United States Supreme Court (1 summary)
Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. FTC
The Court applies the Thunder Basin factors to determine if Congress intended to limit jurisdiction of claims regarding federal agency actions to the statutory administrative review structure or if they may be litigated under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
9th Circuit Court of Appeals (10 summaries)
United States v. Castillo
A defendant is a "career offender" if (1) the defendant was at least 18 years old at the time of the instant offense of conviction; (2) the instant offense is a felony that is either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense; and (3) the defendant has at least two prior felony convictions of either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense. U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a). A "controlled substance offense" is defined as "an offense. . .that prohibits the manufacture, import, export, distribution, or dispensing of a controlled substance (or a counterfeit substance) or the possession of a controlled substance (or a counterfeit substance) with intent to manufacture, import, export, distribute, or dispense." Id. § 4B1.2(b). A "controlled substance offense" is defined as "[A]n offense. . .that prohibits the manufacture, import, export, distribution, or dispensing of a controlled substance (or a counterfeit substance) or the possession of a controlled substance (or a counterfeit substance) with intent to manufacture, import, export, distribute, or dispense." Id. § 4B1.2(b).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Wischmann v. Kijakazi
The ALJ has a general duty to resolve inconsistencies in the evidence, which may require obtaining additional evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520b(b) (setting out the steps the agency may take when “the evidence in [the claimant’s] case record is . . . inconsistent”); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920b(b) (same). That duty arises only where the purportedly inconsistent evidence is both significant and probative, as opposed to “meritless or immaterial.” Kilpatrick v. Kijakazi, 35 F.4th 1187, 1193-94 (9th Cir. 2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Hollins v. Walmart, Inc.
“‘[A] state-law misbranding claim’ that would allow a ‘state to impose requirements . . . different from those permitted under the [Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act] . . . is preempted.’” Durnford v. MusclePharm Corp, 907 F.3d 595, 602 (9th Cir. 2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Kennedy, Jr. v. Warren
“Reputational harm stemming from an unretracted government action is a sufficiently concrete injury for standing purposes. “ Foretich v. United States, 351 F.3d 1198, 1212-13 (D.C. Cir. 2003). To draw the line between persuasion and coercion, the Second Circuit has formulated a non-exclusive four-factor framework that examines: (1) the government official’s word choice and tone; (2) whether the official has regulatory authority over the conduct at issue; (3) whether the recipient perceived the message as a threat; and (4) whether the communication refers to any adverse consequences if the recipient refuses to comply. National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo, 49 F.4th 700, 715 (2d Cir. 2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Gunn v. Drage
(1) Where Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 requires entry of a separate document as the judgment, judgment is not considered entered until “the judgment or order is entered in the civil docket under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 79(a)” and such a separate document is filed. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(7)(A)(ii). (2) If a defendant moves to strike an anti-SLAPP motion “on purely legal arguments,” courts must analyze the motion under Rules 8 and 12, but where a defendant asserts “a factual challenge,” courts must treat the motion to strike as “a motion for summary judgment,” triggering discovery. Planned Parenthood Fed’n of Am., Inc. v. Ctr. For Med. Progress, 890 F.3d 828, 833 (9th Cir.), as amended, 897 F.3d 1224 (9th Cir. 2018). (3) “'[A] cause of action arising from a lawyer’s conduct, when the conduct includes advice to a prospective client on pending litigation,’ is also protectable [under the anti-SLAPP statute].” Taheri L. Grp. V. Evans, 72 Cal. Rptr. 3d 847, 853 (2008).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
Gutierrez-Alm v. Garland
In a transitional rules case, an immigrant's accrual of physical presence stops upon notice of an Order to Show Cause, even if the order does not list the time and place of the deportation proceedings.
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Winsor v. Sequoia Benefits & Ins.
"To establish injury in fact, a plaintiff must show that he or she suffered 'an invasion of a legally protected interest' that is 'concrete and particularized' and 'actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.'" Spokeo, 578 U.S. at 339 (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560).
Area(s) of Law:- ERISA
Twitter, Inc. v. Garland
Electronic communication service providers that are recipients of national security process are bound by statute to protect and not disclose classified information arising from that process.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
United States v. Alvarez
“An alien can show that his due process rights were violated by defects in his deportation proceeding if he shows that his underlying state conviction was not, in fact, an aggravated felony.” United States v. Martinez, 786 F.3d 1227, 1230 (9th Cir. 2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
United States v. Baker
Where a “protective search goes beyond what is necessary to determine if the suspect is armed, it is no longer valid under Terry and its fruits will be suppressed.” Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 373 (1993) (internal citation omitted).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Oregon Supreme Court (1 summary)
Martineau v. McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center
The Court grants Plaintiff's petition for reconsideration of their earlier decision in Martineau v. McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center, 371 Or 247, 533 P3d 1 (2023).
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
Oregon Court of Appeals (23 summaries)
Kasliner v. Dept. of Human Services
A circuit court must produce “special findings of fact” when it reverses an agency’s order in other than a contested case. ORS 183.484(6).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Jacobus v. Klamath County
"LUBA is entitled to deference in the interpretation of its own administrative rule if its interpretation is plausible and not inconsistent with the rule, the rule's context, or any other source of law." Maguire v. Clackamas County, 250 Or App 146, 162 (2012).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Gage v. Fred Meyer Stores - Kroger Co.
The Court undertakes a review for substantial evidence that incorporates substantial reason "to determine whether the [Worker's Compensation] board adequately explained how it got from the factual findings that it made to the legal conclusions that it reached." SAIF v. Harrison, 299 Or App 104, 105 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
Lewis-Taylor v. Board of Parole
The appellate courts will "decline to address an undeveloped argument." Cunningham v. Thompson, 188 Or App 289, 297 n 2 (2003). The requirements for "plain" error require that a legal point is obvious and not reasonably in dispute. State v. Vanornum, 354 Or 614, 629 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
Dept. of Human Services v. B.B.
Under ORS 419B.116, the juvenile court has discretion to permit intervention in a dependency case “by a person who has a 'caregiver relationship' with a child. . .if the person seeking intervention first ‘proves’ by a preponderance of the evidence the four listed [statutory] requirements.” Dept. of Human Services v. R.F., 328 Or App 267, 271 (2023).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. A.O.
ORS 419C.400(2) requires “[t]he facts alleged in the petition showing the youth to be within the jurisdiction of the court as provided in ORS 419C.005, unless admitted, must be established beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Coy
“[T]he appropriate time to challenge the existence of the conditions precedent to the issuance of the citation is in a pretrial motion aimed at the efficacy of the charging instrument.” State v. King, 199 Or App 278, 285, rev den, 339 Or 544 (2005).
Area(s) of Law:- Traffic Infractions
Martin v. Kelly
Claims that trial counsel failed to provide adequate representation requires evidence that counsel's efforts were (1) constitutionally inadequate, and (2) prejudicial. Trujillo v. Maas, 312 Or 431, 435 (1991).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Bacon v. Cain
To succeed on a claim of inadequate assistance of counsel under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution, the petitioner must show by a preponderance of the evidence facts demonstrating that (1) counsel failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment, and (2) counsel’s failure had a tendency to affect the result of his trial. Montez v. Czerniak, 355 Or 1, 7 (2014).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Dept. of Human Services v. T.M.M.
Under ORS 419B.500, the Court’s de novo standard for review of termination cases, “we must be persuaded by the evidence that it is highly probable that termination of mother’s parental rights is in [the children’s] best interest.” Dept. of Human Services v. T.L.M.H., 294 Or App 749, 750 (2018), rev den, 365 Or 556 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Albrecht v. Emmert
"[C]ourts of record within their respective jurisdictions shall have power to declare rights, status, and other legal relations, whether or not further relief is or could be claimed." ORS 28.010. "The purpose of [a declaratory action] is to settle and to afford relief from uncertainty and insecurity with respect to rights, status and other legal relations, and is to be liberally construed and administered." ORS 28.120.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
D.S.
“The rule that statutes in derogation of common law are to be strictly construed does not apply to the adoption laws of this state.” ORS 109.268(1). The principal purpose of adoption is to effectuate “the protection and promotion of the child’s best interest.” F. v. C., 24 Or App 601, 608-09, cert den, 429 US 907 (1976).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Davoodian v. Rivera
“A special motion to strike may be made against any claim in a civil action that arises out of any other conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of petition or the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest.” ORS 31.150(2)(d).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
Craven and Craven
Marital assets are subject to a statutory presumption of equal contribution. ORS 107.105(1)(f)(C).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Fields v. City of Newport
Landowners who grant public access to their land for recreational use are immune from liability for injury that “arises out of the use of the land for recreational purposes.” ORS 105.682(1). “The activity of crossing a parcel of land, by itself, is not a recreational purpose.” Liberty v. State Dept. of Transportation, 342 Or 11, 21-22 (2006).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
Bellshaw v. Farmers Ins. Co.
ORS 746.290(2)(b) requires insurers to provide notice of all of the provisions of ORS 746.280 when a relevant policy is issued. The obligation under ORS 746.290(2)(b) attaches at the time a policy is issued, not at the time a claim is made under the policy.
Area(s) of Law:- Insurance Law
Dept. of Human Services v. M.G.J.
“If the case plan at the time of the hearing is to reunify the family, [the court shall] determine whether [DHS] has made reasonable efforts or, if the ward is an Indian child, active efforts as described in ORS 419B.645 to make it possible for the ward to safely return home and whether the parent has made sufficient progress to make it possible for the ward to safely return home. In making its determination, the court shall consider the ward’s health and safety the paramount concerns.” ORS 419B.476(2)(a).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Friends of Yamhill County v. Yamhill County
"[A] 'dwelling' or 'residence' requires use as a home. A home is occupied by a group of people sharing a household - not by individuals and groups who share no social or legal relationship - on a long-term or permanent basis - not in a transitory way." 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Clackamas County, 309 Or App 499 at 453, 483 P3d 706,rev den, 368 Or 347 (2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
State v. Robintree
The Court "must affirm a defendant's conviction despite evidentiary error if there is little likelihood that the particular error affected the verdict." State v. Jones, 274 Or App 723, 728, 362 P3d 899 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Petix v. Gillingham
"Declaratory judgement actions are generally not the proper subject of a motion to dismiss, unless there is 'want of a justiciable controversy'." Doe v. Medford School District, 549C, 232 Or App 38 at 45 (2009)
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Ortiz
"Evidence perceived by lay jurors to be scientific in nature possesses an unusually high degree of persuasive power. The function of the court is to ensure that the persuasive appeal is legitimate." State v. O'Key, 321 Or 285, 291, 899 P2d 663 (1995).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Copeland
[T]he less-satisfactory evidence instruction must be supported by a showing that (1) the evidence the state did not present was reasonably available, and (2) the evidence was stronger than other evidence the state offered. State v. Hendershott, 131 Or App 531, 535-36, 887 P2d 351 (1994), rev den, 320 Or 587 (1995).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Stone
It is legal error after Owen to fail to instruct the jury "that the defendant must act with a culpable mental state as to the injury element" to be found guilty of second-degree assault. State v. Hatchell, 322 Or App 315, 519 P3d 563 (2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law