Nathaniel Belachew

United States Supreme Court (1 summary)

Tanzin v. Tanvir

In suits against government officials, damages are an appropriate form of relief.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Remedies

United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted (4 summaries)

Mahanoy Area School District v. B. L.

Whether Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969), which holds that public school officials may regulate speech that would materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school, applies to student speech that occurs off-campus.

Area(s) of Law:
  • First Amendment

Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc.

Whether a defendant in a patent infringement action who assigned the patent, or is in privity with an assignor of the patent, may have a defense of invalidity heard on the merits.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents

Goldman Sachs Group v. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System

(1) Whether a defendant in a securities class action may rebut the presumption of classwide reliance recognized in Basic Inc. v. Levinson by pointing to the generic nature of the alleged misstatements in showing that the statements had no impact on the price of the security, even though that evidence is also relevant to the substantive element of materiality. (2) Whether a defendant seeking to rebut the Basic presumption has only a burden of production or also the ultimate burden of persuasion.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Corporations

Collins v. Mnuchin

(1) Whether the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s (FHFA) structure violates the separation of powers; and (2) whether the courts must set aside a final agency action that FHFA took when it was unconstitutionally structured and strike down the statutory provisions that make FHFA independent.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Oregon Supreme Court (1 summary)

State v. Skillicorn

Evidence is barred by OEC 404(3) if “the chain of logical relevance” connecting the evidence to the fact it is proffered to prove relies on “an inference relating to a person’s character or propensities.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Oregon Court of Appeals (17 summaries)

State v. Burris

"Where the trial court fails to elaborate on the meaning of an element of the charged crime, we have held the arguments of the state at trial combined with the instructions as a whole, can operate together to permit the jury to reach a legally erroneous conclusion." State v. Bistrika, 261 Or. App. 710, 729-30 (2014).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Newton

"[A]s to unanimous verdicts, a trial court’s nonunanimous jury instruction [does] not amount to structural error and [is] harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Flores Ramos, 367 Or. 292, 319, 334, 478 P.3d 515 (2020).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Bowers v. Board of Parole

The party asserting that a matter has become moot bears the burden of demonstrating that a court’s decision no longer has the required practical effect. State v. K.J.B., 362 Or. 777, 786 (2018). This includes establishing that any collateral effects that have been identified either do not exist or are legally insufficient. State v. K.J.B., 362 Or. 777, 786 (2018).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

State v. Arivett

“[T]he smell of marijuana generally no longer has the significance it once had as a basis for reasonable suspicion, in light of decriminalization. A strong odor can signal the presence of marijuana, but not necessarily the presence in a quantity that is illegal for persons 21 and older to lawfully possess.” State v. T.T., 308 Or. App. 408, 437 (2021).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Russell

A trial court must evaluate "the nature of a defendant’s offenses * * * as well as the defendant’s willingness to commit more than a single offense" to decide whether it should impose consecutive sentences under subsection (5)(a). State v. Martinez, 270 Or. App. 423, 429 (2015).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

State v. Poston

“All convictions for serious offenses that were based on nonunanimous verdicts involved constitutional error - a violation of the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to jury unanimity.” State v. Flores Ramos, 367 Or. 292, 295 (2020).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Smith

“[W]hen a party objects to testimony as improper vouching, a court must determine whether the testimony provides an opinion on truthfulness or, instead, provides a tool that the factfinder could use in assessing credibility. That determination does not necessarily require an assessment of whether that specific tool is permitted under the rules of evidence.” State v. Black (Black II), 364 Or. 579, 593 (2019).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Nelson

Concerns addressed by the instruction are not present when the testimony of accomplice witnesses does not shift blame. State v. Simson, 308 Or. 102, 110 (1989).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Peterson

“When legal disputes are encompassed in the arguments for and against a motion for judgment of acquittal, we resolve them as we would any other legal question.” State v. Turnidge, 359 Or. 364, 455 (2016).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Simington Gardens, LLC v. Rock Ridge Farms, LLC

Trespass in ORS 105.815 refers to the unauthorized injury to or severance of timber or produce.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

State v. Heaston

Enacting SB 302 shows the legislature’s intent that the phrase “controlled substances” generally would not include cannabis, and that the legislature made the purposeful decision to either amend or not amend statutes that previously referenced “controlled substances” but did not reference cannabis.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Ceccoi

"[A] proponent may still 'need to establish "unavailability" by showing pursuit of "other reasonable means."' . . . In determining what, if any, further efforts are required, the totality of the circumstances" applies. State v. Iseli, 366 Or 151, 173 (2020)(quoting OEC 804(1)(e)).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

TPC, LLC v. Water Resources Dept.

ORS chapter 539 vests exclusive subject matter jurisdiction for a stream adjudication to a particular circuit court once the stream adjudication process under that chapter is initiated.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Whitehead v. Clarno

"An elector may sign an initiative petition if they meet the requirements of Article II, section 2 of the Oregon Constitution: United States citizenship, age, Oregon residency, and voter registration as provided by law."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Election Law

McClusky v. City of North Bend

Under ORS 659A.001(4)(a), it is the one who reserves the right to control who is the employer, and not the agent acting on behalf of the person or entity who reserves the right to control.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

State v. Buckendahl

A legislatively specified penalty violates the proportionality clause of Article I, section 16, if the penalty shocks the moral sense of reasonable people because the penalty is so disproportionate when compared to the offense. State v. Rodriguez/Buck, 347 Or 46, 58 (2009). Three non-exhaustive factors that bear on that determination are “(1) a comparison of the severity of the penalty and the gravity of the crime; (2) a comparison of the penalties imposed for other, related crimes; and (3) the criminal history of the defendant.” State v. Rodriguez/Buck, 347 Or 46, 58 (2009).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

Callen and Callen

"[I]f a court considers a party’s objective reasonableness in pursuing settlement as a basis to award a discretionary attorney fee, it must make that assessment ‘in the light of the parties’ circumstances and knowledge at the time the settlement was tendered and rejected and not by some post hoc reference to the result actually obtained." Erwin v. Tetreault, 155 Or App 205, 214, (1998).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

Back to Top