Olivia Jackson

United States Supreme Court (1 summary)

Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc.

The decision in Westinghouse v. Formica Insulation Co., 266 U.S. 342, 350 (1924) provided that assignor estoppel is a principle of fairness. “If one lawfully conveys to another a patented right,” the Court reasoned, “fair dealing should prevent him from derogating from the title he has assigned.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents

United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted (1 summary)

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization

Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

9th Circuit Court of Appeals (2 summaries)

Cara Jones, ET AL v. Google LLC, ET AL

The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (“COPPA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 6501–06, gives the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) authority to regulate the online collection of personal identifying information about children under the age of 13.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Preemption

USA v. Macapagal

In United States v. Dhingra, 371 F.3d 557, 567 (9th Cir. 2004), the court explained that the plain language of the statute makes clear that the relevant inquiry is the conduct of the defendant, not the minor.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Oregon Supreme Court (5 summaries)

Lowell v. Medford School District. 549c

Absolute privilege applies when the public’s interest in functioning government is so great that it outweighs an individual’s interest in redress for reputational harm. Shearer v.  Lambert, 274 Or 449, 547 P2d 98 (1976).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

SAIF v. Ward

Under former ORS 656.005(30) (2019), a “worker” is “any person, including a minor whether lawfully or unlawfully employed, who engages to furnish services for a renumeration, subject to the direction and control of an employer.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

Antoine v. Taylor

To obtain relief… a post-conviction petitioner must show ‘that counsel failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment, and that the petitioner suffered prejudice as a result of counsel’s inadequacy.’ Johnson v. Premo, 361 Or 688, 699, 399 P3d 431 (2017).”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Post-Conviction Relief

State v. Keys

In Huffman v. Alexander, 197 Or. 283, (1952), the court explained that “It follows from the express language of the [Oregon] constitutional provision and from the authorities cited that unless a defendant validly waives indictment, he cannot be tried upon information filed by the district attorney. A judgment rendered upon an information without waiver of indictment would be void.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

Allianz Global Risks v. ACE Property & Casualty Ins. Co.

“[I]nterpretation of insurance policies is a question of law to be decided by the court… The court is to consider the plain meaning of the relevant policy terms; if a term is ambiguous, the court considers the context in which the term appears and then the context of the policy as a whole; if ambiguity remains, the term is construed against the drafter.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

Oregon Court of Appeals (57 summaries)

State v. A.B.K.

ORS 426.005(1)(f), provides, in part: “‘Person with mental illness’ means a person who, because of a mental disorder, is one or more of the following: “(A) Dangerous to self or others.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Walker

Under the Fourteenth Amendment, “unless a criminal defendant can show bad faith on the part of the police, failure to preserve potentially useful evidence does not constitute a denial of due process of law.” Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 US 51, 58, (1988).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Karim

“A person commits the offense of use of marijuana in a motor vehicle if the person consumes in any manner a marijuana item while in a motor vehicle when the motor vehicle is upon a highway.” ORS 811.482(2).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Mothershed

A trial court may order restitution upon proof of “(1) criminal activities, (2) economic damages, and (3) a causal relationship between the two.” State v. Smith, 291 Or App 785, 788, 420 P3d 644 (2018); ORS 137.106(1)(a).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Lewis

The court “[r]eviews the denial of an Motion for Judgment of Acquittal for whether a rational fact-finder could find, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state and making reasonable inferences and credibility choices, that the state proved every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Davis, 261 Or App 38, 39, (2014). Reasonable inferences are permissible; mere speculation is not. State v. Bivins, 191 Or App 460, 467, (2004).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Thier

Under Article I, section 9, a seizure occurs when “(1) a law enforcement 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. Reyes-Herrera, 369 Or 54, 58 (2021).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Winamaki v. Umpqua Bank

“A contract term is ambiguous if, when examined in the context of the contract as a whole and the circumstances of contract formation, it is susceptible to more than one plausible interpretation.” Adair Homes, Inc. v. Dunn Carney Allen Higgins & Tongue, LLP, 262 Or App 273, 277, (2014).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Contract Law

State v. Harris

“The unavailability exception to the confrontation guarantee should not be “granted routinely” and applies only when a witness is “truly unavailable to testify” so that the state’s reliance on prior out-of-court statements is “genuinely necessary.”” State v. Herrera, 286 Or 349, 355 (1979).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Lugo

A person is physically helpless when that person “is unconscious or for any other reason is physically unable to communicate unwillingness to an act.” ORS 163.305(4).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Hatchell

When refusing a jury instruction the court must determine, “whether the record viewed in the light most favorable to the proponent of the instruction, supported giving the instruction.” State v. Owen, 369 Or 288, (2022).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. N. J. D. A.

Before questioning, police must give Miranda warnings to a person who is in full custody or in circumstances that create a setting which judges would and officers should recognize to be compelling.” State v. Roble-Baker, 340 Or 631, 638, 136 P3d 22 (2006).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Powell

The court cannot admit evidence if the proponent’s theory of relevance requires the factfinder to employ propensity reasoning. State v. Skillicorn, 367 Or 464, 479 P3d 254 (2021).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Simmons

“A person commits the crime of theft of services if: (a) With intent to avoid payment therefor, the person obtains services that are available only for compensation, by force, threat, deception or other means to avoid payment for the services.” ORS 164.125(1).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Eaton

ORCP 12 A provides that “[a]ll pleadings shall be liberally construed with a view of substantial justice between the parties.” ORCP 12 B provides that “[t]he court shall, in every stage of an action, disregard any error or defect in the pleadings or proceedings which does not affect the substantial rights of the adverse party.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

K. R. M. v. Baker

ORS 107.716(3)(a) provides that a court may continue a FAPA order if the court determines that: “(B) The petitioner reasonably fears for the petitioner’s physical safety” and ORS107.104(1)(b)(2) provides an exception to enforcing a stipulated agreement when enforcement “would clearly contravene public policy.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Abuse Prevention Act

State v. Wagner

“On appeal, defendant does not challenge the scientific validity and reliability of Dorsey’s testimony. The only issue on appeal related to Dorsey’s testimony is her qualification to offer proffered expert testimony under OEC 702.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Zielinski

“[E]vidence is relevant so long as it increases or decreases, even slightly, the probability of the existence of a fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.” State v. Barone, 329 Or 210, 238, 986 P.2d 5 (1999).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Moscote-Saavedra

ORS 161.067(3) states that the criminal acts “. . . must be separated from other such violations by a sufficient pause in the defendant’s criminal conduct to afford the defendant an opportunity to renounce the criminal intent.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

Timber Town Living v. Dept. of Human Services

Violation severity is defined by ORS 4 41.731(2)(b), which creates four levels of severity: (1) a Level 1 violation “results in no actual harm or in potential for only minor harm”; (2) a Level 2 violation “results in minor harm or potential for moderate harm”; (3) a Level 3 violation “results in moderate harm or potential for serious harm”; and (4) a Level 4 violation “results in serious harm or death.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Elder Law

State v. Finley

ORS 419C.370 provides: “(1) The juvenile court may enter an order directing that all cases involving: (a) Violation of a law or ordinance relating to the use or operation of a motor vehicle, boating laws or game laws be waived to criminal or municipal court[.]”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Santoro v. Eagle Crest Estate Homesite Owners Assn.

“When one party to a contract is given discretion in the performance of some aspect of the contract, the parties ordinarily contemplate that that discretion will be exercised for particular purposes. If the discretion is exercised for purposes not contemplated by the parties, the party exercising discretion has performed in bad faith.” Best v. U. S. National Bank, 303 Or 557, 563, 739 P2d 554 (1987).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Property Law

State v. Jackson

With an Alford plea, a defendant does not admit guilt “but admits that sufficient evidence exists to convict him of the offense.” United States v. Ramirez-Gonzalez, 755 F3d 1267, 1273 (11th Cir 2014).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Parole and Post-Prison Supervision

Wedemeyer v. Nike Ihm, Inc.

ORCP 68 C(2)(a) provides: “A party seeking attorney fees shall allege the facts, statute, or rule that provides a basis for the award of fees in a pleading filed by that party. Attorney fees may be sought before the substantive right to recover fees accrues."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

Dept. of Human Services v. C. A. C.

The relevance threshold is “very low,” State v. Hampton, 317 Or 251, 855 P2d 621 (1993), and that the juvenile court may consider historical medical records, including mental health records, along with all the evidence as it determines whether to assert dependency jurisdiction.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

State v. Chemxananou

The “witness false in part” instruction provides “[t]hat a witness false in one part of the testimony of the witness may be distrusted in others[.]” ORS 10.095(3).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Stone v. CCXL, LLC

The common law elements of adverse possession are codified by ORS 105.620, requiring that claimants show that they and their predecessors in interest have maintained actual, open, notorious, exclusive, hostile, and continuous possession of the property for a period of at least 10 years.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Property Law

Oregon Psychiatric Partners, LLP v. Henry

ORS 653.295(1) provides that a non-competition agreement between an employer and an employee “is voidable and may not be enforced by a court of this state unless” five criteria are met. The five criteria require that the agreement was presented in a certain manner and timeframe, the employee is a person described in ORS 653.020(3), the employer has a protectable interest, the employee’s salary exceeds a certain threshold, and the employer took certain action within 30 days after the employment termination date.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

Haas v. Estate of Mark Steven Carter

Under UCJI 23.02, when multiple causal factors “operate either independently or together to cause injury,” any one of those factors “may be a cause of the injury” so long as it “was a substantial factor in causing the injury.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

SAIF v. Lynn

Under ORS 656.005(7)(a), “[i]f a person is injured at work, that injury is compensable if it “aris[es] out of and in the course of employment.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

State v. Lile

“ORS 137.106 authorizes a trial court to order restitution ‘[w]hen a person is convicted of a crime that has resulted in economic damages.’”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Williams and Williams

ORS 107.135(3)(b) states, “If the judgment provided for a termination or reduction of spousal support at a designated age in anticipation of the commencement of pension, Social Security or other entitlement payments, and if the obligee is unable to obtain the anticipated entitlement payments, that inability is sufficient change in circumstances for the court to reconsider its order of support.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

Department of Human Services v. J. L. J.

To preserve an error for appeal, “‘a party must provide the trial court with an explanation of [his or her] objection that is specific enough to ensure that the court can identify its alleged error with enough clarity to permit it to consider and correct the error immediately.’” Senvoy, LLC v. Employment Dept., 312 Or App 387, 388-39, ___ P3d ___ (2021) (quoting State v. Vanornum, 354 Or 614, 632, 317 P3d 889 (2013)).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

Ebright and Ebright

Under ORS 107.105(1)(f), which provides, in part, that “the court may provide in the judgment . . . [f]or the division or other disposition between the parties of the real or personal property, or both, of either or both of the parties as may be just and proper in all the circumstances.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

Canales-Robles v. Laney

ORS 138.510(3) provides: “A petition pursuant to ORS 138.510 to 138.680 must be filed within two years of the [date that the conviction became final], unless the court on hearing a subsequent petition finds grounds for relief asserted which could not reasonably have been raised in the original or amended petition.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Post-Conviction Relief

State v. Shelby

[P]olice officers must provide Miranda-like warnings to a defendant who is in custody or in compel-ling circumstances prior to questioning. See State v. Roble-Baker, 340 Or 631, 638, 136 P3d 22 (2006). In determining whether a defendant is subject to compelling circumstances, the court examines ‘whether the officers created the sort of police-dominated atmosphere that Miranda warnings were intended to counteract.’ Id. At 641.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Threlkeld

“[A]n expert on a given subject is a person who ‘has acquired certain habits of judgment based on experience of special observation that enable[] him or her to draw from the facts inferences that are uniquely beneficial to the [factfinder].” Mall v. Horton, 292 OR App 319, 324, 423 P3d 730, rev den, 363 Or 744 (2018).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Cyro-Tech, Inc. v. JKC Bend, LLC.

Oregon subscribes to the objective theory of contracts. That means that the lease’s meaning is determined based on the parties’ objective manifestations of intent to agree to the same express terms. Dalton v. Robert Jahn Corp., 209 Or App 120, 132, 146 P3d 399 (2006), rev den, 342 Or 416 (2007).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Landlord Tenant

SAIF v. Summer

An injury takes place in the course of employment if it occurs “while the worker reasonably is fulfilling the duties of the employment or is doing something reasonably incidental to it.” Fred Meyer, Inc. v. Hayes, 325 Or 592, 598, 943 P2d 197 (1997).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

State v. Geddeda

ORS 161.665(4) provides, in part, that “[t]he court may not sentence a defendant to pay costs under this section unless the defendant is or may be able to pay them.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

State v. Altabef

When balancing under OEC 403, the trial court engages in four parts of that process—analyzing the probative value or strength of the evidence, determining the prejudicial nature of the evidence, balancing the prosecution’s need for the evidence against the countervailing potential for prejudice, and ruling as to what portion of the evidence is admissible. State v. Mayfield, 302 Or 631, 634 (1987).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Yeatts v. Polygon Northwest Co.

“An error in failing to give a requested instruction ‘is harmless if there is little likelihood that the error affected the verdict.’” Summerfield v. OLCC, 366 Or 763, 781, 472 P3d 231 (2020) (quoting Ossanna, 365 Or at 219). “Conversely, an error in failing to give an instruction is prejudicial if it ‘probably created an erroneous impression of the law in the minds of the jury and if that erroneous impression may have affected the outcome of the case.’” Id. (quoting Ossanna, 365 Or at 219).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

The Foundation of Human Understanding v. Masters

It is within the trial court’s discretion to decline requests to supplement the summary judgment record after the court has rendered its decision. Williams v. Haverfield, 82 Or App 553, 559, 728 P2d 924 (1986).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Yee v. Yee

ORS 116.213 provides: “Upon the filing of receipts or other evidence satisfactory to the court that distribution has been made as ordered in the general judgment, the court shall enter a supplemental judgment of discharge. Except as provided in ORS 115.004, the discharge so entered operates as a release of the personal representative from further duties and as a bar to any action against the personal representative and the surety of the personal representative . . ."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trusts and Estates

State v. Allen

“In Lawson/James, the court held that the threshold inquiry from Classen—whether there had been suggestive police procedures—was unnecessary as a preliminary and independent inquiry: ‘There is no reason to hinder the analysis of eyewitness reliability with purposeless distinctions between suggestiveness and other sources of unreliability.’” State v. Wesley, 254 Or App 697, 711, 295 P3d 1147, rev den, 354 Or 62 (2013)(quoting  Lawson/James, 352 Or at 747).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Jones

Under ORS 138.105(5)(a) and (b) the appellate court can only review a conviction when (1) “the trial court’s adverse determination of a pretrial motion reserved a conditional plea of guilty or no contest under ORS 135.335” and (2) “[if] the trial court erred by not merging determinations of guilt of two or more offenses, unless the entry of separate convictions results from an agreement between the state and the defendant.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

State v. Modrzejewski

Under Article VII (Amended), section 3, of the Oregon Constitution, the Court can determine what judgment should have been entered and remand with instructions to enter a judgment for a different conviction.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Payton

The Oregon Supreme Court decided in State v. Henderson that “because the defendant developed the intent to commit an additional crime—and did commit an additional crime—while unlawfully present in the house” the defendant was guilty of first-degree burglary. 366 Or 14, 455 P3d 503, (2019).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

A.J.T v. Croft

Following a contested hearing, under the FAPA, the record must include evidence (1) of past abuse committed by the respondent (within 180 days of filing), (2) that the petitioner reasonably fears for her physical safety, and (3) that the respondent represents a credible threat to the petitioner’s safety or the safety of her child. ORS 107.716(3).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Abuse Prevention Act

Lyons v. Beeman

The parol evidence rule, ORS 147.740 explains that “a binding, completely integrated, written agreement supersedes or discharges all agreements, written or oral, that were made before the completely integrated agreement, to the extent that the prior agreements are within the scope of the completely integrated agreement.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Contract Law

State v. McClour

In order to survive an MJOA, evidence must be present so that the factfinder “could reasonably infer that the [stolen item] possessed ‘some value,’ the minimum needed to define it as ‘property’ ” for purposes of third-degree theft.” State v. Waterhouse, 359 Or 351, 361-62, 373 P3d 131 (2016).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Trenary-Brown

The “failure to give a concurrence instruction is not harmless when, given the evidence and the parties’ theories, jurors could have based their verdicts on different occurrences.” State v. Teagues, 281 Or App 182, 194, 383 P3d 320 (2016).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

State v. C.P.

Under ORS 427.245(1), “for a person held under a warrant of detention, the hearing must occur within seven judicial days after the court issues a citation.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Commitment

State v. Robinson

“Under Article I, section 9, ‘an extension of a traffic stop to conduct a criminal investigation must be justified by reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.’ ” State v. Arivett, 309 Or App 480, 485, ___ P3d ___ (2021).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

McCoin v. PSRB

Under ORS 161.341, a person may be discharged from the board’s jurisdiction even if the person has a mental disease or defect, if that person “no longer presents a substantial danger to others.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Commitment

McMullin v. Amsberry

To establish a violation of adequate counsel it must be shown that counsel “failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgement,” and second, that petitioner “suffered prejudice as a result of counsel’s inadequacy.” Johnson v. Premo, 361 Or 688, 699, 399 P3d 431 (2017).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Post-Conviction Relief

State v. L.D.

A person with a mental illness is a person who is a danger to themselves because of their mental disorder. ORS 426.005(1)(f)(A).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Commitment

State v. McNair

An appellate court must review a denial of a motion for acquittal in order to assess “whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. King, 307 Or 332, 339, 768 P2d 391 (1989).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Back to Top