United States Supreme Court (2 summaries)
Pakdel v. City and County of San Francisco
The Supreme Court held that Respondent’s requirement to "execute the lifetime lease" was a final agency action and that the government action constituted "an actual, concrete injury," and "administrative 'exhaustion of state remedies was not a prerequisite for a takings claim when the government has reached a conclusive position.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Doe
Operational decisions, common to most corporate business, is not a sufficient connection between domestic conduct and an Alien Tort Statute claim in order to give federal courts jurisdiction to hear a claim.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted (2 summaries)
Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid
A state regulation that appropriates for labor unions the right of access of agricultural employer's property is a per se taking under the fourth and fifth amendments.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
FBI v. Fazaga
Whether Section 1806(f) displaces the state-secrets privilege and authorizes a district court to resolve, in camera and ex parte, the merits of a lawsuit challenging the lawfulness of government surveillance by considering the privileged evidence.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Oregon Supreme Court (3 summaries)
Whitehead v. Fagan
Article IV, section 1(2)(b) of the Oregon Constitution provides that only signatures of "qualified voters" count towards the number required to propose an initiative law; those qualified voters must "[b]e registered" and be an active voter.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
In Re Long
The Rules of Professional Conduct allow for alternative fee agreements that include an “earned on receipt” clause, however, the agreement must also stipulate that “the client may discharge the lawyer at any time and in that event may be entitled to a refund of all or part of the fee if the services for which the fee was paid are not completed.” RPC 1.5(c)(3).
Area(s) of Law:- Professional Responsibility
Strasser v. State of Oregon
Under ORS 138.500(1) and ORS 138.500(2)(b), a written request by a criminal defendant for appellate counsel regarding a judgment that they wish to appeal shall be appointed counsel, and the Court of Appeals has concurrent authority once a notice of appeal is filed. ORS 138.550(2) provides that “petitioner for post-conviction relief may assert ground for relief that could reasonably have been asserted in a direct appeal if petitioner was unrepresented on appeal due to lack of funds to retain counsel and failure of the court to appoint counsel.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Oregon Court of Appeals (29 summaries)
State v. Storm
ORS 137.106 requires (1) criminal activity; (2) economic damages; and (3) a causal relationship between the two. The trial court has "the authority to make [their] own, independent, factual findings as to two of the three elements but "the restitution statute does not grant [a trial court] similar authority to make its own independent factual findings about the criminal act that the defendant committed." State v. Andrews, 295 Or App 195 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Wilkins and Wilkins
ORS 107.105(1)(d) provides that the trial court "shall designate one or more categories of spousal support and shall make findings of the relevant factors in the decision.” The factors for the court to consider include but are not limited to health and age of the parties; the standard living established during the marriage; work skills and experience of the parties; and any other factors that the court deems just and equitable. ORS 105(a)(d)(C).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Upham v. Hummel
ORS 192.329(2)(b) and (f) provide that a public body's response to a public record request is complete if it asserts that the requested records are exempt from disclosure with a statement that the requester may seek review of the exemption. ORS 192.324(4)(a) provides that if there is no exemption, a "public body may establish fees reasonably calculated to reimburse the public body for the public body's actual cost of making public records available."
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
State v. Jacoby
To establish probable cause, the officer, at the time of the stop, "must subjectively believe that a violation has occurred, and . . . that belief must be objectively reasonable under the circumstances." State v. Carson, 287 Or App 631, 634 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Little v. Branch 9 Design and Contracting, LLC
Under ORS 67.105(1), "all partners are liable jointly and severally for all obligations of the partnership unless otherwise agreed by the claimant or provided by law" and a "partnership is liable for loss or injury caused to a person . . . as a result of a wrongful act . . . of a partner acting in the ordinary course of business of the partnership or with the authority of the partnership." Oregon case law allows for a partner to engage in "enterprise in his own behalf while he is a member of a partnership" but in such a case "the consent of the other partners must be obtained before one partner may engage in a competitive enterprise." Liggett v. Lester, 237 OR 52, 58-59 (1964).
Area(s) of Law:- Business Law
McGuire v. SAIF
A board may make a determination that in reviewing an award of attorney's fee's, it will not consider any evidence that was "not previously made a part of the record.” Daniel L. Demarco, 65 Van Natta 1837, 1847 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
State v. Brady
Under the Sixth and Fourteenth amendments of the United States Constitution, a defendant's conviction by jury must be unanimous. Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S. Ct. 1390 (2020). Under ORS 164.055(1)(c), selling is also an act of disposing of property and satisfies the elements of the statutes for first-degree theft if they commit "theft by receiving committed by buying, selling, borrowing or lending on the security of the property", and "[a] person commits theft by receiving if the person . . . disposes of property of another knowing or having good reason to know that the property was the subject of theft." ORS 164.095(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
I.K. v. Banana Republic, LLC.
A plaintiff under Oregon law can sue for negligent infliction of emotional distress where there is emotional harm from physical impact or violation of a legally protected interest. Norwest v. Presbyterian Intercommunity Hosp., 293 Or 543, 558-561(1982). A legally protected interest is "an independent basis of liability separate from the general duty to avoid foreseeable risk of harm" and must be "of sufficient importance as a matter of public policy to merit protection from emotional impact." Philibert v. Kluster, 360 Or 698, 704-705. The emotional distress must also be one that could have been foreseeable result of the violation of the protected interest. Id.
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Moody v. Oregon Community Credit Union
Although a party to a contract may only bring a breach of contract claim, an exception applies when the tort claim is predicated on a violation of a standard of care that exists independent of the contract. See Georgetown Realty v. The Home Ins. Co., 313 Or 97, 106 (1992).
Diamond Heating, Inc. v. Clackamas County
Under the economic loss doctrine, Oregon imposes liability for negligence if one unreasonably creates a foreseeable risk of harm to others and the plaintiff can sufficiently allege facts establishing a duty of care beyond reasonable care. See J.H. Kelly, LLC v. Quality Plus Services, Inc., 305 Or App 565, 572 (2020); Paul v. Providence Health Systems-Oregon, 351 Or 587, 591 (2021). "To recover damages for purely economic harm, liability 'must be predicated on some duty of the negligence act to the injured party beyond the common law duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent foreseeable harm.’" Id.
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
State v. Stewart
In State v. Keller, 40 Or App 143, 145 (1979), the court clarified that "striking, slapping, etc. and comparable acts are not, as a matter of law, offensive physical contact within the meaning of ORS 166.065(1)(a)--instead, it remains a question for the fact-finder in each individual case whether under the specific circumstances the defendant subjected another to offensive physical contact."
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. C. V.-I.
ORS 426.307(6) allows a court to continue a person's involuntary commitment if the court determines that "the individual is still a person with mental illness by clear and convincing evidence and is in need of further treatment." The state must prove that the person is "unable to provide for his or her basic personal needs in a way that leaves the person at a non speculative risk of 'serious physical harm' . . . in the near future." State v. M.A.E., 299 Or App 231, 240 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
Dept. of Human Services v. T. H.
Under ORS 19.415(3)(b), "the Court of Appeals, acting in its sole discretion, may try the cause anew upon the record or make one or more factual findings anew upon the record." Unless there is evidence that would support a different outcome in a juvenile dependency case, under ORS 19.415(3)(b) the Court of Appeals may deny de novo review of factual findings made by the juvenile court.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Keffer v. A. R. M.
In 2003, the legislature altered the provisions of the juvenile dependency code and removed all references to the probate code under ORS 419B.366, thereby making guardianship proceedings under the juvenile dependency code self-contained.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Lowell v. Medford School Dist. 549C
Absolute privilege is extended to all employees of public entities, regardless of the rank of title or responsibilities, as an affirmative defense to defamation suits so long as the statements were made in the performance of their duties. Shearer v. Lambert, 274 Or 449, 547 P2d 98 (1976).
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
State v. Porter
ORS 137.123(5) provides the court with discretion to impose consecutive sentences for separate convictions arising out of continuous and uninterrupted conduct so long as there's an indication of willingness to commit more than one criminal offense or the criminal offense caused or created a greater or qualitatively different loss, injury or harm during the conduct.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Beneficial Oregon, Inc. v. Bivins
ORS 86A.183(1)(c) prohibits mortgage loan originators from failing to account to persons interested in money or property received in connection with a mortgage loan.
Area(s) of Law:- Consumer Credit
Burley v. Clackamas County
ORS 30.272 provides that under the Oregon Torts Claim Act (OTCA), the award against local governments is capped and not to exceed $666,700 for each occurrence.
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
Ortega v. Martin
ORS 105.682 limits an owner's liability for injuries on land if the owner "directly or indirectly permits" the public to use the land for recreational purposes; "an owner can 'directly or indirectly permit' the use of its land for the purpose of the recreational immunity statutes, even if the public already has a right to use the land for that purpose." McCormick v. State Parks and Recreation Dept., 366 Or 452, 473 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
State v. D.A.
A person may be involuntarily committed for mental health treatment for up to 180 days if, after a hearing, the court determines that he or she is a “person with mental illness”, which includes a “person who, because of a mental disorder,” is “[d]dangerous to self or others” by clear and convincing evidence. ORS 426.130(1)(a)(C); ORS 426.005(1)(f)(A). A person’s condition at the time of hearing as well as the context of the person’s history is understood to determine whether a person is a danger to others. See, e.g., State v. L.R., 283 Or App 618, 625 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
State v. Evans
The crime of initiating a false report under ORS 162.375 requires that a person “knowingly initiate a false alarm or report that is transmitted to a . . . law enforcement agency . . . that deals with injuries involv[ing] danger to life or property.” However, the statute only prohibits false statements that would initiate an investigation, not any false statements to police. State v. McCrorey, 216 Or App 301, 306 (2007).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Fox
Restitution is statutorily required when the defendant has been convicted of criminal activity, the victim suffered economic damages, and there exists a causal relationship between the criminal activity and the economic damages. State v. Aguirre-Rodriguez, 367 Or 641, 620 (2020). The burden of proof is on the state to present sufficient evidence that the bills were reasonable and necessary, however, under McClelland, medical bills alone are not sufficient to meet the standard for establishing restitution and the testimony provided regarding medical bills is analogous as they are not medical professionals.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
City of Portland v. Building Codes Div.
Under ORS 455.77(2), investigative authority, which is authorized under subsection (1), covers a violation or omission by enforcement of codes when . . . .”
Area(s) of Law:- Municipal Law
Pedro v. SAIF
As defined by ORS 656.005(7)(a)(B), a combined condition is one that entails two separate conditions which combine and occur “[i]f an otherwise compensable injury combines at any time with a preexisting condition to cause or prolong disability or a need for treatment,” and injury in this context refers to a medical condition, not an accident. Brown v. SAIF, 361 Or 241, 272 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
State v. Bolton
ORS 137.101 operates to distribute damages to victims of a crime but permits the sentencing court to redirect money from penalty fines and the sentencing court’s authority “need not be calibrated to—or limited to—the economic damages sustained by the victim.” State v. Garlitz, 287 Or App 372, 377 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Kelly v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co.
ORS 742.208 requires that fire insurance policies contain the provision that concealment, misrepresentation, or fraud of material facts by the insured voids the entire policy. A misrepresentation is material if it is “relevant and germane to the insurer’s investigation as it was then proceeding.” Callaway v. Sublimity Ins. Co., 123 Or App 18, 23 (1993).
Area(s) of Law:- Insurance Law
OR-OSHA v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
Under OAR 437-001-0025, OR-OSHA’s only express interpretive constraints are those that OR-OSHA, itself, mandates, but “rules shall be liberally construed to accomplish the preventative purposes expressed in the [OSEA].”
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Strand v. Garvin
According to ORS 107.135(1), a party seeking to modify a judgment as to parenting time must serve the notice on the other party in the manner provided under ORCP 7, and within 30 days of service, the served party must file a written response with the court. ORS 107.135(4). An error may arise when a trial court fails to “make a record reflecting an exercise of discretion”, further, the court must "supply . . . enough information to enable appellate courts to engage in meaningful review of the court’s exercise of discretion.” Ray Klein, Inc. v. Wade, 358 Or 374 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Angeney v. DMV
Under ORS 813.410(6), a suspension is valid where a person committed a DUII, refused a breath test after being “informed under ORS 813.100 of rights and consequences as described under ORS 813.130,” and the person was given written notice of intent to suspend.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law