United States Supreme Court (3 summaries)
Groff v. DeJoy
鈥溾楳ore than a de minimis cost鈥︹ does not suffice to establish 鈥榰ndue hardship鈥 under Title VII.鈥 鈥淯ndue hardship鈥 under Hardison 鈥渋s shown when a burden is substantial in the overall context of an employer鈥檚 business.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Counterman v. Colorado
The State must prove in true-threats cases that the defendant had some understanding of his statements鈥 threatening nature鈥 A recklessness standard is enough.
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
Delaware v. Pennsylvania
鈥淸N]othing in the parties鈥 arguments, the Special Master鈥檚 Second Interim Report, or the record in these cases [showed] that the Disputed Instruments should be deemed 鈥榯hird party bank checks.鈥欌
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted (3 summaries)
Dubin v. United States
Under 18 U.S.C. 搂 1028A(a)(1), a defendant 鈥渦ses鈥 another person鈥檚 means of identification 鈥渋n relation to鈥 a predicate offense when this use is at the crux of what makes the conduct criminal. [T]he means of identification specifically must be used in a manner that is fraudulent or deceptive.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh
The phrase 鈥渁ids and abets鈥 in 搂2333(d)(2), as elsewhere, refers to a conscious, voluntary, and culpable participation in another鈥檚 wrongdoing.
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
Wilkins v. United States
Section 2409a(g) is a non-jurisdictional claims-processing rule. A procedural requirement is only jurisdictional if Congress 鈥渃learly states鈥 it is. Boechler v. Commissioner, 596 U.S. ___, ___ (2022) (slip op., at 3) (quoting Arbaugh, 546 U.S., at 515). This principle seeks to avoid judicial interpretations that undermine Congress鈥 judgment. Loosely treating procedural requirements as jurisdictional risks undermining the very reason Congress enacted them.
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
9th Circuit Court of Appeals (10 summaries)
Umana-Escobar v. Garland
The BIA reviews the IJ鈥檚 underlying factual findings, such as what a persecutor鈥檚 motive may be, for clear error. See, e.g., Matter of N-M-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 526, 532 (BIA 2011). For CAT relief, an applicant must prove that the torture would be 鈥渋nflicted by, or at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of, a public official acting in an official capacity or other person acting in an official capacity.鈥 8 C.F.R. 搂 1208.18(a)(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
GP Vincent II v. The Estate of Edgar Beard
To determine whether a previous action involved the same claim or cause of action as a later lawsuit, the Court looks at four factors: (1) whether the rights or interests established by the prior judgement would be destroyed or impaired by prosecution of the second action, (2) whether substantially the same evidence is presented in the two actions, (3) whether the two suits involve infringement of the same right, and (4) whether the two suits arise out of the same transactional nucleus of facts. Mpoyo v. Litton Electro-Optical Sys., 430 F.3d 985, 987 (9th Cir. 2005).
Area(s) of Law:- Environmental Law
Kimball-Griffith, L.P. v. Burman
The QTA鈥檚 limitations period is a mere claims processing rule鈥搉ot a jurisdictional requirement. Wilkins v. United States, 143 S. Ct. 870 (2023). 鈥淸T]o state a claim under the Takings Clause, a plaintiff must first demonstrate that he possesses a property interest that is constitutionally protected.鈥 Turnacliff v. Westly, 546 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2008) (cleaned up).
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
Clifton Capital Group, LLC. v. Sharp
鈥淭he requisite personal interest that must exist at the commencement of the litigation (standing) must continue throughout its existence鈥︹ Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env鈥檛 Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000).
Area(s) of Law:- Bankruptcy Law
Hartt v. City of Keizer
Actual bias is a question of fact to be determined by the court from all of the circumstances, including the prospective juror鈥檚 demeanor, apparent intelligence, and candor during voir dire. State v. Villeda, 324 Or App 502, 507 P3d 1213 (2023).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Galaza v. Mayorkas
The ATSA establishes basic qualifications for the position of ATSA security screener, including physical requirements, and states that 鈥淸n]otwithstanding any other provision of law, an individual may not be deployed as a security screener unless that individual meets鈥 those requirements. 49 U.S.C. 搂 44935(f).
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Durate v. Stockton
Excessive force claims under 搂 1983 require an actual judgement of conviction, not its functional equivalent, to be barred by Heck v. Humphrey.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights 搂 1983
United States v. Barrogo
Requiring the authentication feature to be physically 鈥渙n . . . [a] means of identification鈥 would be inconsistent with 搂 1028(d)(7). The statute includes both physical and non-physical 鈥渕eans of identification,鈥 therefore 鈥渦sed...on鈥 in 搂1028(d)(1) includes non- physical authentication features that are naturally associated with a physical or non-physical 鈥渕eans of identification.鈥 Here, that is a PIN 鈥渙n鈥 an account or associated card.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Bravo-Bravo v. Garland
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, if an alien has reentered the United States illegally after having been remove, 鈥渢he prior order of removal is reinstated from its original date and is not subject to being reopened or reviewed.鈥 8 U.S.C. 搂 1231(a)(5).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Barclay v. Boskoski
11 U.S.C. 搂 522(f) 鈥渆stablishes as the baseline, against which impairment is be measured, not an exemption to which the debtor 鈥榠s entitled,鈥 but one to which he 鈥榳ould have been entitled.鈥欌 Owen v. Owen, 500 U.S. 305, 311 (1991). The Court applies a state exemption law in effect on the filling date of the bankruptcy petition rather than on the creation date of the lien.
Area(s) of Law:- Bankruptcy Law
Oregon Supreme Court (2 summaries)
D.E. Shaw Renewable Inv., LLC v. Dep't of Revenue
ODOR鈥檚 general authority under ORS 306.115(1) to correct errors in valuation must give way to the specific prohibition in ORS 308.624(4).
Area(s) of Law:- Tax Law
State v. Benton
鈥淎n informant is acting on behalf of the state when... the police are 鈥榙irectly or indirectly involved to a sufficient extent in initiating, planning, controlling or supporting the informant鈥檚 activities鈥 to render the informant a state agent.鈥 State v. Smith, 310 Or 1, 13 (1990).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Oregon Court of Appeals (7 summaries)
State v. Sell
A fair trial is one in which 鈥渢he verdict is based on the evidence and not on factors external to the proof at trial.鈥 State v. Osorno, 264 Or App 742, 748 (2014). When a defendant claims that the jury could not follow instructions, the defendant must show an 鈥渙verwhelming probability鈥 that the jury failed to do so. State v. Garrett, 292 Or App 860, 868 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Montgomery
Counsel may not express a personal opinion of the witness鈥檚 credibility. State v. Sperou, 365 Or 121, 135 (2019); Heroff v. Coursey, 280 Or App 177, 194 (2016), rev den, 360 Or 851 (2017). 鈥淓vidence of a victim鈥檚 collateral sexual activity is not admissible to show consent to the sexual activity that is the subject of an alleged crime.鈥 State v. Beeler, 166 Or App 275, 285 (2000), rev den, 331 Or 244 (2000).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Horton
鈥淲hether a plain error occurred does not turn on the law at the time of trial, but rather depends on the law at the time of the appellate decision.鈥 State v. McKinney/Shiffer, 369 Or 325, 333 (2022). 鈥淸N]ot instructing the jury on a mental-state requirement for the value element of criminal mischief is plain error.鈥 See State v. Morales, 326 Or App 177, 181 (2023); State v. Waterman, 319 Or App 695, 702 (2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Dept. of Human Services v. C. H.
鈥淸I]n determining whether DHS made reasonable efforts, we consider a parent鈥檚 lack of cooperation, but we evaluate such lack of cooperation within the context of DHS鈥檚 conduct and the case circumstances.鈥 Dept. of Human Services v. R.W., 277 Or App 37, 44 (2016). 鈥淚n determining whether the parent has made sufficient progress, the juvenile court gives the highest priority to a child鈥檚 health and welfare.鈥 Dept. of Human Services v. M. K., 285 Or App 448, 460, rev den, 361 Or 885 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Giltner v. SAIF Corp.
The insurer must make the requested lump sum payment unless the award 鈥渉as not become final by operation of law.鈥 ORS 656.230(1)(b). An award of PPD in a notice of closure generally becomes final by operation of law 鈥60 days after its issuance.鈥 SAIF v. Coburn, 159 Or App 413 (1999).
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
State v. Hall
Article I, section 9, is implicated if a private person under-takes a search or seizure at the state鈥檚 behest. [T]he state asks a private person to search 鈥溾榓 particular place or thing, and if the private person acts because of and within the scope of the state鈥檚 request,鈥欌 the private person鈥檚 actions implicate Article I, section 9. State v. Sines, 359 Or 41, 50, 379 P3d 502 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
PGE v. Alfalfa Solar I, LLC
We look at the text of the relevant provisions in the context of the entire agreement. If the meaning is clear from that examination our analysis ends. Yogman v. Parrott, 325 Or 358, 361, 937 P2d 1019 (1997).听 The provisions unambiguously provide that a PPA between PGE and a QF... (2) any such term starts on the date of contract execution; (3) the fixed price option is available only for the first 15 years of that term starting on the effective date of contract execution; and (4) for a contract with a term that is longer than 15 years, the fixed price is available only for the first 15 years of the term.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law