9th Circuit Court of Appeals (4 summaries)
DHS v. M.D.L.
Under ORS 419B.875(2)(c), a party has a right to be represented by counsel at a permanency hearing.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Serbin
State v. Hubbell, 314 Or. App. 844 (2021) held that the crimes of possession and delivery merge because the crime of delivery cannot be committed without the crime of possession.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Pettibone et al. v. Russell
Under Bivens, a court must go through two steps. First, we ask whether the case presents “a new Bivens context”—i.e., is it “meaningful[ly]” different from the three cases in which the Court has implied a damages action.” Egbert v. Boule, 142 S. Ct. 1793, 1803 (2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
McKnight v. Uber Techs., Inc.
Under In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig., 779 F.3d 934, 951 (9th Cir. 2015), there are three factors to consider a class settlement a coupon settlement: “(1) whether class members have ‘to hand over more of their own money before they can take advantage of’ a credit, (2) whether the credit is valid only ‘for select products or services,’ and (3) how much flexibility the credit provides, including whether it expires or is freely transferable.”
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
Oregon Court of Appeals (20 summaries)
State v. Long-Ellis
Under ORS 137.225(1)(a), the term, “fully complied with and performed the sentence of the court” means fully satisfying the terms of parole and not just avoiding subsequent parole violations.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Huskey v. Dep't of Corrections
“Article I, section 41(3), states, in relevant part, that ‘no inmate has a legally enforceable right to a job or to otherwise participate in work, on-the-job training or educational programs or to compensation for work or labor performed while an inmate of any state, county or city corrections facility or institution.”
Area(s) of Law:- Remedies
DHS v. L.N.S.
“A collateral consequence for the purpose of mootness is a probable adverse consequence to a party as a result of the challenged action.” DHS v. A.H., 275 Or App 788, 790-91 (2015).” “A collateral consequence must have a significant probability of actually occurring; a speculative or merely possible effect is not enough.” DHS v. J.A., 324 Or App 445, 448-49 (2023).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Crandall v. State
The Oregon Torts Claims Act (OTCA) immunizes from liability “[e]very public body and its officers, employees and agents acting within the scope of their employment or duties” for “[a]ny claim for injury to or death of any person covered by any workers’ compensation law.” ORS 30.265(6)(a).
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
DHS v. M.M.
“To establish jurisdiction, the Department of Human Services (DHS) must prove that the child’s conditions or circumstances ‘present a current threat of serious loss or injury’ that is nonspeculative and reasonably likely to be realized.” DHS v. C.J.T., 258 Or App 57, 61-62 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Halvorson
“[I]nvited error is no basis for reversal.” State v. Harris, 362 Or 55, 67, (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
Williamson v. Zielinski
“The burden of proof to establish that a testator had testamentary capacity is upon the proponent of the will … [h]owever when a will is executed in due form [the proponent if the will] is entitled to the benefit of a presumption that the testator is competent.” Clauder v. Morser, 204 Or 378, 386 (1955). "A contestant of a will ... bears the burden to establish the existence of ‘a suspicion of undue influence,’ meaning that (1) a ‘confidential relationship’ exists between the testator and the beneficiary, ‘such that the beneficiary held a position of dominance over the testator’; and (2) there are ‘suspicious circumstances surrounding the procurement or execution of the will.’ Knutsen v. Krippendorf, 124 Or App 299, 308 (1993).
Area(s) of Law:- Trusts and Estates
Botts Marsh, LLC v. City of Wheeler
Under Gutoski v. Lane County, 155 Or App 369, a LUBA remand would be improper only “if (1) the applicant had at least minimally adequate notice of the local government’s interpretation of its standards in time to submit responsive materials in support of its application” and “(2) the applicant has not shown that it could have put in more evidence with adequate notice.” “If the local government’s interpretation ‘plausibly accounts for the text and context’ of the provision, then LUBA and [the Court] must defer to that interpretation” Siporen v. City of Medford, 349 Or. 247 (2010).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
State v. Stone
“Second-degree assault under ORS 163.175(1)(a) requires ‘[i]ntentionally or knowingly caus[ing] serious physical injury to another[.]’” “’[S]erious physical injury,’ … is defined in ORS 161.015(8) to mean ‘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. Morales
“ORS 161.095 provides … a person is not guilty of an offense unless the person acts with a culpable mental state with respect to each material element of the offense that necessarily requires a culpable mental state” (internal quotations omitted).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Clowdus
“For purposes of [determining whether there is any evidence to support a defense], the ‘quantum’ of evidence is irrelevant, State v. Brown, 306 Or 599, 603 n 3, 761 P2d1300 (1988), as is the existence of contrary evidence, State v. Costanzo, 94 Or App 516, 518 n 1, 766 P2d 415 (1988). ‘[T]he court’s role is not to weigh the evidence, but merely to determine if any evidence would support the defense.’ Costanzo, 94 Or App at 518 n 1.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Ovalle
“[ORS 14.210(1)(c)] provides: ‘A judge shall not act as judge if the judge is related to any party, or to the attorney for any party, or to the partner or office associate of any such attorney, by consanguinity or affinity within the third degree.’”
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. Severson
“Under its ‘possession theory of UUW,’ the state had to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant ‘possessed the [weapon] with the intent either (1) to employ the [weapon] to inflict harm or injury or (2) to employ the [weapon] to threaten immediate harm or injury.'” State v. McAuliffe, 276 Or. App. 259, 265 (2016). Also, “[a] person commits the crime of menacing if by word or conduct the person intentionally attempts to place another person in fear of imminent serious physical injury” ORS 163.190(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Steltz v. Cain
“[ORS 34.355 provides ‘discretionary and implicit authority’ for the court to appoint counsel for indigent petitioners in habeas cases. Combs v. Baldwin, 161 Or App 270, 276, 984 P2d 366 (1999).” Under State v. Kacin, 237 Or. App. 66, 73, 240 P3d 1099 (2010), the Court held that the habeas court “must provide enough information to enable appellate court to engage in meaningful review of the court's exercise of discretion.”
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
State v. Champagne
The court’s balancing fell within the permissible range of the court’s discretion, particularly in light of the state’s need to cross-examine Bourg, the limitations imposed on B’s testimony, and the use of a limiting instruction. See Powers, 323 Or App at 567-68 (holding that, in light of the LeMay factors, the court acted within its discretion to admit evidence of past abuse to show sexual purpose).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Mejia v. Miller
"The existence of alternative remedial structures is reason enough not to infer a new Bivens cause of action.” Egbert v. Boule, 142 S. Ct. 1793, 1804 (2022),
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights § 1983
Seaview Trading, LLC v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
Regarding limitations statutes that bar the collection of taxes, there must be, “meticulous compliance by the taxpayer with all named conditions in order to secure the benefit of the limitation.” Lucas v. Pilliod Lumber Co., 281 U.S. 245, 249 (1930)
Area(s) of Law:- Tax Law
State v. Aguilera
"ORS 135.703 is intended to allow civil compromise for Class C felonies that are capable of being punished as misdemeanors by operation of ORS 161.705."
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Serrano
Under State v. Mansor, 363 Or. 185 (2018), individual privacy interests prevent the state from using evidence outside the scope of the original warrant.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Kappouta v. Valiant Integrated Services, LLC.
Under DCWPA, a disinterested observer would need to reasonably conclude that the disclosure was a violation of law related to a defense contract.
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law