United States Supreme Court (2 summaries)
New York v. New Jersey
Interstate compacts are "construed as contracts under the principles of contract law."Tarrant Regional Water Dist. v. Herrmann, 569 U.S. 614, 628 (2013). To resolve a dispute over the terms of a Compact, the court must, "begin by examining the express terms of the Compact as the best indication of the intent of the parties." Tarrant, 569 U.S. at 628.
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
Biden v. Texas
“[T]he Government’s rescission of MPP did not violate section 1225 of the INA, and the October 29 Memoranda did constitute final agency action.”
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted (1 summary)
Polselli v. IRS
The IRS may issue summonses to determine whether a taxpayer owes money and also to collect any outstanding liability. When the IRS conducts an investigation for purposes of “determining the liability” of a taxpayer, it must provide notice, 26 U.S.C. §7609(a)(1). But once the IRS has reached the stage of “collecting any such liability,” §7602(a)—which is a distinct activity—notice may not be required, §7609(c)(2)(D).
Area(s) of Law:- Tax Law
9th Circuit Court of Appeals (2 summaries)
Valiente v. Swift Transp. Co.
The Supreme Court has provided a two-prong test for determining when the doctrine of anti-retroactivity applies: (1) a court must determine whether Congress has expressly prescribed the statute's proper reach; and (2) a court must assess whether the action would have an impermissible retroactive effect. Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 263-64, 280 (1994).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Farlow v. Kijakazi
Under Social Security regulations, "[o]pinions from treating physicians receive more weight than opinions from examining physicians, and opinions from examining physicians receive more weight than opinions from non-examining physicians." Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995). "To reject the uncontested opinion of an examining or treating doctor, an ALJ must provide 'clear and convincing' reasons supported by substantial evidence." Id. at 830.
Area(s) of Law:- Disability Law
Oregon Supreme Court (1 summary)
Guerrero-Perez v. Kelly
When a petitioner establishes that their conviction was based on a nonunanimous jury verdict, they are entitled to post-conviction relief. Watkins v. Ackley, 370 Or 604 (2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Oregon Court of Appeals (18 summaries)
Trunorth Warranty Plans of North Am., LLC v. DCBS
"Determining the intended meaning of a statute is a question of law." DCBS v. Muliro, 359 Or 736, 742 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Business Law
Maltais v. Peacehealth
When reviewing a judgment dismissing a complaint, the court accepts as true the facts alleged in the complaint and draws all reasonable inferences from those allegations in favor of the plaintiff. Tomlinson v. Metropolitan Pediatrics, LLC, 362 Or 431, 434 (2018). The court must "determine whether upon the facts alleged no reasonable factfinder could decide one or more elements of liability" in favor of the plaintiff. Fazzolari v. Portland School Dist. No. 1J, 303 Or 1, 17 (1987).
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
Kizer Excavating Co. v. Stout Building Contractors, LLC
Plaintiff did, in fact, argue that the argument made in Defendant's first assignment of error was not preserved.
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
Kragt v. Board of Parole
"[W]hen a party requests to file a supplemental brief, the party should clearly state the reasons for the request and what the party wants to address in the supplemental brief, including notifying the court if the party intends to raise a new assignment of error or make a distinct new argument on an existing assignment of error." Kragt v. Board of Parole, 325 Or App 688, 694 (2023).
Area(s) of Law:- Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
State v. Acosta
Under Shedrick, "the property-value element of theft carries, at a minimum, the culpable mental state of criminal negligence." State v. Shedrick, 370 Or 255 (2022). Further, "a jury instruction that omits an element of an offense constitutes a constitutional error." Neder v. United States, 527 US 1, 8 (1999).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Baca
"[T]he legislature intended ORS 164.775 to 'punish and deter the discarding as refuse of an object in or within 100 yards of the waters of the state, regardless of any utility that the object might have in a different context.'" State v. Essex, 215 Or App 527, 531, 170 P3d 1094 (2007).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Hargreaves v. Matteucci
ORS 34.340 permits a court to issue a writ of habeas corpus upon a petition of the party for whose relief it is intended, "or of some other person in behalf of the party."
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Denning v. Board of Parole
Similarly to how the Fifth Amendment does not permit a witness to fail to comply with a subpoena to appear as a witness but rather requires them to invoke their privilege on a question-by-question basis, a sex offender subject to random polygraph examinations may not disregard such examinations based on the Fifth Amendment.
Area(s) of Law:- Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
State v. Soprych
Whether a defendant consents to a warrantless search turns on what the defendant intended to authorize police to search. State v. Cross, 316 Or. App. 506, 512-13 (2021); See also, State v. Blair, 361 Or. 527 (2017).
Frost v. State
The Court agreed that their use of State v. Fults, 343 Or 515, 520 (2007) and State v. Berndt, 282 Or App 73, 80 (2016), rev den, 361 Or 311 (2017) could cause confusion between post-conviction relief petitions and the petition for reconsideration and removed this sentence in their previous opinion.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. Richey
OEC 401 provides a "very low" bar for the admission of evidence. State v. Titus, 328 Or 475, 480-81 (1999). "Relevant evidence is evidence that matters - and thus makes a difference - to the case in which it is offered." State v. Richey, 324 Or App 290 (2023).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Twigg v. Admiral Ins. Co.
“In order for the duty to indemnify to arise, the insured must be liable for harm or injury that is covered by the policy.” Ledford v. Gutoski, 319 Or 397, 405 (1994). The Supreme Court has held, "there can be no ‘accident,’ within the meaning of [an insurance] policy, when the resulting damage is merely a breach of contract.” Oak Crest Const. Co. v. Austin Mutual Ins. Co., 329 Or 620, 626 (2000).
Area(s) of Law:- Insurance Law
State v. Meiser
"Ordinarily, when the legislature uses different terms, we assume that the legislature intends those terms to have different meanings." Norwood v. Premo, 287 Or App 443, 451 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Schroeder v. Board of Parole
A petitioner must "demonstrate - through something other than speculation - that the change in law created a risk that petitioner's term of incarceration would be extended beyond what it otherwise would have been." Morrison v. Board of Parole, 277 Or App 861, 866 (2016). "In the context of an exit interview, the procedures required by due process are minimal." Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 US 216, 220 (2011) (affirmed in Rivas v. Board of Parole, 272 Or App 248, 253-54 (2015)). "Procedures that permit an inmate to be heard and respond to the evidence against them, and that provide for a statement of reasons for the denial of parole, have been deemed constitutionally sufficient." Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal and Correctional Complex, 442 US 1, 16 (1979).
Area(s) of Law:- Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
State v. Forker
A trial court has broad discretion and as long as a court's decision falls within the range of permissible options available to it in the exercise of "broad discretion," the decision will be upheld. State v. Shaw, 338 Or 586, 615 (2005). "Extrinsic evidence is not admissible to impeach a witness regarding a 'collateral matter.'" State v. Gibson, 338 Or 560, 573 (2005). "A matter is collateral if it is not something that the cross-examining party would be entitled to prove as part of its case." Id.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Martineau v. McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center
“[Jury i]nstructions which mislead or confuse are ground for a reversal or a new trial.” Estate of Michelle Schwarz v. Philip Morris Inc., 235 P3d 668, adh’d to on recons, 246 P3d 479 (2010) (quoting Williams et al. v. Portland Gen. Elec., 247 P2d 494 (1952).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
OR-OSHA v. Loy Clark Pipeline, Co.
OAR 438-085-0526 provides: “(1) Unless otherwise provided by the Administrative Law Judge, amendments to the citation and to the request for hearing, including affirmative defenses, shall be allowed up to the date and time set for hearing. (2) An amendment made by OR-OSHA under this rule may not allege a new violation or increase a penalty.”
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Lufkin v. DHS
“The general rule in Oregon is that, although waivers of constitutional and statutory rights may be expressed through contract terms, those terms must clearly indicate an intention to renounce a known privilege or power.” Assn. of Oregon Corrections Emp. v. State of Oregon, 353 OR 170, 183, 295 P3d 38 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law