United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted (5 summaries)
Moore v. Harper
Whether the Elections Clause of the Federal Constitution vests state legislatures with the authority to set rules governing federal elections free from restrictions imposed under state law.
Area(s) of Law:- Election Law
Samia v. United States
Whether the Confrontation Clause bars the admission of a nontestifying codefendant’s confession where (1) the confession has been modified to avoid directly identifying the nonconfessing codefendant and (2) the court offers a limiting instruction that jurors may consider the confession only with respect to the confessing codefendant.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Arizona v. Navajo Nation
In 1868, the United States set apart a large reservation “for the use and occupation of the Navajo tribe” within the new American territory in the western United States.
Area(s) of Law:- Indian Law
Yegiazaryan v. Smagin
The RICO Act provides a private right of action to “any person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of” RICO’s substantive provisions. 18 U.S.C. §1964(c).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
Lora v. United States
When a federal court imposes multiple prison sentences, it can choose whether to run the sentences concurrently or consecutively under 18 U.S.C. § 3584. The exception under subsection (c) of 924 provides that, “no term of imprisonment imposed on a person under this subsection shall run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment.” 924(c)(1)(D)(ii).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
9th Circuit Court of Appeals (5 summaries)
Melville v. Shinn
A state post-conviction relief application is “pending as long as the ordinary state collateral review process is in continuance.” Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214, 219-20 (2002).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Friedenberg v. Lane County
Under 42 U.S.C. §233(a), Public Health Service employees are granted immunity from claims arising out of their performance of “medical, surgical, dental, or related functions.” Conduct qualifies as a “related function[,]” when it is "related" to the provision of medical services.
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
In Re: American Rivers v. American Petroleum Institute
Under 9th Circuit precedent, permanent equitable remedies can only be awarded against illegal executive action. Likewise, the APA’s text is best read as authorizing a court to vacate an agency action only when that court first held that action unlawful.
Area(s) of Law:- Environmental Law
Bowerman, et al. v. Field Asset Services, Inc., et al.
A putative employer cannot be liable to an entire class of putative employees for failing to reimburse their business expenses and pay them overtime unless the putative employer failed to do so for each class member.
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
NLRB v. Aakash, Inc.
Under section 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act, it is an unfair labor practice for an employer to refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives of their employees.
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Oregon Court of Appeals (17 summaries)
State v. Hamilton
When a person refuses to consent to a search, that refusal invokes the person’s constitutional right to insist that the government obtain a warrant, and thus evidence of the refusal may not be admitted at trial as evidence of their guilt. However, refusals to perform breath tests may be admitted as evidence of guilt if the state proves that law enforcement’s requests to perform the tests could be understood only as a request to submit to the physical act, and not as a request that defendant provide constitutionally significant consent to the tests. Banks, 364 Or at 342.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Dept. of Human Services v. R.F.
“The court may grant the motion for intervention if the person moving to intervene in the case proves by a preponderance of the evidence that: (A) A caregiver relationship exists between the person and the child or ward; (B) The intervention is in the best interests of the child or ward; (C) The reason for intervention and the specific relief sought are consistent with the best interests of the child or ward; and (D) The existing parties cannot adequately present the case.” ORS 419B.116(5)(c)(A) - (D)
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Doe v. The First Christian Church of the Dalles, Oregon
OEC 609(1) provides: “For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted if elicited from the witness or established by public record, but only if the crime: (a) Was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year under the law under which the witness was convicted; or (b) Involved false statement or dishonesty.”
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Joseph
OEC 803(18a)(b) provides, in part, that: “A statement made by a person concerning an act of abuse as defined in ORS 107.705 or 419B.005, is not excluded by ORS 40.455 if the declarant either testifies at the proceeding and is subject to cross-examination, or is unavailable as a witness but was chronologically or mentally under 12 years of age when the statement was made.”
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Keck
To establish that an officer had reasonable suspicion, “[a] court (1) must find that the officer actually suspected that the stopped person had committed a specific crime or type of crime or was about to commit a specific crime or type of crime, and (2) must conclude, based on the record, that the officer[’s] subjective belief was objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances existing at the time of the stop.” State v. Maciel-Figueroa, 361 Or 163, 182, 189 P3d 1121 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Blakeley v. Quality Loan Service Corp. of WA
ORS 86.797(2) plainly bars “an action for a deficiency” against “the grantor, the grantor’s successor in interest, or another person obligated on” the relevant note; however, given the text and context of the statute, that does not encompass a nonjudicial or judicial foreclosure of a trust deed.
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
Cazun v. State
When it is “truly clear” that removal from this country will result from a guilty plea, a trial counsel must advise a client that deportation is presumptively mandatory. Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 US 356, 369, (2010)
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. Koelzer
Under ORS 809.235(1)(b), a person’s driving privileges shall be permanently revoked “if the person is convicted for a third or subsequent time of driving while under the influence of intoxicants in violation of ORS 813.010 or its “statutory counterpart” in another jurisdiction.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Calef v. Employment Department
“An individual shall be eligible to receive a payment of disaster unemployment assistance with respect to a week of unemployment if: (i) the individual is not eligible for compensation (as defined in § 625.2(d)) for such week under any other Federal or State law, except that an individual determined ineligible because of the receipt of disqualifying income shall be considered eligible for such compensation." 20 CFR section 625.4(i).
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
State v. M.T.F.
ORS 163.208 states: “A person commits the crime of assaulting a public safety officer if the person intentionally or knowingly causes physical injury to the other person, knowing the other person to be a peace officer and while the other person is acting in the course of official duty.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
A.B.A. v. Wood
The Court does not possess inherent authority to set aside a judgement for intrinsic fraud upon the court. ORCP 71(c).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Stalking Protective Order
KKMH Properties, LLC v. Shire
“If the violation described in the notice can be cured by the tenant by a change in conduct, repairs, payment of money or otherwise, the rental agreement does not terminate if the tenant cures the violation by the designated date. The designated date must be: (A) At least 14 days after delivery of the notice…” ORS 90.392(4)(a).
Area(s) of Law:- Landlord Tenant
Wright v. Lutzi
Where an obvious clerical error causes a judgment to be internally inconsistent and ambiguous on its face, we may look at the record to determine the court’s true intent and instruct the trial court to modify the judgment accordingly. State v. Sullivan, 29 Or App 55, 58, 562 P2d 560 (1977).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Sodaro v. Boyd
"A substantial-factor instruction is not required in all multiple causation cases." Haas v. Estate of Mark Steven Carter, 370 Or 742, 525 P3d 451 (2023).
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
State v. Wiltse
A person commits third-degree assault if the person recklessly causes a “serious physical injury” by means of a dangerous or deadly weapon. ORS 163.165(1)(a).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Parra-Sanchez
If a defendant uses a child to create a display of sexually explicit conduct, then, under ORS 163.670, there must be an objective examination of the characteristics from the perspective of the viewer of the display.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Rytting
ORS 162.205 provides: “(1) A person commits the crime of failure to appear in the first degree if the person knowingly fails to appear as required after: (a) Having by court order been released from custody or a correctional facility under a release agreement or security release upon the condition that the person will subsequently appear personally in connection with a charge against the person of having committed a felony; or (b) Having been released from a correctional facility subject to a forced release agreement under ORS 169.046 in connection with a charge against the person of having committed a felony...”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law