United States Supreme Court (6 summaries)
Nance v. Ward
Prisoners may maintain method-of-execution challenges under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, even if their proposed alternative method is not authorized by state law.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights § 1983
George v. McDonough
A change in law does not constitute “clear and unmistakable error” of the sort that will allow collateral relief from a final Veterans Affairs benefit decision under 38 U.S.C. § 7111.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Hemphill v. New York
Admission of otherwise inadmissible evidence against a criminal defendant is not excused by the fact that the defendant made such evidence relevant through their arguments.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Babcock v. Kijakazi
Civil-service pensions provided for work as a dual-status military technician do not qualify for exclusion from Social Security benefit calculations under 42 USC § 415(a)(7)(A)(III).
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Guam v. United States
Contribution actions under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) may be pursued only after settlement of a “CERCLA-specific liability.”
Area(s) of Law:- Environmental Law
Ford Motor Company v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, et al.
There need not be a causal relationship between a defendant’s conduct in a forum and a claim to establish specific personal jurisdiction.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted (2 summaries)
Unicolors, Inc. v. H & M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P.
“Did the Ninth Circuit err * * * in holding that 17 USC § 411 requires referral to the Copyright Office where there is no indicia of fraud or material error as to the work at issue in the subject copyright registration.”
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Hemphill v. New York
Whether, or under what circumstances, a criminal defendant who opens the door to responsive evidence also forfeits his right to exclude evidence otherwise barred by the Confrontation Clause.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
9th Circuit Court of Appeals (4 summaries)
Lathus v. City of Huntington Beach
Under Hobler v. Brueher, 325 F.3d 1145, 1150 (9th Cir. 2003), an individual who is the “public face” of an elected official “can be fired for purely political reasons.”
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
Ray v. Los Angeles Cnty. Dept. of Pub. Social Servs.
Under Bonnette v. Cal. Health & Welfare Agency, 704 F.2d 1465 (9th Cir. 1983), an entity is a joint employer if the entity “(1) had the power to hire and fire [] employees, (2) supervised and controlled employee work schedules or conditions of employment, (3) determined the rate and method of payment, and (4) maintained employment records.
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Newman
Under Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 501 US. 663 (1981), journalists are not immune from generally applicable laws when engaging in newsgathering. Furthering a RICO scheme is not a sufficient independent criminal or tortious purpose to support violations of the Federal Wiretap Act, where the purpose of the RICO scheme and the wiretapping are the same.
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
United States v. Fowler
The inherent sovereignty of a tribe to prescribe and enforce laws necessarily includes the right to designate the individuals who will enforce its laws.
Area(s) of Law:- Tribal Law
Oregon Supreme Court (4 summaries)
Haas v. Estate of Mark Steven Carter
The but-for standard of causation is appropriate in multiple causation negligence cases, unless two causes concur to bring about an injury and either one of them, operating alone, would have caused the same result.
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
State v. Naudain
Under OEC 401, evidence of a third-party’s racial bias is relevant where it bears a “logical relationship” to, and tends to show a witness’s own views.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
De Young v. Brown
Under Tanner v. OHSU, 161 Or App 129, where all citizens benefit from litigation, the fact that the individual benefit may be small does not reduce the substantiality of the benefit conferred to the citizenry as a whole.
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
Zweizig v. Rote
Noneconomic damages for emotional injuries that do not originate from a bodily injury, death, or property damage are not subject to the $500,000 statutory damages cap in ORS 31.710(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
Oregon Court of Appeals (76 summaries)
WaterWatch of Oregon, Inc. v. Water Resources Department
Legislative direction to use existing data and sister-agency advice in coming to a conclusion does not preclude using existing data to project future data.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Lee (House of R.E.A.P.) v. Secretary of State
ORS 65.067 does not prohibit the reinstatement of administratively dissolved corporations sole which are otherwise eligible for reinstatement under ORS 65.654.
Area(s) of Law:- Corporations
Adelsperger v. Elkside Development LLC
Substantive arguments must be made against a theory on which the pleadings have been implicitly amended in order to preserve such arguments for appeal. Under Bates v. Bankers Life and Casualty Co., 362 Or, 337 (2018), rights under a contract are not “money or property” for the purposes of ORS 124.110(1)(b). Under Church v. Woods, 190 Or.App. 112 (2003) and Northwest Natural Gas Co. v. Chase Gardens, Inc., 328 Or. 487 (1999), “improper motive” under ORS 124.110(1)(a) requires that the actor’s “purpose must be to inflict injury on the plaintiff ‘as such.’”
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
Freeborn v. Dow
“[T]he doctrine of merger does not categorically apply when [a] deed constitutes only part performance of a preexisting contract.”
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
Rinne v. Matteucci
Under ORS 34.620, habeas corpus is not an alternative remedy to judicial review by which a person may directly challenge an order, judgment, or process of a competent tribunal.
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
Maxfield v. Cain
In determining whether a failure to present mitigation evidence at sentencing resulted in prejudice, the totality of the mitigation evidence should be weighed against aggravating evidence to determine whether there was more than a mere possibility that the information could have tended to affect the outcome. The Court engaged in a two-step analysis.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Wave Form Systems, Inc. v. Hanscom
Under Aguire v. Albertson’s, 201 Or App 31 (2005) and Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 26(1)(a), parties that acquiesce to a split claim “waive[] the ability to assert the defense of claim preclusion[,]” even in the context of sequential proceedings.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Raygosa
Under State v. Kammeyer, 226 Or App 210, an error is invited when a party is “actively instrumental in bringing about an alleged error.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Albany & Eastern Railroad Company v. Martell
Under Halperin v. Pitts, 352 Or 482 (2012) and the statute’s structure, ORS 20.080(2) permits attorney fee awards to defendants prevailing on equitable counterclaims, provided other requirements of the statute are met.
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
I.R.S. v. Hanington
The definition of abuse in the Elderly Persons and Persons with Disabilities Abuse Prevention Act is not constitutionally overbroad and does not require construction applying a heightened standard as in State v. Rangel, 328 Or 294 (1999).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
State v. Haley
Under State v. Macon, 249 Or App 260 (2012), whether a particular space is a “building” under ORS 164.215 depends “on whether the area was self-contained from its parent building, including secure physical access, separate function, and separate occupation."
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Durocher and Durocher
An expert witness’ testimony may be excluded when the witness’s evaluation was not conducted in compliance with the trial court’s order on the subject, even if the testimony is otherwise admissible.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. B.Y.
Juvenile courts lack the authority to impose consecutive commitments. Juvenile courts, like adult courts, do not possess the unlimited authority to impose consecutive commitments.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
McPherson v. Coos Bay-North Bend Water Board
The collection of a public-safety fee by the Coos Bay-North Bend Water Board as an intermediary for the City of North Bend does not violate the city’s charter. Under Western Radio Services Co. v. Verizon Wireless, LLC, 297 Or App 446 (2019), declaratory judgment actions must end in “a declaration as to the rights of the parties.”
Area(s) of Law:- Municipal Law
Rogers v. Corvel Enterprise Comp, Inc.
Under Knaggs v. Allegheny Techs., 223 Or App 91 (2008), a cause of an injury is a material contributing cause of an initial injury if it is “a substantial cause that is more than a minimal cause.”
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
State v. Laney
Under State v. Lien/Wilverding, 364 Or 750 (2019), it remains possible to abandon one’s privacy interest in an item based on the totality of the circumstances.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Rexroad
Under ORS 164.135, control must be actual and not merely constructive.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Banks
The exclusion of lay witness testimony is not harmless when it is admissible under OEC 701 and provides otherwise unavailable information, provides for expert witness impeachment, or provides “evidence from which a jury could infer the defendant’s mental state or level of intoxication.”
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Melecio
Under State v. Barnes, 66 Or App 896 (1984) and ORS 135.748(1)(e)(B), whether the state has unreasonably delayed the execution of a warrant and trial turn on whether the state has knowledge of or could reasonably found with minimal effort or sufficient due diligence, the defendant’s location.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Peltier
Under State v. Jacobson, 296 Or App 87 (2019) and State v. Guerrero, 277 Or App 837 (2016), in order to waive a constitutional right, the record must reflect a defendant’s intent to waive the right in question, as well as the defendant’s understanding of the right and consequences of waiver.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Boyd v. Legacy Health
Under Henderson v. Jantzen Inc., 79 Or App 654 (1986), the mere assertion of a non-discriminatory reason for termination does not destroy a prima facie case for retaliation and wrongful discharge.
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
State v. Baker
Under State v. Williams, 49 Or App 893 (1980), where there is strong evidence that the defendant engaged in the conduct of conviction and the fact-finder acquits the defendant of charges related to a purportedly prejudicial statement, prejudice is minimal.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Benton
Under State v. Samuel, 289 Or App 618 (2017), whether a variance of proof is permissible turns on “whether the variance concerns a material element of the crime and whether the variance prejudiced the defendant” and “whether the defendant was * * * tried on the offense that was indicted by the grand jury.” Under State v. Smith, 310 Or 1 (1990), a citizen becomes a state agent “if the police [are] directly or indirectly involved to a sufficient extent in initiating, planning, controlling or supporting the informant’s activities.” Under State v. Covington, 291 Or App 514 (2018), to establish a due process violation stemming from “a trial court’s failure to conduct an in camera review,” a defendant must “demonstrate that the items of which he sought review would have been material and favorable to his defense.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Bundy v. Nustar GP LLC
ORS 656.019 “imposes a procedural limitation on when the claims described in the statute can be brought” and does not create an exception to the exclusive remedy provision of ORS 656.018.
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
Dept. of Human Services v. J. J. J.
Under State ex rel Dept. of Human Services v. G. R., 224 Or App 133 (2008), “the ‘excusable neglect’ standard in ORS 419B.923 must be construed liberally in favor of a parent’s fundamental interest in not having their parental rights ‘irrevocably terminated’ in their absence[,]” and asks whether there are “reasonable grounds to excuse the default.”
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
PNW Metal Recycling, Inc. v. DEQ
Under Smith v. TRCI, 259 Or App 11 (2013) and ORS 183.310(9), an agency directive is a “rule” if it is “(1) of ‘general applicability’ and (2) not ‘necessarily required’ by a statute or validly promulgated rule.”
Kerridge v. Jester
Under Albrich v. Allstate Ins. Co., 152 Or App 416 (1998), “a change in conditions or circumstances is more likely to constitute a valid basis for concluding that the enforcement of the judgment is no longer equitable [under ORCP 71 B(1)(e)] if the change makes enforcement of the judgment unnecessary or somehow thwarts the aim of the judgment.”
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Marshall v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP
Under Westwood Construction Co. v. Hallmark Inns, 182 Or App 624 (2002), when a judgment or order in a prior proceeding shows on its face “that a matter was actually determined, the determination is preclusive.”
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Delatore
Under State v. Berrellez, 266 Or App 381 (2014), a delay caused by a defendant’s flight from justice where law enforcement has issued and attempted to follow up on an arrest warrant but “had no information as to the defendant’s location until his arrest[,]” does not provide a basis for dismissal on speedy trial grounds.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Vannett Properties, LLC v. Lane County
Under Measure 49, “the authority to convert a lot to an authorized home site is not automatically transferred from a claimant to a subsequent owner simply by a sale of a lot.”
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
Davis v. SAIF
Under SAIF v. Sumner, 313 Or App 434 (2021), injury arising from a task within a claimant’s course of employment, done for the employer’s benefit, is compensable even if done while the employee is off work.
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
State v. G.E.S.
Under ORS 419A.196, the acts from which an adjudication arises are those of the youth and not a third party.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Erickson v. R&R Ranches, LLC.
Under Whittle v. Marion County Dist. Court, 108 Or App 463 (1991), ORS 90.255 authorizes attorney fees in any action having “a connection to a dispute under a residential lease or rental agreement subject to ORS chapter 90.”
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
Stedman v. Department of Forestry
The fee for ATV registration is not a ‘charge’” under ORS 105.672(1) “paid ‘in return’ for the use of” particular land that would preclude recreational immunity under 105.688(3).
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
State v. Madden
Physical restraint without an officer safety justification, regardless of duration, coupled with circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to understand they were not free to leave, convert a stop into an arrest.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Jackson
“[T]he doctrine of chances, standing alone, is insufficient to make evidence * * * relevant[,]” and requires separate linkage that does not rely on prohibited inferences to the State’s proof of a material fact.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Wilsonville Subaru v. City of Wilsonville
Under Wilsonville City Code 11.040(5)(e), developers may request alternative calculations of system development charges based on special or unique factors while the development is “in the process of receiving city approval.”
Area(s) of Law:- Municipal Law
Block v. DEA Properties-2 LLC
Under Miller v. Jones, 256 Or App 392 (2013) and Jantzen Beach Associates v. Jantzen Dynamic Corp., 200 Or App 457 (2005), an appurtenant easement gives the owner of the dominant estate a benefit by virtue of their ownership of the land, is transferred with the land, and is not severable from the ownership of the land.
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
Kurtz v. Cain
Under State v. Walker, 350 Or 540 (2011), counsel need not engage in detailed, comprehensive analysis in order to “put all on notice about the nature of a party’s arguments” and preserve issues for appeal.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. Dickey
Under ORS 153.042(1), an enforcement officer may issue a citation only for conduct occurring in their presence and not the presence of another officer.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Barnes & Brennan
Under State v. Saunders, 294 Or App 102 (2018), “when a party has invited the trial court to rule in a certain way under circumstances suggesting that the party will be bound by the ruling or * * * will not later seek a reversal in the basis of that ruling” the party cannot then complain based on that invited error.
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
Markstrom v. Guard Publishing Co.
Under Laack v. Botello, 314 Or App 268 (2021), without statutory authorization courts lack the inherent authority required to strike pleadings or claims, which ORS 1.010 does not provide. Under ORCP 46, a court may impose sanctions only for the narrowly described conduct contained in the rule.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. J.D.
Under State v. J.G., 302 Or App 97 (2020) and State v. Bodell, 120 Or App 548 (1993), a person can be found “dangerous to others” for purposes of ORS 426.005(1)(f)(A) based on verbal threats without acts of violence “if the evidence provides a foundation for predicting future violent behavior.”
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
State v. Schumacher
Under State v. Veatch, 223 OR App 444 (2008), testimonial “[r]eference to a defendant’s exercise of a constitutional right” from which a jury is likely to infer guilt “jeopardizes the right to a fair trial[,]” particularly when it goes uncured.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Perrodin
Under State v. Jennings, 220 Or App 1 (2008) and State v. Dodge, 223 Or App 130 (2008), when a defendant challenges an arrest based on a facial deficiency to a warrant, the state must either produce the warrant or defend the arrest as a valid warrantless arrest supported by probable cause.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Dalbeck v. Bi-Mart Corp.
Under ORS 659A.403, places of public accommodation may not discriminate against anyone aged 18 or older based on their age unless there is a statute expressly allowing such discrimination.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
State v. Buell
Under State v. Korth, 269 Or App 238 (2015), a defendant charged with theft-by-receiving must have particularized knowledge or believe that the goods are stolen and “[p]ossession [of] or proximity to stolen goods * * * does not, on its own, allow for a finding that a person actually knows or believes that they are stolen.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Johnson v. Premo
Witness testimony not provided to the trier of fact could have a tendency to affect the verdict even if the testimony only coincides with other evidence.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Walker v. Oregon Travel Information Council
Under Greist v. Phillips, 322 Or 281, 295, 906 P2d 798 (1995), factual findings made by a jury do not prevent a court from making different factual findings in a separate matter in equity.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Khalaf v. Department of Revenue
Under Rev. Rul. 75-538, 1975-2 C.B. 34 (1975), “[a] taxpayer engaged in the trade or business of selling motor vehicles is presumed to hold all such vehicles primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of the taxpayer’s trade or business.” Under Estate of Reynolds v. Commissioner, 55 TC 172 (1970), “Transactions within a family group are * * * presume[ed] * * * gift[s].”
Area(s) of Law:- Tax Law
State v. Kragt
“[A] trial court must impose a [post-prison supervision] term for each violation of the statutes listed in ORS 144.103(1).”
Area(s) of Law:- Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
Birchall v. Miller
Under Nordbye v. BCRP/GM Ellington, 271 Or App 168 (2015), a "potential claim for prevailing-party based attorney fees" cannot support a forcible entry and detainer case where there is no longer a live dispute about possessory rights.
Area(s) of Law:- Landlord Tenant
Kyei v. Division of Child Support
An order terminating existing license suspensions stemming from a child support judgment does not prevent future child support enforcement orders.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. Anderson
Under OEC 608, “split reputation evidence is admissible” because it “permits reputation evidence for ‘truthfulness or untruthfulness.’"
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Simmons
Under State v. Nicholson, 282 Or App 51 (2016), “[a] defendant who acts based on a good faith belief that a judicial order has been dismissed cannot be deemed to have acted [willfully]” within the meaning of ORS 33.015(2).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Nelson v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company
Under Pfaendler v. Bruce, 195 Or App 561 (2004), a duty to speak giving rise to estoppel by silence develops when “the party to speak against whom estoppel is urged knows or should know that the failure to speak will likely mislead the other party to act to his or her detriment.”
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
Sherertz v. Brownstein, Rask, Sweeney, Kerr, Grim, Desylvia, & Hay, LLP
Under Hale v. Groce, 304 Or 281, an attorney is liable for economic losses to a third party beneficiary only where the attorney made “an actual promise to [a] client * * * to achieve a particular objective that will benefit [the] specified third party.”
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
State v. Martin
Under State v. Jackson, 268 Or App 139, a person is unconstitutionally seized when an officer communicates to the person that they are the subject of an investigation “that could result in the person’s citation or arrest at that time and place” without reasonable suspicion that the person violated the law.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Ritter
Under State v. Cannon, 299 Or App 616 (2019), probable cause to search one device for child pornography does not categorically extend to other devices owned by the same individual.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Pringle Square, LLC v. Berrey Family, LLC
Equitable doctrines do not apply to legal claims made by defendants in interpleader actions.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Gala v. Board of Chiropractic Examiners
Final order of the Board of Chiropractic Examiners not overturned where the Board's determinations were supported by substantial evidence and not legally erroneous.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Merrick v. City of Portland
An order that makes the determination of a third-party binding does not absolve a trial court of further responsibility in resolving a matter. Under ORS 192.431(3), the determination of a third-party made binding by a trial court is a permissible basis upon which to determine the prevailing party for purposes of awarding attorney's fees.
Area(s) of Law:- Alternative Dispute Resolution
State v. S.E.
Under State v. K.S., 223 Or App 476 (2008), a court need not wait for a person to physically harm anyone “before finding [that person] to be a danger to others.”
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
Department of Human Services v. M.O.B.
Under ORS 419B.387, a juvenile court may order a parent to undergo a psychological evaluation as a part of necessary treatment or training for which a predetermined need exists, even when it is unclear what, if anything, the evaluation will reveal.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Prouty
Under State v. Newton, 286 Or App 274 (2017), a person may be seized when the totality of the circumstances “transform[s] the encounter into a seizure, even if the circumstances, individually, would not create a seizure.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
E.H. v. Byrne
“A brief period of consensual kissing” does not establish a “sexually intimate relationship” for the purposes of a sexual abuse protective order. Under ORS 163.765(1), whether a person reasonably fears for their personal safety is determined by examining the totality of the circumstances and does not require multiple contacts between the parties.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
Housing Land Advocates v. LCDC
Under OAR 660-015-0000(14), the totality of the circumstances may be considered when determining whether a local government has taken steps to “reasonably accommodate” housing needs within an existing urban growth boundary.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Murdoch v. DMV
Under ORS 813.100(1), “an officer need not inform a driver of his rights and consequences before asking him to submit to [a breath] test.” Under Hays v. DMV 230 Or App 559 (2009), only the DMV may modify the rights and consequences to be read to drivers in enforcing implied consent.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Department of Human Services v. D.C.B.
“Placement in foster care” within the meaning of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) means “living arrangements that are substitutes for parental care.” Therefore, ICPC mandates are inapplicable when a child resides with their parent.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Hickey v. Scott
Under ORS 90.394(3), “a notice of termination for nonpayment of rent must specify the dollar amount that the landlord claims is necessary to cure[,]” not the actual amount owed.
Area(s) of Law:- Landlord Tenant
State v. Slater
Under State v. Mays, 294 Or App 229 (2018), the reliance on replacement cost to establish the value of stolen items must be supported by evidence of a nonexistent or insufficiently reliable marketplace to “provide a valuation.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Peek
Under State v. Sholedice/Smith, 364 Or 146, 162 (2018), removing “property obstructing a public thoroughfare” outside the owner’s presence does not interfere with the owner’s property rights to constitute a seizure. Under State v. Faulkner, 102 Or App 417, 420-21 (1990), using a flashlight to see what one could otherwise see in daylight does not constitute a search.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Paye
Under ORS 161.067, when a conviction is predicated on an ongoing course of conduct, other charges involving the same conduct in the same period must merge unless otherwise barred by statute.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Oregon Racing, Inc. v. Oregon State Lottery
Under ORS 167.117(21)(b), the terms "house bank" and "house income" encompass their ordinary meanings. Operating a "house bank" includes keeping, selling, and redeeming chips, and "house income" includes income related to securing the premises and soliciting players.
Area(s) of Law:- Business Law
State v. Ibarra
Under ORS 138.255, the Chief Judge and Appellate Commissioner may grant a motion for summary affirmance that does not present a substantial question of law without the concurrence of two judges when the appellant does not file a response.
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
State v. White
Evidence of other abuse is not per se propensity evidence and may be relevant for a nonpropensity purpose depending on the facts and circumstances in a given case.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Land Use Board of Appeals (1 summary)
Oregon Coast Alliance et al v. City of Florence
Under ORS 197.830(9) and OAR 661-010-0015(l)(a), notices of intent to appeal land use decisions must be filed within 21 days after the decision becomes final, or in the case of post-acknowledgment plan amendments (PAPA), 21 days after notice of the decision is mailed, unless a different local rule applies.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use