension that he will be subject to liability if he continues with his course of conduct. Societe de Conditionnement en Aluminium v. Hunter Eng’g Co., 655 F.2d 938, 944-54 (9th Cir. 1981); Chesebrough-Pond’s Inc. v. Faberege Inc., 666 F.2d 396 (9th Cir. 1982).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Clarkson v. Alaska Airlines, Inc.
“USERRA § 4316(b)(1) requires employers to provide employees who take military leave with the same non-seniority rights and benefits as their colleagues who take comparable non-military leaves.”
Area(s) of Law:- Labor Law
Antonio v. Garland
To satisfy the nexus requirement the defendant must show that he/she was persecuted “on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A); Fon v. Garland, 34 F.4th 810, 813 (9th Cir. 2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Wit v. United Behavioral Health
The Rules Enabling Act forbids interpreting Rules 23 to ‘abridge enlarge or modify and substantive right.
Area(s) of Law:- ERISA
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
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Haaland
“An agency action is ‘final’ only if it both (1) ‘mark[s] the consummation of the agency’s decision-making process—it must not be of a merely tentative or interlocutory nature,’ and (2) is ‘one by which rights or obligations have been determined, or from which legal consequences will flow.’ Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 177–78 (1997).”
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative 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
Shulman v. Kaplan
RICO’s standing provision states that “any person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation” may bring a RICO claim in federal court to recover damages. 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c). The Controlled Substances Act provides that all "substances which have been manufactured, distributed, dispensed, or acquired in violation of [the CSA]" "shall be subject to forfeiture to the United States and no property right shall exist in them." 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Standing
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
U.S. v. Roach
Under 42 U.S.C. § 6928(d)(2)(A), a person who “knowingly stores any hazardous waste without a permit” is criminally liable for that offense. Furthermore, under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, “storage” means the containment of hazardous waste not disposed of.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Arce v. Douglas
The Arlington Heights factors should be used by courts to determine whether a defendant has acted with a discriminatory purpose.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
Meridian Joint Sch. Dist. No. 2 v. D.A.
In a suit to determine the eligibility for a student to receive special needs, 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B)(i) and the discretion of the district court, allows for the prevailing parent to be awarded attorneys’ fees.
Area(s) of Law:- Disability Law
Vietnam Veterans of America v. CIA
Plain meaning of the Army Regulation 70-25 did not relieve the United States military of its duties to warn former test subjects of relevant information relating to their health as new information became available and provide medical care to those subjects.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
Bear Valley Mut. Water , Co. v. Jewell
There is no independent cause of action under section 2(c)(2) of the Endangered Species Act, which requires the cooperation of state and local agencies to resolve water issues with the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Area(s) of Law:- Environmental Law
Kaady v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co.
Under a known-loss provision of a contract, property damage would only be covered if the insured did not know the property damages occurred in whole or in part.
Area(s) of Law:- Insurance Law
Cottonwood Envtl. Law Ctr. v. USFS
Under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 Section 7(a)(2), consulting Federal Agencies are required to consult and explain to acting agencies, if it appears actions may affect endangered or threatened species, how the action affects the species or its critical habitat.
Area(s) of Law:- Environmental Law
Toor v. Lynch
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act affords noncitizens a statutory guarantee to file one motion reconsidering a decision that an alien was removable, making the departure bars invalid.
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Turner v. City & Cty. of San Francisco
Government employees are not afforded First Amendment protection when they voice grievances about employee-employer internal affairs, because those matters are not of or relating to public concern.
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
Acre Fuentes v. Lynch
A monetary threshold set forth in a statute is not a material element of conspiring to commit money laundering, and thus a tribunal who relies on the offender’s pre-sentence report to determine whether the threshold was met does so properly.
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
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. Torres Pimental
When the delay in presenting a defendant to a magistrate judge is unreasonable and unnecessary, statements made prior to appearing before the judge must be suppressed.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
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
In re: Welsh
The 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act specifically prohibits the inclusion or evaluation of a debtor’s social security benefits when reviewing the debtor’s proposed Chapter 13 plan according to §1325(a)’s requirement for good faith, and bad faith is not present merely because the debtor’s properly calculated disposal income is seriously reduced by payments to secured creditors, leaving relatively little chance that unsecured creditors would be substantially repaid.
Area(s) of Law:- Bankruptcy Law
Poyson v. Ryan
Habeas corpus relief will not be granted when, during sentencing, the court utilizes a causal nexus test to mitigating factors in order to determine the weight of the evidence and the record does not show whether the court considered the absence of a causal nexus as a “permissible weighing mechanism” or as an “unconstitutional screening mechanism.”
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Libertarian Party v. Bowen
In order to enjoin state election laws and meet constitutional standing in a pre-enforcement action, the plaintiffs must allege both a concrete plan to violate that statute and defendant's specific threat of enforcement.
Area(s) of Law:- Standing
In re: Garcia
Even a luxury motor vehicle may be exempted under California’s wildcard exemption, and 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1)(B) allows the avoidance of a lien on an exempt vehicle that is a “tool of the debtor’s trade” as long as the lien is a non-possessory and non-purchase-money encumbrance.
Area(s) of Law:- Bankruptcy Law
Ammons v. State of Washington Department of Social and Health Services
In a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit involving the “Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process right to safe conditions while involuntarily committed” to a state-run hospital, a state actor is not entitled to qualified immunity when he or she “demonstrate a substantial departure from reasonable professional judgment.”
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
In re: Palmdale Hills Property
In chapter 11 bankruptcies, equitable subordination violates an automatic stay when it “has the effect of taking a valid, enforceable claim and its accompanying lien from the debtor’s estate.”
Area(s) of Law:- Bankruptcy Law
Pickard v. Department of Justice
Under FOIA, the government cannot refuse to admit or deny the existence of records pertaining to a confidential informant when the government officially confirmed the informant’s identity and status in an open court proceeding.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Oregon Supreme Court (17 summaries)
IBEW Local 89 v. Wallan
ORS 183.480(1) allows “any person adversely affected or aggrieved by an order” to seek judicial review if they can show one or more of the following: (1) the petitioner has “suffered an injury to a substantial interest resulting directly from the challenged governmental action”; (2) the petitioner “seeks to further an interest that the legislature expressly wished to have considered”; or (3) the petitioner has “such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure concrete adverseness to the proceeding.” People for Ethical Treatment v. Inst. Animal Care, 312 Or 95, 101-02 (1991).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Rinne v. Psychiatric Security Review Board
“Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.” ORS 183.482(8)(c). Substantial reason exists where the agency has articulated a rational connection between the facts and the legal conclusion that the agency draws from them. Dorn v. Teacher Standards and Practices Comm., 316 Or App 241, 243 (2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
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
Moro v. Oregon
Self-appointed attorneys may collect attorney fees under the common-fund and substantial-benefit doctrine.
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
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
State v. Jensen
Sexual offenses may not be expunged if another violation has occurred within 10 years, even if arising from the same event. ORS 137.225(8)(b); ORS 137.225(6).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Rivera-Waddle
Conditions of a defendant's probation must be explicitly imposed by the sentencing court.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Wingett v. Silbernagel
Under ORS 31.605(4), a trial court may not hold two individuals jointly liable when a jury has found them severally liable. Under ORS 471.565(2), there is no right of action against a social host who serves alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
Goodwin v. Kingsmen
Claims for negligence and negligence per se arising from physical damage to real property are subject to the two year statute of limitations under ORS 12.110(1), and not the six year statute of limitations for damage to legal interests in real property under ORS 12.080(3).
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
State v J. C. N.-V.
Under ORS 419C.352 and 419C.349, a youth under 15 who allegedly committed murder may be waived into adult court only if, at the time of the conduct, he or she “was of sufficient sophistication and maturity to appreciate the nature and quality of the conduct involved.”
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Turner v. Dept. of Transportation
Where a discretionary immunity defense is given by a government agency, alternatives to the agency's actions are a matter of material fact.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Turnidge
Under OEC 404(3), evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that the person acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Espinoza v. Evergreen Helicopters, Inc.
Motions to dismiss an action for forum non conveniens must satisfy a two-step process: (1) there must be an adequate alternative forum, and (2) the private and public interests must weigh heavily in favor of the alternative forum to meet "the ends of justice."
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
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
State ex rel Portland Habilitation Center, Inc. v. Portland State University
Under ORS 34.110 a relator is not entitled to mandamus relief if a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law is available.
Area(s) of Law:- Remedies
State v. Lewis
Criminal negligence does not require that a defendant’s conduct be seriously blameworthy, rather, it requires that a defendant fail to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk which constitutes a gross deviation from a reasonable standard of care under the circumstances.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Oregon Court of Appeals (93 summaries)
Summit RWP Inc., v. Hallin
In ORS 652.150(1)(a), the word “shall” indicates a lack of discretion to order a lesser award amount.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
Central Oregon Landwatch v. Jefferson County
he criteria under OAR 660-004-0020(4) do not apply where a proposal does not seek to have land added to a designated unincorporated rural community.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
State ex rel Elitextrx v. Siegel
A Land Use Compatibility Statement (LUCS) “must demonstrate that the requested license is for a land use that is allowable as a permitted or conditional use within the given zoning designation where the land is located. ORS 475C.053(1).Whether a land use is “outright permitted” or “conditional” as those terms are used in the statute, depends on whether the proposed use requires discretionary local permit approval “within the given zoning designation where the land is located. ORS 475C.065.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
State v. Thompson
(1) ORS 161.485(2) provides “[a] person shall not be convicted of more than one [attempt] offense . . . for conduct designed to commit or to culminate in the commission of the same crime.” The application of ORS 161.485 is “akin to merger,” because a defendant can be guilty of “multiple inchoate crimes pertaining to a single substantive offense but cannot have more than one such conviction entered.” State v. Kimbrough, 364 Or 66, 73, 431 P3d 76 (2018). (2) ORS 161.067(1), provides that guilty verdicts may not merge if “the same conduct or criminal episode violates two or more statutory provisions and each provision requires proof of an element that the others do not.” The difference between first-degree robbery and second-degree robbery is that first-degree robbery requires more than second-degree robbery, preventing a downward merger into second-degree robbery. See State v. Burris, 270 Or App 512, (2015). (3) An error is plain when, among other thing, it is “obvious and not reasonable in dispute, and apparent on the record without requiring the court to choose among competing inferences. State v. Vanornum, 354 Or 614, 629, 317 P3d 889 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Newmann v. Highberger
“First, under the state constitution, a petitioner must show that trial counsel ‘failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment,’ and under the federal constitution, that ‘counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.’” Smith v. Kelly, 318 Or App 567, 568-69 (2022). “Second, under both constitutions, a petitioner must show that counsel’s inadequate performance caused prejudice. Id. at 568.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Tylka v. Clackamas County
A LUBA order is unlawful in substance if it represents a mistaken interpretation of applicable law. 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Clackamas County, 320 Or App 444, 452-53, (2022). “Where LUBA properly articulates its substantial-evidence standard of review. . .we will not reverse its determination unless there is no evidence to support the finding or if the evidence in the case is ‘so at odds with LUBA’s evaluation that a reviewing court could infer that LUBA has misunderstood or misapplied its scope of review.’” Stevens, 260 Or App at 772 (citing Younger v. City of Portland, 305 Or 346, 359 (1988).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Dept. of Human Services v. G. O.
“[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.” Dept. of Human Services v. C.Z., 236 Or App 436, 440 (2010). “The risk of physical violence to a child under one year of age is a threat of serious harm that supports juvenile court jurisdiction.” 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
“In the absence of evidence of ‘uncontroverted circumstances’ constraining actual income, reliance on evidence of the obligor’s work history, experience and skills, and past income is not necessarily speculative and can support a determination of earning capacity.” 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 “[a] person commits the offense of illegal alteration or illegal display of a registration plate if the person knowingly … [o]perates any vehicle that is displaying a registration plate the is illegally altered … or illegally displayed[.]” ORS 803.550(2)(a) states in part that “[a] registration plate is illegally altered … if the plate has been altered, modified, covered or obscured in any manner including but not limited to … [a]ny change of the color, configuration, numbers, letters, or material of the plate.”
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Morgan
“[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.” State v. Harberts, 315 Or 408, 413 (1993). “[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.” Id. at 414.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
In re Trout and Eitzen
“When determining whether a substantial change of circumstances exists to warrant modification or termination of spousal support, the trial court must ‘consider income opportunities and benefits of the respective parties from all sources[.]’” ORS 107.135(4)(a). To make that determination, “the trial court must consider whether the new spouse’s income is actually available to the remarried party.” Davis v. Lallement, 287 Or App 323, 329 (2017)
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Mantle v. SAIF Corp.
ORS 656.327(1)(a) provides, in relevant part: “If an injured worker, an insurer or self-insured employer the Director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services believes that the medical treatment … 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.” ORS 656.327(2) provides, in relevant part: “The worker is not obligated to pay for medical treatment determined not to be compensable under this section.”
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
Dorn-Privett v. Brown
“Under ORS 161.067(1), referred to as the “anti-merger” statute, “[w]hen the same conduct or criminal episode violates two or more statutory provisions and each provision requires proof of an element that the others do not, there are as many separately punishable offenses as there are separate statutory violations.”
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Indoor Billbd. / Northwest, Inc. v. TheLaundryList.com
An Oregon trial court may exercise personal jurisdiction “over a properly served defendant ‘[i]n any action claiming injury to person or property within this state arising out of an act or omission outside this state by the defendant,’ so long as, at the time the alleged injury occurred, the defendant either carried on ‘[s]olicitation or service activities … within this state,’ ORCP 4 D(1), or ‘[p]roducts, materials, or things distributed, processed, serviced, or manufactured by the defendant were used or consumed within this state in the ordinary course of trade,’ ORCP 4 D(2).”
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
N.W. Natural Gas Co. v. Environ. Quality Comm.
ORS 468A.327(1) provides: Prior to the adoption, amendment or repeal of any rule pursuant to ORS chapter 183 that applies to any facility required to pay fees under ORS 468A.315, the Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) shall include with the notice of intended action required under ORS 183.355(1) a statement of whether the intended action imposes requirements in addition to the applicable federal requirements and, if so, shall include a written explanation of: (a) the commission’s scientific, economic, technological, administrative or other reasons for exceeding applicable federal requirements; and (b) any alternatives the commission considered and the reasons that the alternatives were not pursued.
Area(s) of Law:- Environmental Law
Free Oregon, Inc. v. Oregon Health Authority
“[I]n reviewing a rule challenge under [ORS 183.400], we may declare the rule invalid only if we conclude that it violates constitutional provisions, exceeds the statutory authority of the agency that adopted the rule, or was adopted without complying with rulemaking procedures.” BP West Coast Products, LLP v. Dept. of Justice, 284 Or App 723 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Dept. of Human Services v. J. C. L.
"A party to a juvenile court proceeding under ORS 419B.875(1) . . . whose rights or duties are adversely affected by a judgment of the juvenile court [to] appeal therefrom." ORS 419A.200(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
Dept. of Human Services v. L. T. G.
When reviewing an inadequate assistance claim, the Court looks at the totality of the circumstance to determine whether the claimant “was denied a fair trial” because of the alleged inadequacies or failures, including tactical decisions that counsel “could have made” or “should have made better.” State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Geist, 310 Or 176, 191 (1990).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
In Re Noor & Chowdhury
The sanctions of striking pleadings and dismissal in ORCP 46 B(2)(c) are “appropriate only when it is ‘just’ and only when there is willfulness, bad faith, or other fault of like magnitude by the disobedient party.” Pamplin v. Victoria, 319 Or 429, 436-37 (1994).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
J.S. v. Hudgins
“When [an SPO] petition is based solely on expressive communication—like verbal statements or text messages—at least two of those communications ‘must rise to the level of a threat to be considered … qualifying unwanted contact[s].” A. M. M. v. Hoefer, 269 Or App 218, 223 (2015). “Qualifying threats are communications that ‘instill[ ] in the addressee a fear of imminent and serious personal violence from the speaker, [are] unequivocal, and [are] objectively likely to be followed by unlawful acts.” State v. Rangel, 328 Or 294, 303 (1999).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Stalking Protective Order
Gilbride v. Smith
The “primary consideration in a child custody proceeding is the best interests of the child.” DHS v. T.G.H., 305 Or App 783, 791 (2020). Thus, “consistent with the statutory framework governing child custody, the court’s primary consideration in exercising discretion under ORS 107.425(2) must be how the relevant factors implicate the child’s best interests.”
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
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
M.C. v. Quest Global, Inc.
For Oregon to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a defendant, there must be “minimum contacts’’ between the defendant and Oregon. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 US 286, 291-92, 100 S Ct 559, 62 L ED 2d 490 (1980).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. H.D.
A court may order a conditional release of a person with mental illness only if the release is requested by the legal guardian, relative or friend of the person who requested to be allowed to care for the person “during the period of commitment in a place satisfactory to the judge,” and who has the ability and adequate financial resources to care for the person. ORS 426.125(1)(a)-(c).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
Woods v. Hendricks
“Except as provided in ORS 137.635, 137.700, 137.707, 163.105, 163.107 and 163.115, each adult in custody sentenced to the custody of the Department of Corrections for felonies is eligible for a reduction in the term of incarceration for: (a) appropriate institutional behavior, as defined by rule of the Department of Corrections; and (b) participation in the adult basic skills development program described in ORS 421.084.” ORS 421.121.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Peeler v. Reyes
Under federal law, “absent misrepresentation or other impermissible conduct by state agents … a voluntary plea of guilty intelligently made in the light of then applicable law does not become vulnerable because later judicial decisions indicate that the plea rested on a faulty premise.” Brady v. United States, 397 US 742, 756-57 (1970).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. Forbes
Special conditions of probation must be “reasonably related to the crime of conviction or the needs of the probationer for the protection of the public or reformation of the probationer[.]” ORS 137.540(2). “We will not hold that a probation condition is invalid simply because we can posit an alternative ‘more narrowly tailored’ condition.” State v. Maack, 270 Or App 400, 411 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Miller
“Vouching refers to the expression of one’s personal opinion about the credibility of a witness.” State v. Chandler, 360 Or 323, 330-31 (2016) (internal quotations omitted). “Credibility determinations are the exclusive province of the jury, so witnesses are categorically prohibited from expressing a view on whether another witness is telling the truth.” State v. Middleton, 294 Or 427, 438 (1983) (internal quotations omitted).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Rose
An out-of-jurisdiction offense is a “statutory counterpart” of Oregon DUII only if the elements of the defendant’s prior convictions are the close equivalent, or “match,” the elements of the Oregon offense. State v. Nelson, 318 Or App 230, 231 (2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Cantrell
“Where a search warrant authorizes the search of multiple electronic devices, the supporting affidavit must supply probable cause ‘for each device that a warrant authorizes to be searched.’” State v. Cannon, 299 Or App 616, 629 (2019). “Article I, section 9 [of the Oregon Constitution], requires that probable cause exist for each device authorized to be searched in a warrant.” Id. at 632.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Esquire Investments, Inc. v. Summers
“Preservation rules are pragmatic as well as prudential. What is required of a party to adequately present a contention to the trial court can vary depending on the nature of the claim or argument; the touchstone in that regard, ultimately, is procedural fairness to the parties and to the trial court.” Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209, 220 (2008).
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
Wolfston v. Eastside Bend, LLC.
ORS 36.705(1)(a) states: “the court shall vacate an award made in the arbitration proceeding if … [t]he award was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means.”
Area(s) of Law:- Arbitration
Person v. Board of Parole
“[T]o grant parole consideration under ORS 144.228 (1987), the board must find that the person’s severe personality disorder indicating a propensity toward continuing dangerous criminal activity is absent or in remission.”
Area(s) of Law:- Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
Duckworth v. Duckworth
“Oregon circuit courts have subject matter jurisdiction to decide title disputes.” While circuit courts “are free to resolve title disputes in FED actions,” they “are not necessarily required to.” See Bunch v. Lowry, 313 Or App 398, 399 n 1 (2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
State v. Wesley
“After [State v. Hubbell, 314 Or App 844, 870-871, (2021)], where a person has taken a substantial step toward delivery of a controlled substance, but has not yet attempted the transfer itself, the person will have committed the inchoate crime of attempted delivery of a controlled substance, rather than delivery.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Gramada v. SAIF Corp.
“A finding of impairment requires (1) that there is a loss of use or function of the body part or system, and (2) that the loss is due to the compensable injury.” Robinette v. SAIF, 369 Or 767, 781-82 (2022) (citing ORS 656.214). “Each loss of use or function is to be considered separately, and a loss is ‘due to the compensable injury’ when the accepted condition is found to be a material cause of the loss.” Johnson v. SAIF, 369 Or 707, 603 (2022); Robinette, 369 Or at 784.
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
State v. Brown
Under State v. Garrett, 300 Or App 671 (2019), to determine if offenses are of the same or similar character, the Court will consider “factors such as the temporal proximity of the acts, similarities in the elements of the offenses, whether there will be similar evidence or evidentiary overlap, and whether the charges involve the same or similar victims, locations, intent, modus operandi, or acts.” Under State v. Dewhitt, 276 Or App 373 (2016), “offenses are ‘connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan’ when they are ‘logically related, and there is a large area of overlapping proof between them.’”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Vannoy
“Under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, ‘a seizure occurs when (1) a police officer intentionally and significantly interferes with an individual’s liberty or freedom of movement; or (2) a reasonable person, under the totality of the circumstances, would believe that his or her liberty or freedom of movement has been significantly restricted.” State v. Arreola-Botello, 365 Or 695, 701 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Hathaway v. B & J Property Investments, Inc.
“ORS 12.125 states that ‘[a]n action arising under a rental agreement or [ORTLA] shall be commenced within one year.’” ORS 12.010 states that statute of limitations for actions brought under ORS chapter 12 are tolled “after the cause of action shall have accrued.” Under Rice v. Rabb, 354 Or 721 (2014), “[a] claim ‘accrue[s]’ under ORS 12.010 when the “plaintiff obtained knowledge, or reasonably should have obtained knowledge’ of the claim.”
Area(s) of Law:- Landlord Tenant
ADL v. Lane
“To properly exercise discretion, a court must inquire into the nature of and reasons for a party’s continuance request and evaluate its merits." State v. Keerins, 145 Or App 491, 494, 932 P2d 65 (1996).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
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
Cantu v. Progressive Classic Ins. Co.
“Insurance policy provisions in the written contract that are less favorable in any respect to the insured or the beneficiary are unenforceable. A policy may exclude or soften an authorized term that disfavors insureds or add a term that is neutral or favors insureds without violating the statute.” ORS 742.504
Area(s) of Law:- Insurance Law
Davis & Galm, LLC v. Neve
“[U]nder Oregon law, ‘the plaintiff’s concrete stake in the outcome must continue throughout the pendency of the case.’ [Couey v. Atkins, 357 Or 460, 469 (2006)]. If plaintiffs’ concrete stake in the outcome evaporates after initiation of the action, the case becomes moot and must be dismissed for want of justiciability. Id.”
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Perez
A trial court has discretion to order physical restraint of a defendant if there is sufficient evidence of a substantial risk of dangerous or disruptive behavior including the risk of assaultive conduct toward other persons and the risk of an attempted escape from custody. State v. Washington, 355 Or 612, 628, 330 P.3d 596 (2014).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
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
State v. Meighan
In order for sexual assault diagnosis to be admissible, it must tell the jury something that it could not determine as well on its own by showing that the physical evidence meaningfully corroborates the diagnosis, the expert “significantly relied on the physical evidence in making the diagnosis, and the diagnosis involves a complex factual determination that a lay person cannot make as well as an expert. State v. Beauvais, 357 Or 524, 354 P.3d 680 (2015).
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. Jones
When considering whether a defendant abandoned a protected interest in property prior to a police search, affirmatively claiming an interest in certain items is insufficient by itself to support an inference, by negative implication, that the defendant abandoned his or her interests in other items.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Dept. of Human Services v. L. E.
A party asserting that an appeal is not moot must show a probable adverse consequence from the underlying judgment—a “mere possibility” of adverse consequences is not sufficient.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State of Oregon v. Mansor
Under Article I, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution, to satisfy the particularity requirement the warrant must first describe the place to be searched and the items to be seized and examined that officers can ascertain with reasonable certainty that place and those items. Second, the warrant must, to the extent reasonably possible, be drawn in such a way as to preclude seizures and searches not supported by probable cause.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Newsted
When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of an affidavit supporting a magistrate’s issuance of a search warrant, the court asks whether “a neutral and detached magistrate could conclude (1) that there is a reason to believe that the facts stated are true; and (2) that the facts and circumstances disclosed by the affidavit are sufficient to establish probable cause to justify the search requested.” State v. Castilleja, 345 Or 264, 192 P3d 1283 (2008).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Delta Logistics, Inc. v. Employment Dept. Tax Section
Under O.R.S. 657.047(1)(b), “lease" requires transfer of legal possession and use of the vehicle to the for-hire carrier, but retention of physical possession, control, and use to the lessor for the purpose of operation and maintenance of the vehicle.
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Kachan v. Country Preferred Insurance
Whether an insurer reasonably required an Examination Under Oath in order to disperse benefits to a policy-holder is a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to contest a motion for summary judgment.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Mellerio v. Nooth
To show inadequate assistance of counsel a petitioner “must demonstrate two things: that his trial counsel failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment, and that he suffered prejudice as a result.”
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. Vage
Under the plain error, an error is “plain” only if: (1) the error is one of law, (2) the legal error is obvious and not reasonably in dispute, and (3) the error appears on the face of the record such that the court need not go outside the record to identify the error or choose between competing inferences, and the facts constituent the error are irrefutable.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
G. M. P. v. Patton
To obtain a restraining order under ORS 107.718(1), a petitioner must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) the respondent abused the petitioner within 180 days preceding the filing of the petition; (2) there is an imminent danger of further abuse to petitioner; and (3) the respondent represents a credible threat to the physical safety of petitioner.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. Lammi
Under ORS 419B.040(1), in the case of abuse of a child, the privileges created in ORS 40.230 to 40.255, including the psychotherapist-patient privilege, shall not be a ground for excluding evidence regarding a child’s abuse, or the cause thereof, in any judicial proceeding resulting from a report made pursuant to ORS 419B.010 to 419B.050.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Wittemyer v. City of Portland
A "poll or head tax" has two simultaneous criteria: (1) the tax must be assessed per capita, and (2) it must be a uniform, fixed amount. Both are required, and neither alone is sufficient.
Area(s) of Law:- Tax Law
Hanson v. DMV
Officers certified by the Department of Public Safety Standards and Training to request urine samples are considered certified for the purposes of ORS 813.131.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
State v. Savage
A defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on accomplice witness testimony if evidence suggests the witness testifying may have been an accomplice to the accused crime.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v Akerman
Under ORS 137.106(1), the state must provide sufficient evidence of: (1) criminal activities, (2) damages, and (3) a causal relationship between the two.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Dept. of Human Services v. J.D.H.
The Indian Child Welfare Act does not effect judicial standards retroactively once the child taken into custody is discovered to be of Indian tribal descent.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. Easton
Under ORS 153.633(1), if a court imposes a fine in a criminal case, the first $60 (or the entire fine, if it is less than $60) is payable to the state, the statute does not authorize a court to impose an additional $60 "mandatory state amount" fine.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Engle
A suggestive identification can be combated with cross-examination and a trial court is not required to exclude the identification.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Machado
Under ORS 153.633(1), the first $60 of any fine imposed on a criminal defendant is to go to the state, the statute does not authorize a court to impose an additional $60 "mandatory state amount" fine.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Morrison v. Board of Parole
Under ORS 144.228(1)(b)(A) (2009), when a board is unable to make the predicate findings to set a release date, it is authorized to set the next parole consideration hearing “no less than two years, and no more than 10 years, from the date of the previous review.”
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas v. Walmsley
Under ORS 73.0301, a person is entitled to enforce a judicial foreclosure on a negotiable instrument by proving only that they possess the instrument.
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
Richardson v. Belleque
Post-conviction relief is proper when defense counsel failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment in failing to rebut expert testimony at a dangerous-offender sentencing hearing.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. Devall
I, the Court held that under ORS 166.025(1)(a) “violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior” cannot be shown by verbal threats alone.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
VFS Financing, Inc. v. Shilo Management Corporation
An expert cannot constitute a genuine dispute of material fact where their testimony would be immaterial.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Medi-Tech International Corp. v. Kwiecinski
Under ORS 656.126(1), workers injured out of state are covered “if Oregon is the place of their permanent employment and if their presence out of state is incidental to that employment.” Employees of Oregon employers who are injured while working permanently outside of Oregon are not covered.
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
State v. Kaino-Smith
Statements made against a proprietary interest are not admissible over a hearsay objection if the interests the speaker would have been motivated to protect are "speculative and remote."
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Oller
If a traffic stop has ended, a police officer may only detain a suspect for further investigation if the detention is supported by reasonable suspicion.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Guill v. M. Squared Transportation, Inc.
Under ORS 656.005(7), “truly unexplained” injuries are considered arising out of employment as a matter of law.
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
State v. Deslaurier
ORS 137.106 does not violate the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution because a restitution award is not a sentence beyond the statutory maximum and therefore a jury determination of the underlying facts is not necessary.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
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
Rains v. Stayton Builders Mart, Inc.
Settlement agreements that make reference to insurance are properly excluded under OEC 411, and do not automatically, as a matter of law, destroy diversity between parties. ORS 31.710(1) is properly applied to cap plaintiffs’ noneconomic damages claim but not plaintiffs’ loss of consortium claim.
Area(s) of Law:- Insurance Law
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
State v. Tovar
Statements made by a defendant after being unlawfully seized must be suppressed.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Brownstone Homes Condominium Ass'n v. Brownstone Forest Heights, LCC
If a plaintiff engages in a settlement agreement with a defendant that includes a nonexecution covenant releasing the defendant, any assignment of rights by the defendant for claims against defendant's insurer will be subject to the Stubblefield Rule.
Area(s) of Law:- Insurance Law
State v. Pirtle
To fall within the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, the automobile must be mobile at the time the police discover that it was connected with a crime.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Intellectual Property (7 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
Golden Bridge Tech. v. Apple, Inc.
To demonstrate direct infringement, a plaintiff must show that the accused device practices each claim of the patented method. A showing of indirect infringement is dependent on a showing that the accused device directly infringes the patent.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
- , Infringement
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