United States Supreme Court (3 summaries)
Chiafalo v. Washington
Article II does not “expressly prohibit[] States from taking away presidential electors’ voting discretion as Washington does.” And that “’[l]ong settled and established practice’ may have ‘great weight in a proper interpretation of constitutional provisions.’” quoting The Pocket Veto Case, 279 U. S. 655, 689 (1929).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
The structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau renders it unconstitutional because it is dominated by a single director and isolated from removal by the president, however, the provisions are severable.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Lucky Brand Dungarees v. Marcel
Defense preclusion is not applicable in a second action when the same defenses from the first action are asserted but applied to different conduct, legal theories, and occurred at different times than those asserted in the first action and did not pose a risk of negatively affecting the first judgment.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted (2 summaries)
Albence, Matthew T. v. Chavez, Maria A.
Whether the detention of an alien who is subject to a reinstated removal order and who is pursuing withholding or deferral of removal is governed by 8 U.S.C. 1231, or instead by 8 U.S.C. 1226.
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Andrus v. Texas
In assessing whether a defendant has made a showing of prejudice, a reviewing court must consider “the totality of the available mitigation evidence - both that adduced at trial, and the evidence adduced in the habeas proceeding' - and 'reweig[h] it against the evidence in aggravation." Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 397-98 (2000).
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
Oregon Supreme Court (2 summaries)
Summerfield v. Oregon Liquor Control Comission
“(1) A worker who has sustained a compensable injury and is disabled from performing the duties of the worker’s former regular employment shall, upon demand, be reemployed by the worker’s employer at employment which is available and suitable." ORS 659A.046. “
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Pulito v. Oregon State Board of Nursing
Where there is no statutory definition “[the Court will] ordinarily look to the plain meaning of the statute’s text as a key first step in determining what particular terms mean.” Comcast Corp. v. Dept. of Rev., 356 Or 282, 295, 337 P3d 768 (2014).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Oregon Court of Appeals (21 summaries)
State v. Martin
“The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.” OEC 901(1). “Showing that the blood sample was a valid blood draw from defendant involves laying a traditional chain of custody foundation[.]” State v. Owens, 207 Or App 31, 41, 139 P3d 984 (2006), rev den, 342 Or 503 (2007).
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
State ex rel Kine v. Deschutes County
"Under our reasoning in Clark, which separated the proposed decision to extend boundaries from any subsequent potential decision about the use of land in question, a request for determination of lot-of-record status, even if a necessary antecedent to the approval of subsequently proposed development, does not constitute a request for the approval of a proposed development of land."
Area(s) of Law:- Municipal Law
Central Lincoln People's Utility District v. Oregon Department of Energy
...any failure to comply with ORS 469.421(8)(b)’s “full accounting” requirement in 2014 is different from the error exhibited in the 2016 ESA orders because 2015 legislative action functioned as an intervening event, and required 2016 ESA order to be issued in light of procedural flaws.
Area(s) of Law:- Municipal Law
Robinette v. Saif Corporation
“[i]n general, the workers’ compensation laws require specific written notice whenever an employer intends to deny compensation.” Caren v. Providence Health System Oregon, 365 Or 466, 484, 446 P3d 67 (2019). This notion is applicable to claims that do not blend “the work injury and the preexisting condition.”
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
Rider v. Carranza
"We ascertain the legislature’s intentions by examining the text of the statute in its context, along with any relevant legislative history, and, if necessary, canons of construction.” State v. Cloutier, 351 Or 68, 75, 261 P3d 1234 (2011) (citing State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160, 171-73, 206 P3d 1042 (2009)).
Area(s) of Law:- Landlord Tenant
Cargal and Long-Cargal
“A spousal support award may be modified when there has been a substantial and unanticipated change in the parties’ economic circumstances since the time of the earlier award” and whether it is "just and equitable, under the totality of circumstances.” Harp and Harp, 214 Or App 520, 523-24, 167 P3d 457 (2007). In weighing a party’s capacity to meet the demands of a support award, the court may consider what a party is currently being given, earning capacities, and prospective future earnings. Id.; see also ORS 107.135(4)(a).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Minckler v. Minckler
“Modification of a spousal support award is proper if (1) the original purpose of the award has been fulfilled, or (2) subsequent changes have substantially affected one party’s ability to pay or the other party’s need for support.” Harless and Harless, 276 Or App 49, 53, 366 P3d 403 (2016) and there is consideration of the governing statute, ORS 107.135(4)(a)(A), states that “[t]he court *** shall consider income opportunities and benefits of the respective parties from all sources.”
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
J. S. E. v. Cubic
It is a respondent’s burden to demonstrate “that the concerns that underlay the issuance of the original SPO have sufficiently abated that the order should be set aside.” Benaman v. Andrews, 213 Or App 467, 476, 162 P3d 280 (2007).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Stalking Protective Order
Smith v. Board of Parole
“[I]n order to prevent a case from being considered moot, a collateral consequence must be something beyond mere speculation,” that is, “a collateral consequence must have a significant probability of actually occurring; a speculative or merely possible effect is not enough.” Johnson v. Premo, 302 Or App 578, 592, 461 P3d 985, rev den, 366 Or 569 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
State v. Boekelheide
“[T]he court will refuse to adopt the meaning that would lead to an absurd result that in inconsistent with the apparent policy of the legislation as a whole.” State v. Vasquez-Rubio, 323 Or 275, 283, 917 P2d 494 (1996).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
J. C. R. v. McNulty
"[W]hen conduct is expressive, the Supreme Court has held that the Oregon Constitution requires a “communication that instills in the addressee a fear of imminent and serious personal violence from the speaker, is unequivocal, and is objectively likely to be followed by unlawful acts.” J. C. R. v. McNulty, 304 Or App 286, 291 (quoting State v. Rangel, 328 OR 294, 303, 977 P2d 379 (1999)).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Stalking Protective Order
State v. Sunderman
“[E]vidence of a person’s past or even routine drug use, without additional evidence, does not give rise to the reasonable inference that the person currently possesses drugs.” State v. Oller, 277 Or App 529, 538, 371 P3d 1268 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Department of Human Services v. M. T. J.
"[T]he juvenile court 'cannot simply ignore' serious parental deficiencies' that become apparent during a permanency hearing but that were not the basis upon which jurisdiction was sought." Dept. of Human Services v. N. M. S., 246 Or App 284, 297-98, 266 P3d 107 (2011).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. Carrillo
The authority of third-party consent to a search “rests . . . on mutual use of the property by persons, generally having joint access or control for most purposes . . . it is reasonable to recognize that any of the coinhabitants has the right to permit the inspection[.]” State v. Jenkins, 179 Or App 92, 101, 39 P3d 868 (2002).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Lacey v. Saunders
“Against such party’s personal representative or successors in interest unless the personal representative or successors in interest mail or deliver notice including the information required by ORS 115.003 (3) to the claimant or to the claimant’s attorney if the claimant is known to be represented, and the claimant or his attorney fails to move the court to substitute the personal representative or successors in interest within 30 days of mailing or delivery.” ORCP 34B(2).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Deep Photonics Corporation v. LaChapelle
“[T]he right to jury trial must depend on the nature of the relief requested and not on whether, historically, a court of equity would have granted the relief had the legal issuer been joined with a separate equitable claim.” Foster v. Miramontes, 352 Or 401, 425 (2012). Under Equitable Life Assurance v. McKay, 306 Or 493, 497 (1988), “matters concerned primarily with judicial administration are governed by the law of the forum state.”
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Nygard
“[T]he force that is sufficient to ‘compel’ one person to submit to or engage in a sexual contact against his or her will may be different from that which is sufficient to compel another person to do so.” State v. Marshall, 350 Or 208, 226, 253 P3d 1017 (2011).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
The Bank of New York Mellon v. Brantingham
In the enforcement of a note, “[a] person may be a person entitled to enforce the instrument even though the person is not the owner of the instrument or is in wrongful possession of the instrument.” ORS §73.0301 (UCC § 3-301). “[T]o be entitled to enforce a negotiable instrument as a holder, a party must simply demonstrate that it is in possession of the instrument and that the instrument is payable either to the bearer or to the party itself.” Deutsche Bank and Trust Co. Americas v. Walmsely, Or App 690, 695-96 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Business Law
State v. Fields
“Serious physical injury” means physical injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious and protracted disfigurement, protracted impairment of health or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Rolfe
In Oregon, two situations require a concurrence instruction: (1) “when a statute defines one crime but specifies alternative ways in which that crime can be committed” and (2) “when the indictment charges a single violation of a crime but the evidence permits the jury to find multiple, separate occurrences of that crime.” State v. Pipkin, 354 Or 513, 516-17, 316 P3d 255 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Stalking Protective Order
Towner v. Silverton Health
Under Eads v. Borman, the elements of actual agency are that “the principle ha[s] a right to control the acts of its agent,” and “both parties must also agree that the agent will act on the principal’s behalf.” Eads v. Borman, 234 Or App 324, 227 P3d 826 (2010), aff’d, 351 Or 729, 277 P3d 503 (2012).
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law