United States Supreme Court (3 summaries)
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. v. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System
The generic nature of a misrepresentation is important evidence of price impact, even though that same evidence may be relevant to materiality. Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds, 568 U.S. 455 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Business Law
Fulton v. Philadelphia
Maximizing the number of foster parents, protecting the City from liability, and ensuring equal treatment of prospective foster parents and children were not "interests of the highest order" and, therefore, are not sufficient to survive strict scrutiny.
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
Sanchez v. Mayoraks
The conferral of Temporary Protected Status does not admit foreign nationals to the United States and therefore “does not make an unlawful entrant … eligible under § 1255 for adjustment to LPR status.”
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted (1 summary)
Sanders v. United States
Whether the community caretaker exception to the Fourth Amendment allowed law enforcement to make warrantless entry into a home where: (1) they suspected a male had fought with and caused minor scratches to the face of his girlfriend, who assured officers that she and her children were fine; and (2) they heard a child crying inside after expressly assenting to the girlfriend reentering the home to ask the male to come out.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Oregon Supreme Court (2 summaries)
State v. McKinney/Shiffer
In the case of a bench trial, the trial court's failure to consider the culpable mental state for the serious physical injury element of an assault offense is not harmless. State v. Marrington, 355 Or 555, 565-66 (2003). Similarly, in the case of a jury trial, a jury instruction that fails to instruct the jury as to the culpable mental state for the serious physical injury element is not harmless. Hernandez v. Barbo Machinery Co., 327 Or 99, 106-07 (1998).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. McCarthy
"[W]e overrule Brown's per se exigency rule and hold that, in order to justify a warrantless seizure or search of a vehicle based on exigent circumstances, the state must prove that exigent circumstances actually existed at the time of the seizure or search."
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Oregon Court of Appeals (44 summaries)
Griffin Oak Prop. Invest. v. City of Rockaway Beach
No city official can bind a city to a smaller setback by incorrectly approving a site plan showing a smaller setback. Doney v. Clatsop County, 142 OrApp 497 (1996).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Schaefer v. Marion County
The statutory definition of "airports" does not include the land adjacent to runways. ORS 836.605(2).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Dept. of Human Services v. B. F.
Failure to make the findings required by Dept. of Human Services v. W. C. T. is reversible error, even if the order was given before the decision in W. C. T. State v. Jury, 185 OrApp 132, 136 (2002).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Gonzalez-Coria
"When the police have obtained valid consent from someone with actual authority to search a place, the fact that it is a shared space is irrelevant, unless, at a minimum, a cotenant is present, claims a privacy interest in the space, and expressly objects to the search or refuses consent." Or. Const. Art. I, § 9.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Myhre v. Potter
"[T]he 20-day time limitation on interposing an objection to vacate or modify an arbitration award under ORS 36.705 and ORS 36.710 is not a shield against certain purely procedural objections[.]" "[A] petition to confirm an award initiates a special statutory proceeding that does not contain a limitation on the time period, after an arbitration award, within which the petition must be filed." ORS 18.180.
Area(s) of Law:- Alternative Dispute Resolution
RLF Liquidating, LLC v. McDonald Brothers, Inc.
A motion for leave to amend should be granted if it "would neither change nor add a claim or defense" and "it would not prejudice plaintiff[.]" Ramsey v. Thompson, 162 OrApp 139 (1999).
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
State v. Alcaraz
A defendant who is approached by a law enforcement officer and asked to produce a fishing license cannot reasonably believe that they are free to leave and are therefore stopped. State v. Almahmood, 308 OrApp 795 (2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. S. R.-N.
"[A] constitutionally significant deprivation of due process requires an assessment of the risk that a procedural failure resulted in the commitment." See Mathews v. Elridge, 424 US 319, 335 (1976).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
Hernandez v. Berger
When the record supports a lower court's finding that there was an inconsistency between a petitioner's testimony and that of their trial counsel, the Court of Appeals is bound by that factual finding. Davis v. Cain, 304 OrApp 356, 358 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Lewis v. Worley
A settlor of a trust is entitled to attorney’s fees under ORS 20.105(1) if someone brings a claim against the trust without an objectively reasonable basis. "Although [ORS 130.815] says that the court may award fees 'to any party' in an action involving administration of a trust, it cannot justify an award of fees to a party that had no objectively reasonable basis for bringing the claims it did."
Area(s) of Law:- Trusts and Estates
State v. Swenson
"Unless otherwise specified, a refusal to submit to a urine test, and a license suspension for refusing to submit to a urine test, have the same consequences as a refusal to submit to a breath test and license suspension for refusing to submit to a breath test." ORS 813.132.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Phillips Sisson Industries, Inc. v. Hysell
Under the LLC Act, debt repayments are only distributions if they are "in respect of a member's interest." ORS 63.001(6).
Area(s) of Law:- Corporations
State v. Reed
For a finding of compelling circumstances, the trial court must determine that the "circumstances of the ... interaction, viewed in their totality ... produce[d] 'the sort of police-dominated atmosphere that Miranda warnings were intended to counteract.'" State v. Roble-Baker, 340 Or 631, 641 (2006).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Meacham
Attempts to elude an officer may support a conclusion that a person is the subject of an outstanding felony warrant. State v. Maciel-Figueroa, 361 Or 163, 181 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Moyer v. Columbia State Bank
In order to survive a motion to dismiss a breach of contract claim, plaintiffs must "plead ultimate facts... and not merely state legal conclusions", but are not required under ORCP 18 A to allege evidence. Fearing v. Butcher, 328 Or 367, 371, 977 P2d 1163 (1999).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Smith v. Airbnb, Inc.
As long as interactive computer service providers do not act in manners that transform them into content providers, their immunity under CDA 230 is not foreclosed. Fair Hous. Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.Com, LLC, 521 F3d 1157, 1162 (9th Cir 2008).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Precision Castparts Corp - PCC Structurals v. Cramer
ALJs and the Workers' Compensation Board are not required to evaluate whether the ARU abused its discretion because they conduct de novo review of the ARU's impairment determination. Marvin Wood Products v. Callow, 171 Or App. 175, 180, 14 P3d 686 (2000).
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
State v. C. L. E.
Given the highly specialized and complex nature of juvenile defense, reliance on only interactions with juvenile clients--particularly those with diagnosed mental disabilities--to evaluate competency "reflects an absence of professional skill and judgment." State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Welch, 12 Or App. 400, 507 P2d 401 (1973).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Wedebrook
If a defendant is "instrumental in bringing about the error", the court is dissuaded from exercising its discretion to correct it. State v. Taylor, 295 Or App 32, 35-36, 433 P3d 486 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Dept. of Human Services v. V.M.
UTCR 5.030(1) "pertains only to time limits for responding to motions" and "does not address time limits for filing motions." "If a fact cannot be fairly implied by the original jurisdictional bases, the juvenile court errs if it relies on that fact to continue dependency jurisdiction." See Dept. of Human Services v. G. E., 243 Or App 471, 479 (2011).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Moyer v. Columbia State Bank
If a trial court deems a reply memorandum to be a motion for summary judgement, and the opposing party fails to file a response within 20 days, the court may make its summary judgement ruling without the benefit of the opposing party's response. ORCP 47 C.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Sanchez
Evidence depicting that Defendant struck the victim, who was an 86-year-old woman, with an open fist and caused "significant, dark-colored bruising" that remained for at least two and a half weeks was sufficient to support a reasonable inference that the victim suffered substantial pain. State v. Miller, 311 Or App 680, 684 (2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Tate
Unless, during a continuous transaction relating to the search in question, a defendant indicates verbally or by conduct that they wish for their voluntary consent to no longer be valid, it is presumed to continue. State v. Luther, 63 Or App. 86, 89, 663 P2d 1261 (1983).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Hackett
Testimony that outlines the severe nature of a person's kicking an animal and throwing rocks at the animal is alone sufficient to support a reasonable inference that the animal experienced pain that was more than fleeting or momentary. State v. Colpo, 305 Or. App. 690, 695, 472 P.3d 277, rev. den., 367 Or. 290, 476 P.3d 1255 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. M. L.
For a person to be involuntarily committed, the State must establish a "particularized" and "highly probable" threat sufficient to show that the person is a danger to self within the meaning of ORS 426.005(1)(f)(A). State v. S. R. J., 281 Or App 741, 749, 386 P3d 99 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
United Academics of OSU v. OSU
A substantial reason argument alleging insufficient reference to the record or consideration of the evidence (or "cherry-picking") misconstrues the standard as laid out in Jenkins, which does not require a complete recounting of all evidence. Mendacino v. Board of Parole, 287 Or. App. 822, 838, 404 P.3d 1048 (2017), rev. den., 362 Or. 508, 424 P.3d 724 (2018). While it may be possible to draw different inferences from the evidence, that does not imply that the inferences drawn by the ERB were unreasonable, and the Court is not empowered, under its standard of review, to displace reasonable and reasoned inferences drawn by the Board. City of Roseburg v. Roseburg City Firefighters, 292 Or. 266, 271, 639 P.2d 90 (1981).
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Criminal Justice Reform Clinic v. Board of Parole
OAR 255-032-0005(4) and (5) allow for the consideration of youth as a mitigating factor and, therefore, do not facially violate the Eighth Amendment. ORS 161.620 does not require that the board rules mandate immediate parole eligibility for juveniles. Engweiler v. Board of Parole, 343 Or. 536, 548, 175 P.3d 408 (2007) (Engweiler I).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Rushton v. Oregon Medical Board
Reports of expert witnesses obtained by health professional regulatory boards in the course of investigation are not disclosed to the licensee or applicant. ORS 676.175(3).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
In re Conry
Information that embarrasses the client falls within the scope of RPC 1.6(a), and is considered "revealed" even if there is a third party who possessed that information. Further, in order for disclosure to be protected under RPC 1.6(b)(4), the attorney must have "reasonably believe[d] [it] necessary."
Area(s) of Law:- Professional Responsibility
Kine v. Deschutes County
"When ... a subdivision plat overlays an entire tract of land ... that plat operates on the entirety of the tract, vacating any preexisting plot lines unless the plat says otherwise." Weyerhauser Real Estate Development Co. v. Polk County, 246 Or App 548, 559, 267 P3d 855 (2011).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
State v. Canepa
A defendant's history of drug possession, acknowledgment of recent drug use, and association with a potential criminal associate are not sufficiently specific so as to give rise to reasonable grounds to request the defendant's consent to search their vehicle. State v. Maciel-Figueroa, 361 Or 163, 179, 389 P3d 1121 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
City of Eugene v. Adams
Neither the Eighth Amendment nor Article I, section 16, prohibit the enforcement of criminal trespass laws against the homeless. "Vague, unspecified, or generalized potential harms are insufficient" to prove that the injury the defendant sought to avoid was imminent; the defendant must show "'that the threat of injury existed at the time that defendant committed his offense.'" State v. Freih, 270 Or App 555, 557, 348 P3d 324 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Camphouse
"Where the evidence permit[s] a finding that defendant committed the charged offense on any one or more of several instances, defendant [is] entitled to an instruction that jurors ha[ve] to agree on which instance [is] the basis for their verdict." State v. Slaviak, 296 Or App 805, 810-11, 440 P3d 114 (2019). However, failure to provide such an instruction is harmless if "there is little likelihood that, if it had been given the concurrence instruction[,] ... the jury would have reached a different result." State v. Ashkins, 357 Or 642, 659, 357 P3d 490 (2015)
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Turay
After finding that valid search commands can be severed and assessed independently from invalid search commands, the trial court must hold a hearing so that it "can determine what evidence is admissible pursuant to the valid portions of the warrant and what evidence must be suppressed because it was obtained based on the invalid portion of the warrant." State v. Frischman, 298 Or App 186, 188-89, 445 P3d 946, rev den, 365 Or 721 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Hollins
Observations by an officer, with articulable, relevant training and experience of a hand-to-hand transaction near a "hot spot" for drug and weapon activity objectively support reasonable suspicion. State v. Walker, 277 Or App. 397, 402, 372 P3d 540, rev den, 360 Or 423 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Dept. of Human Services v. J. D. R.
"DHS's efforts are not reasonable when they are not sufficiently aimed at alleviating the specific controlling jurisdictional basis." Dept. of Human Services v. L.A.K., 306 Or App 706, 716, 474 P3d 925 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Tellez-Suarez
"In determining whether there was an invocation [of the right to counsel] at all, and if so, whether it was equivocal or unequivocal, [the court] look[s] to 'the defendant's words, in light of the totality of the circumstances at and preceding the time they were uttered, to ascertain whether a reasonable officer would have understood that the defendant was invoking that right.'" State v. Avila-Nava, 356 Or 600, 609, 341 P3d 714 (2014).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Thomas
ORS 138.105(9) bars review when a "[sentence is] imposed pursuant to agreement [between the defendant and the state], it [is] a specific sentence, and the trial court imposed that agreed-upon specific sentence." State v. Silsby, 282 Or App 104, 110-13, 386 P3d 172 (2016), rev den, 360 Or 752 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Schaefer v. Oregon Aviation Board
LUBA has an obligation to adopt findings of compatibility only "when it adopts the final facility plan." OAR 738-130-0055(6). Any previously approved versions of a Master Plan must be part of the record before LUBA. OAR 661-010-0025(1)(b). Whether an airport is a "rural airport" as described by ORS 836.642 is a completely different question than whether the proposed land uses are rural or urban.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Service Employees Int'l Union Local 503 v. U of O
The Employment Relations Board "must assess the third Colton factor in its own right... without reference to [its] ultimate conclusion that the totality of the circumstances weighs in favor of disclosure under" ORS 243.672(1)(e). Oregon School Employees Association, Chapter 68 v. Colton School District 53, Case No. C-124-81 R 5, 6 PECBR 5027, 5031 (1982).
Area(s) of Law:- Labor Law
Hercenberger v. Hercenberger
ORS 33.105(1) provides several options for a court to impose remedial sanctions. If a trial court has other lawful means to enforce a judgment, such as those provided by ORS 33.105(1)(f), any error in enforcing the judgment in the manner it chose is therefore harmless.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
MAT Inc. v. American Tower Asset Sub, LLC.
Evidence of privileged communications pertaining to alleged fraudulent concealment meets the threshold provided by State v. Bray. 281 Or App 584, 616, 383 P3d 883 (2016), aff'd 363 Or 226, 422 P3d 250 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
State v. Phillips
Pursuant to ORS 144.791, the trial court must obtain a PSI before sentencing a defendant for a felony sexual offense. State v. Biles, 87 Or 63, 68, 597 P2d 808 (1979).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Miller
When there is no direct evidence of substantial pain, the trial court must decide whether the evidence would allow a rational jury to reasonably conclude that the victim experienced considerable pain and whether the duration of such pain was more than short-lived. State v. Guzman, 276 Or App 208, 215, 366 P3d 816 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law