United States Supreme Court (3 summaries)
Yellen v. Confederated Tribes of Chehalis Reservation
ANCs are Indian Tribes and thus are eligible to receive funding from the CARES Act.
Area(s) of Law:- Indian Law
Lange v. California
Fourth Amendment precedents point toward assessing case by case the exigencies arising from misdemeanants鈥 flight. When the totality of circumstances shows an emergency鈥攁 need to act before it is possible to get a warrant鈥攖he police may act without waiting.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.
To the extent that computer interface code is copyrightable, the copying of a small portion of that code to transform it into a mobile operating system is fair use.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted (7 summaries)
Badgerow v. Walters
Rules and maxims of statutory interpretation dictate that when congress omits language from one section of the statute while including it elsewhere the Court must find that choice as intentional.
Area(s) of Law:- Arbitration
Ramirez v. Collier
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 states that the state cannot impose substantial burden on the exercise of religion to people in state institutions unless the government proves the burden 鈥(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.鈥 2 U. S. C. 搂2000cc鈥1(a).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Sherman v. Dept. of Human Services
The Oregon Tort Claims Act provides express statutory permission for child abuse suits to proceed without state immunity regardless of the time limitations imposed by ORS 12.115 because ORS 12.117 provides an exception for claims of this nature.
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
Shinn v. Ramirez
Does application of the equitable rule this Court announced in Martinez v. Ryan render 28 U.S.C. 搂 2254(e)(2) inapplicable to a federal court鈥檚 merits review of a claim for habeas relief?
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Niz-Chavez v. Garland
鈥淸T]he stop-time rule is triggered when the alien is served a notice to appear under section 1229(a).鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen
Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Servotronics, INC., v. Rolls-Royce PLC & The Boeing Co.
Whether the discretion granted to district courts in 28 U.S.C. 搂1782(a) to render assistance in gathering evidence for use in 鈥渁 foreign or international tribunal鈥 encompasses private commercial arbitral tribunals, as the Fourth and Sixth Circuits have held, or excludes such tribunals without expressing an exclusionary intent, as the Second, Fifth, and, in the case below, the Seventh Circuit, have held.
Area(s) of Law:- Alternative Dispute Resolution
Oregon Supreme Court (5 summaries)
State v. Davidson
ORS 137.719(2) provides that a non-presumptive sentence for a sex crime that the court may depart from subsection (1) and impose a guidelines sentence for 鈥渟ubstantial and compelling reasons.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Dept. of Human Services v. J. S.
ORS 109.751(b) allows the dependency court to make child custody determinations that are effective until a home state court issues its own order.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Level 3 Communications, LLC v. Dept. of Rev.
ORS 308.505(14) defines property so broadly as to include all property of the company that may be discovered.
Area(s) of Law:- Tax Law
Simi v. LTI Inc. - Lynden Inc.
Under ORS 656.262(7)(c), 鈥淚f a condition is found compensable after claim closure, the insurer or self-insured employer shall reopen the claim for processing regarding that condition.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
State v. Ramoz
ORCP 64 B(1) states that a new trial is warranted when a substantial right of the moving party is affected by an 鈥淸i]regularity in the proceedings of the court, jury or adverse party, or any order of the court, or abuse of discretion, by which such party was prevented from having a fair trial.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Oregon Court of Appeals (40 summaries)
State v. Greeley
"[T]he right to counsel under Article I, section 11, includes the right to be represented by counsel during all critical stages of a criminal proceeding, unless the defendant voluntarily and intelligently听 waives听 that听 right.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Dept. of Human Services v. A.H.
ORS 419B.476(2)(a) provides that to change a case plan, the court must make certain findings, including the reasonability of DHS鈥檚 efforts to transition the ward back into the home.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
C.J. v .Flores
ORS 163.763(2) provides that, to obtain a SAPO, a petitioner must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: 鈥(A) The petitioner reasonably fears for the petitioner鈥檚 physical safety with respect to the respondent; and (B) The respondent subjected the petitioner to sexual abuse.鈥濃
Area(s) of Law:- Family Abuse Prevention Act
Rankin v. Landers
The writ of habeas corpus is appropriate for challenging pretrial detention, including the denial or amount of bail. See Collins v. Foster, 299 Or 90 (1985); Haynes v. Burks, 290 Or 75, 77 n 1, (1980) (both considering denial of pretrial release on writ of habeas corpus).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Rudder v. Hosack
ORS 465.255 provides that 鈥渁ny owner or operator at or during the time of the acts or omissions that resulted in the release* * * shall be strictly liable for those remedial action costs incurred by the state or any other person that are attributable to or associated with a facility and for damages for injury to or destruction of any natural resources caused by a release.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Environmental Law
State v. Flores
According to ORS 138.035(3), a probation violation judgment is not appealable.
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
N. F. M. v. Khalidi
ORS 107.716(3)(a) permits continuation of a restraining order if 鈥減etitioner reasonably fears for the petitioner鈥檚 physical safety鈥 and 鈥渞espondent represents a credible threat to the physical safety of the petitioner or the petitioner鈥檚 child.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
State v. Halvorson
Double jeopardy may be triggered by an 鈥渙stensibly civil proceeding鈥 if that proceeding is 鈥渟o punitive either in purpose or effect as to transform what was clearly intended as a civil remedy into a criminal penalty.鈥 Hudson v. United States, 522 US 93, 99, (1997). Under ORS 137.106(1)(a), if the victim in a criminal case has suffered economic damages, the defendant must repay those damages in full.
Area(s) of Law:- Remedies
State v. Osborn
A defendant can be restrained at trial if they pose an 鈥渋mmediate and serious risk of dangerous or disruptive behavior.鈥 State v. Moore, 45 Or App 837, 839-40 (1980). Further, the trial court鈥檚 decision to restrain a defendant must be supported by developing a record of the basis for choosing to exercise its discretion.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Camirand
鈥淭he [Supreme Court] observed that references to facts outside the record can be prejudicial in two ways: First, they encourage the jury to speculate about evidence beyond that presented at trial; and, second, they 鈥榩rovide a preemptive explanation for the state鈥檚 failure to present evidence that the jury might expect it to present.鈥欌漇tate v.听 Banks, 367 Or 574, 481 P3d 1275 (2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Indian Ridge I, LLC v. Lenahan
Lis Pendens can be filed to notify of a lawsuit 鈥渋n which the title to or any interest in or lien upon real property is involved, affected, or brought in question.鈥 ORS 93.740.
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
Willms v. AmeriTitle, Inc.
[T]he statute of limitations for civil ORICO claims under ORS 166.725(11)(a) is five years, but the action can be brought either five years 鈥渁fter the conduct in violation [of ORICO] terminates鈥 or within five years after the action 鈥渁ccrues.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
Bean v. Cain
Oregon law assumes that it is reasonable for a petitioner to rely on his attorney to timely file, meeting their 鈥渕ost basic professional obligations.鈥 Winstead v. State of Oregon, 287 Or App 737, 740 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Dancingbear v. SAIF
ORS 656.383(1) provides that a workers compensation claimant鈥檚 attorney is entitled to a fee award if the attorney 鈥渋s instrumental in obtaining temporary disability compensation benefits [under ORS 656.268].
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
Hejazi v. Gifford
ORS 30.643(1) applies to all fee waivers and deferrals in civil actions brought by an 鈥渁dult in custody. . . against a public body.鈥 When a plaintiff fails to apply the proper statute in their briefing, the rules of appellate procedure require the court to affirm. Smith v. Dept. of Corrections, 314 Or App 1, 3 (2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
State v. Burnett
The Court must affirm the conviction notwithstanding the omission of a concurrence instruction if there is 鈥渓ittle likelihood that the error affected the verdict.鈥 State v. Ashkins, 357 Or 642, 660 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Dept. of Human Services v. A. D. G.
ORS 419B.521 provides that a court may issue a TPR if (1) the parent is unfit by conduct or condition seriously detrimental to the ward, (2) integration of the child into the home is improbable in a reasonable amount of time, and (3) if termination is in the best interests of the child.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Padilla v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co.
ORS 742.526(1) governs the 鈥渆xcess鈥 relationship between multiple applicable insurance policies (鈥淭he personal injury protection benefits with respect to * * * 鈥(b) Passengers injured while occupying the insured motor vehicle shall be primary.)
Area(s) of Law:- Insurance Law
Padilla v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co.
ORS 742.524(1)(b) provides that PIP benefits are subject to a maximum payment period 鈥渋n the aggregate of 52 weeks.鈥 Black鈥檚 Law Dictionary states that 鈥渁ggregate鈥 means 鈥渢o collect into a whole.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Insurance Law
State v. Allen
According to Savinskiy, the Article 1, section 11 protections do not attach to police investigation into 鈥渘ew criminal activity in progress.鈥 State v. Savinskiy, 364 Or 802, 411 P3d 557, adh鈥檇 to as modified on recons, 365 Or 463, 445 P3d 307 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. D. F. U.
鈥淭o preserve a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence, an appellant must raise the issue before the trial court with enough specificity to allow the court to consider the issue and rule on it." See, e.g., State v. Barboe, 253 Or App 367, 373-74 (2012), rev den, 353 Or 714 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
State v. Hsieh
When dealing with animal neglect, exigent circumstances exist when 鈥渁 person fails to provide the 鈥榤inimum care鈥 required by statute, ORS 167.310(9), and the failure results in imminent 鈥榩hysical injury,鈥 ORS 167.310(10), or imminent 鈥榮erious physical injury,鈥 ORS 167.310(13).鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Kiesau
It is impermissible vouching for a prosecutor to give their personal opinion of the credibility of their witnesses because the opinions are typically based on facts not in evidence which distracts the jury. See State v. Serous, 365 Or 121, 129 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Kindred
Behavior means some legal conformity with the public law and cannot include social conformity. State v. Langan, 301 Or 1, 718 P2d 719 (1986).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Larson
The Court must have evidence that the defendant intended to commit multiple criminal acts, typically shown by temporal or qualitative deference听to impose consecutive sentences. State v. Porter, 313 Or App 565 (2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Hersey v. Leon
Oregon law states that 鈥淸a]n appellant bears the burden of providing a record sufficient to demonstrate that error occurred.鈥 Ferguson v. Nelson, 216 Or App 541 (2007).
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
State v. Bonome
Oregon law demands that a waiver of counsel be done 鈥渒nowingly and intelligently.鈥 Typically, this standard is met when the court conducts a colloquy with the defendant explaining the risks of proceeding without representation. Additionally, under Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., the court can exercise its discretion to correct plain errors that serve the 鈥渆nds of justice.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Doyle
In Ramos, the United States Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment requires a unanimous jury verdict to convict.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
State v. Fitzgerald
For an error to be considered on appeal, it must be preserved. See Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209, 219-21 (2008).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
SAIF v. Blankenship
An injury is compensable under ORS 656.005(a) if it 鈥渁rises out and in the course of the employment." 鈥淎n injury 鈥榓rises out of鈥 the employment if it arises from the nature of the claimant鈥檚 work or from a risk to which the work environment exposes the worker.鈥 Fred Meyer, Inc., v. Hayes, 325 Or 592, 598 (1997).
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
SAIF v. Chavez-Cordova
鈥淧ersonal risks are risks that have no employment connection and that arise from conditions or circumstances that are personal to the worker. Sheldon v. U. S. Bank, 364 Or 831, 834 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
Smith v. Dept. of Corrections
鈥淸I]t is not this court鈥檚 function to speculate as to what a party鈥檚 argument might be [or] to make or develop a party鈥檚 argument when that party has not endeavored to do so itself.鈥 Beall Transport Equipment Co. v. Souther Pacific, 186 Or App 696, 700-01 n 2, 64 P3d 1193, adh鈥檇 to as clarified on recons, 187 Or App 472, 68 P3d 259 (2003).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Ramirez-Carmona
鈥淚n reviewing the voluntariness of a defendant鈥檚 consent to a search, we consider whether, under the totality of the circumstances, the consent was given by an act of free will or was the result of coercion, express or implied.鈥 State v. Moore, 354 Or 493, 505 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Leinweber
OAR 257-030-0130 requires that a breath test operator 鈥渋s certain that the subject has not * * * vomited, or regurgitated * * * for at least fifteen minutes before taking the test.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Appleyard v. Port of Portland
鈥淸A]n invitee鈥檚 failure to exercise reasonable care for his or her own safety may be the basis of a comparative-fault defense if the invitee鈥檚 negligence relates and contributes to the harm or risk of harm created by the defendant鈥檚 negligence.鈥 Appleyard v. Port of Portland, 311 Or App 498 (2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
State v. Bledsoe
The crime of interference with a peace officer under ORS 162.247(1)(b) states that a person commits the crime by knowingly 鈥渞efus[ing] to obey a lawful order鈥 given by an officer. The exception under ORS 162.247(3)(b) states that passive resistance 鈥渄oes not apply.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Greinier
鈥淸A] person is justified in using physical force upon another person for self-defense or to defend a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force, and the person may use a degree of force which the person reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose.鈥 ORS 161.209.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Johnson
According to ORS 136.425(2), the state must corroborate a confession with 鈥渟ome other proof鈥 that 鈥渢he jury could draw an inference that tends to prove: (1) the injury or harm specified in the crime occurred and (2) that this injury or harm was caused by someone鈥檚 criminal activity.鈥 State v. Moreno, 276 Or App 102, 108, 366 P3d 839, rev den, 359 Or 525, cert den, 137 S Ct 342 (2016).听
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Harris
A conviction of reckless endangerment of another person requires: (1) the defendant to have carried out an act; (2) the defendant鈥檚 actions created a 鈥渟ubstantial risk of serious physical injury to another person;鈥 (3) the defendant鈥檚 actions were a gross deviation from a sensible standard of care; (4) the defendant was aware of the risk; and (5) the defendant鈥檚 actions were a conscious disregard of the risk. State v. Nelson, 224 Or App 398, 402-03, 198 P3d 439 (2008).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Banerjee and Fiorillo
ORS 19.270(1) provides that the Court of Appeals only has jurisdiction to hear a case when appellant meets the time and manner requirements of ORS 19.240, 19.250, and 19.255. Generally, this means the notice of appeal is filed and served on the parties within 30 days of the entry of the judgment appealed.
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
Land Use Board of Appeals (2 summaries)
Central Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes County
Goal 6, or OAR 660-015-0000(6), is to 鈥渕aintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Schaefer v. Marion County
OAR 660-012-0065(3)(n) specifically provides that 鈥渆xpansions or alterations of public use airports* * * meet planning goals 3, 4, 11, and 14 as a matter of law.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use