United States Supreme Court (5 summaries)
Smith v. United States
Violations of the Constitution's Venue, Vicinage, and Double Jeopardy Clauses during the course of a criminal trial in Federal court should be remedied via retrial. “[T]he appropriate remedy for prejudicial trial error, in almost all circumstances, is simply the award of a retrial, not a judgment barring reprosecution.” United States v. Morrison, 449 U.S. 361, 364 (1981).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Health and Hospital Corp. of Marion City v. Talevski
Any law created by Congress which confers rights to individuals may give rise to a cause of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 1983 unless doing so "would thwart any enforcement mechanism" of the law. Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U. S., 273, 284 (2002).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
United States ex rel. Schutte v. SuperValu, Inc.
The False Claims Act's scienter element refers to the subjective knowledge of the accused, not to the knowledge of an objective reasonable person. Even if a term is facially ambiguous, “either actual knowledge, deliberate ignorance, or recklessness will suffice” to establish knowledge. Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar, 579 U. S. 176, 187 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Insurance Law
Haaland v. Brackeen
The Indian Child Welfare Act is upheld against constitutional challenges because Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution gives the federal government "virtually all authority over [...] Indian tribes." Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U. S. 44, 62 (1996). Anti-commandeering principles do not apply when public and private entities are equally burdened. Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn., 584 U.S. ___ (2018) (slip op., at 19–20).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
MOAC Mall Holdings LLC v. Transform Holdco LLC
Mandatory rules within a statute do not necessarily make that statute jurisdictional. Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U. S. 428, 435 (2011). The Court will treat a rule as jurisdictional “only if Congress says as much.” Boechler v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 596 U.S. ___ (2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Bankruptcy Law
United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted (1 summary)
Santos-Zacaria v. Garland
A rule is jurisdictional “only if Congress ‘clearly states’ that it is.” Boechler v. Commissioner, 596 U.S. ___ (2022). A motion for reconsideration is subject to discretionary review and is not an appeal as of right, and therefore is not subject to the exhaustion requirement of §1252(d)(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
9th Circuit Court of Appeals (7 summaries)
Ctr. For Biological Diversity v. Bureau of Land Mgmt.
An order granting or denying intervention is only appealable from a final order in the underlying case. Alsea Valley Alliance v. Department of Commerce, 358 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 2004). If that underlying case is remanded to an administrative agency, an appeal of a denial of intervention must be dismissed for mootness.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
United States v. Orozco-Barron
Under the Speedy Trial Act, a judge did not act improperly in granting an ends-of-justice continuance at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. “A global pandemic that has claimed more than half a million lives in this country [...] permit[s] a court to temporarily suspend jury trials in the interest of public health.” United States v. Olsen, 21 F.4th 1036 (9th Cir. 2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Ctr. For Biological Diversity v. USFWS, Et Al
U.S. Fish & Wildlife must designate any habitat as critical only if it is essential to species conservation. Weyerhaeuser Co. v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 139 S. Ct. 361, 368 (2018). FWS acted “arbitrarily and capriciously” by designating two tracts of land as critical habitat when they relied on two irrelevant photographs of a single transitory jaguar and speculated that a jaguar may use the land for travel.
Area(s) of Law:- Environmental Law
United States v. Michell
In order to find that a plain error was made by the trial court, Greer v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 2090, 2096-97 (2021) requires that there be (1) an error that is (2) plain and that (3) affects substantial rights. There must be a reasonable probability that, but for the error, the outcome of the proceeding would have been different.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Alfred v. Garland
The distinction between principal and accomplice has been abrogated by Rosemond v. United States, 572 U.S. 65 (2014) such that a theft accomplice conviction meets the requirements to remove a non-citizen from the United States under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
O'Handley v. Weber
In order to support a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against a private party, a plaintiff must show that the private party exercised a right or privilege created by the state or is sufficiently entwined with or coerced by government power. Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922 (1982).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Sinclair v. City of Seattle
To support a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must show that the risk created by the government was affirmatively created with deliberate indifference to danger, and that the risk was sufficiently particularized to the plaintiff.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Oregon Supreme Court (1 summary)
Ingle v. Matteucci
The escape clause of Oregon's post-conviction relief statute allows Petitioner to apply for relief outside the two-year statutory period if the ground for relief "could not reasonably have been raised" within those two years. ORS 138.510(3). The escape clause is intended to ask not “whether a petitioner conceivably could have raised the grounds for relief,” but “whether the petitioner reasonably could have raised those grounds.” Verduzco v. State of Oregon, 357 Or 553, 555 n 1 (2015). Schizophrenia and forced medication made it unreasonable to expect Petitioner to have filed a timely petition.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Oregon Court of Appeals (18 summaries)
Central Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes County
When it comes to agricultural land use, Oregon's statutory scheme (1) is predicated on an express policy goal of preserving the ‘maximum amount of the limited supply of [Oregon’s] agricultural land,’ [...] for ‘maximum agricultural productivity,’ (2) expressly recognizes that how a parcel is used can conflict with the viability of farm uses on nearby parcels, and (3) is designed with safeguards to limit use of land designated as agricultural land in ways that conflict with farm uses.” Stop the Dump Coalition v. Yamhill County, 364 Or. 432 at 444 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
State v. Dye
Oregon's reckless driving statute focuses on the manner of driving, not the consequence. State v. Brown, 305 Or App 644, 653, 471 (2020). A defendant may elude police even when out of sight if they attempt "to escape the notice [...] of the police." State v. Cave, 223 Or App 60, 68 (2008).
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
Watson v. Board of Parole
The Board of Parole plainly erred by disregarding the Static-99R rules in determining Petitioner’s sex-offense-free time as relevant to sexual recidivism risk. Sohappy v. Board of Parole, 329 Or App 28 (2023).
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
State v. Boyar
When a defendant damages property, ORS 137.106(1)(a) imposes restitution “equal to the full amount of the victim’s economic damages[,]” and the appropriate measure is “the cost of restoring the property to its original condition[.]” McCormick v. City of Portland, 191 Or App 383, 391, rev den, 337 Or 616 (2004).
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
State v. Peck
Because successful completion of diversion is not a conviction under ORS 813.215(1)(e), the rule from State v. Maynard that an uncounseled conviction cannot be used to deprive a defendant of diversion does not apply. 85 Or App 631, rev den, 304 Or 56 (1987).
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
Harlukowicz v. State
“[T]he new rules of criminal procedure [do not] implicate fundamental fairness so as to require retroactive application as a matter of due process[,]” and the decision of whether to apply the new jury-unanimity rule as a matter of state law should be left to the individual States. Edwards v. Vannoy, 141 S Ct 1547 (2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
DHS v. A.C.S.G.
“An appeal is moot when a decision will no longer ‘have a practical effect on the rights of the parties[,]" and DHS has that burden of proof. Dept. of Human Services v. G.D.W., 292 P3d 548 (2012). Under ORS 419B.639(2)(a), DHS is only required to send notice of the first scheduled hearing, and any subsequent hearing scheduled to accommodate a request for an extension does not require a new notice.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. H.D.
A two-year conditional release agreement, the breaking of which may lead to involuntary commitment, does not comport with ORS 426.130(2) which requires that “[a]ny period of commitment [...] or conditional release under this section shall be for a period of time not to exceed 180 days."
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
Buchanan v. Buchanan
Courts are not required to determine a predominantly prevailing party in a domestic action for purposes of awarding attorney fees. Saunders v. Saunders, 975 P2d 927 (1999). Courts are required to consider the financial resources of the parties when awarding attorney fees. Dang and Chun, 242 P3d 680 (2010).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Newton v. Kelly
A post-conviction claim of actual innocence requires an "exacting standard of proof" from the defendant. Reeves v. Nooth, 432 P3d 1105 (2018). Defense counsel does not render inadequate assistance just because they did not predict that the United States Supreme Court would later decide that conviction by a nonunanimous jury was unconstitutional. Smith v. Kelly, 508 P3d 77 (2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Wall v. Ash
Generally, “for a judgment to effect a preclusion of further litigation [...] it must be a final judgment ‘on the merits.’ ” Rennie v. Freeway Transport, 294 Or 319, 330 (1982). When parties sign a settlement agreement and the Plaintiff dismisses the underlying action with prejudice, that judgment does not automatically preclude further litigation.
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
State v. Pitts
A defendant must engage in "physical force or physical conduct which is immediately likely to produce the use of such force" in order to be convicted disorderly conduct in the second degree. State v. Cantwell, 66 Or App 848,
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Waldrup
Courts may give a Miles instruction - allowing a jury to find that a defendant was intoxicated by alcohol even if they were below the legal limit - if they were "in such a physical condition that [they were] more susceptible to the influence of intoxicants" and if there is evidence that the defendant ingested either medication or a controlled substance. State v. Avila, 318 Or App 284, 286 (2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Kragt v. Board of Parole
While the Court may choose to decline to award costs outlined in ORS 20.310(1) when the case is dismissed for mootness or otherwise, a dismissal based on the merits will typically result in the Court awarding fees to the prevailing party. DeYoung/Thomas v. Board of Parole, 332 Or 266, 276, 27 P3d 110 (2001).
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
State v. Hampton
Only crimes directly listed by name under subsection (1) of ORS 137.717 meet the criteria for disqualifying a defendant from a downward depature in sentencing under ORS 137.717(6)(a).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Moore
A defendant is guilty of second-degree disorderly conduct under ORS 166.025(1)(d) as long as there is a risk of causing public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm. State v. Hund, 76 Or App 89, 91-92, 708 P2d 621 (1985), rev den, 300 Or 477 (1986).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Bush v. City of Prineville
In order to designate an appellant as the prevailing party for purposes of awarding costs, ORAP 13.05(3) requires that "the court reverses or substantially modifies the judgment . . . Otherwise, the respondent is the prevailing party."
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
State v. Snodgrass
The legislative history of ORS 166.070(1)(c) shows that the legislature intended to criminalize spitting on a police officer regardless of whether it contacted the officer's skin directly or merely contacted the officer's clothes.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Land Use Board of Appeals (1 summary)
Claus v. City of Sherwood
ORS 92.040 authorizes an applicant to develop one portion of the subdivided property under the standards in effect at the time of the subdivision application and develop another portion of the subdivided property under the standards currently in effect.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use