United States Supreme Court (15 summaries)
Houston Community College System v. Wilson
“In this country, we expect elected representatives to shoulder a degree of criticism about their public service from their constituents and their peers—and to continue exercising their free speech rights when the criticism comes.”
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
BP P.L.C. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore
Under Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A. v. Calhoun, 516 U.S. 199, 204 (1996), and despite the fact that appellate courts “may not reach beyond the certified order to address other orders made in the case,” appellate courts “may address any issue fairly included within the certified order because it is the order that is appealable, and not the controlling question identified by the district court.”
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
CIC Services, LLC v. IRS
The Anti-Injunction Act bars any “suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax.” 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a). However, a reporting requirement is not a tax, and a suit brought to set aside such a rule is not one to restrain the “assessment or collection” of a tax—even if the information will help the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) collect future tax revenue. See Direct Marketing Assn. v. Brohl, 575 U.S. 1, 9-10 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Tax Law
Tandon v. Newsom
Even if the government withdraws or modifies a COVID restriction in the course of litigation, that does not necessarily moot the case. And so long as a case is not moot, litigants otherwise entitled to emergency injunctive relief remain entitled to such relief where the applicants “remain under a constant threat” that government officials will use their power to reinstate the challenged restrictions.
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project
Under Section 202(h) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) must review its ownership rules every four years to repeal or modify any rules that no longer serve the public interest. In conducting its analysis under Section 202(h), the FCC must consider the effects of the rules on competition, localism, viewpoint diversity, and minority and female ownership of broadcast media outlets.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Florida v. Georgia
The Supreme Court “has recognized for more than a century its inherent authority, as part of the Constitution’s grant of original jurisdiction, to equitably apportion interstate streams between States.” Kansas v. Nebraska, 574 U.S. 445, 454 (2015). Consequently, given the competing sovereign interests in such cases, a complaining State bears a burden much greater than does a private party seeking an injunction.
Area(s) of Law:- Water Rights
Pereida v. Wilkinson
Specific nonpermanent residents bear the burn to show they do not have a conviction of a disqualifying offense when seeking cancellation of a lawful removal order under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The alien fails to carry that burden if his conviction falls under the statute listing multiple offenses, including those that are disqualifying, and the record shows ambiguity on which crime was the basis of the conviction.
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Salinas v. United States Railroad Retirement Board
Judicial review is available, under the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 (RRA), to the same degree available under the judicial review provision of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (RUIA). Therefore, the qualification for judicial review under the RRA is contingent on the meaning of the phrase “any final decision” as used in §355(f) of the RUIA.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Texas v. New Mexico
Under the Pecos River Compact, New Mexico is entitled to receive delivery credit for the water that evaporated during temporary storage of water at Texas’s request even though some of that water was not delivered to Texas.
Area(s) of Law:- Water Rights
Barr v. Lee
Unless and until the Supreme Court decides that the use of single-dose Pentobarbital as the Federal Government’s lethal injection protocol constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, that proposition will not support a preliminary injunction of scheduled executions.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) provision granted the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) virtually unbridled discretion to recognize and craft exemptions from its Guidelines and Congress “declined to expressly require contraceptive coverage in the ACA itself.”
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
United States PTO v. Booking.com B.V.
Whether a term is generic for the purposes of federal trademark registration depends on its meaning to consumers and this distinctiveness inquiry focuses on the term’s whole meaning and not its isolated parts.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
Banister v. Davis
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b), Rule 59(e) motions to change or amend a judgment of the habeas court is not a “second or successive habeas application."
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
Nasrallah v. Barr
In the context of federal immigration law, Convention Against Torture (CAT) orders may be reviewed alongside final orders of removal.
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Maine Community Health Options v. United States
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s expired “Risk Corridors” program established a money-mandating obligation and Petitioners properly relied on the Tucker Act to recover from the United States for its failure to reimburse them.
Area(s) of Law:- Insurance Law
United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted (10 summaries)
United States v. Zubaydah
Whether the Court of Appeals erred when it rejected the United States’ assertion of the state-secrets privilege based on the court’s own assessment of potential harms to the national security, and required discovery to proceed further under 28 U.S.C. 1782(a) against former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) contractors on matters concerning alleged clandestine CIA activities.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
United States v. Tsarnaev
(1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit erred in concluding that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s capital sentences must be vacated on the ground that the district court, during its 21-day voir dire, did not ask each prospective juror for a specific accounting of the pretrial media coverage that he or she had read, heard, or seen about Respondent's case; and (2) whether the district court committed reversible error at the penalty phase of Respondent's trial by excluding evidence that Respondent's older brother was allegedly involved in different crimes two years before the offenses for which Respondent was convicted.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Thompson v. Clark
The Petition is Limited to the Following Question: Whether the rule that a plaintiff must await favorable termination before bringing a Section 1983 action alleging unreasonable seizure pursuant to legal process requires the plaintiff to show that the criminal proceeding against him has “formally ended in a manner not inconsistent with his innocence,” Laskar v. Hurd, 972 F.3d 1278, 1293 (11th Cir. 2020), or that the proceeding “ended in a manner that affirmatively indicates his innocence,” Lanning v. City of Glens Falls, 908 F.3d 19, 22 (2d Cir. 2018); see also Laskar, 972 F.3d at 1293 (acknowledging 7-1 circuit conflict).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights § 1983
Dept. of Homeland Sec. v. New York
1. Whether entities that are not subject to the public-charge ground of inadmissibility contained in 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(A), and which seek to expand benefits usage by aliens who are potentially subject to that provision, are proper parties to challenge the final rule. 2. Whether the final rule is likely contrary to law or arbitrary and capricious.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Mnuchin, Sec'y of Treasury v. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation
Whether Alaska Native regional and village corporations (ANCs) established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act are “Indian Tribe[s]” for purposes of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), 42 U.S.C. 801(g)(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Indian Law
Terry, Tarahrick v. United States
Whether pre-August 3, 2010, crack offenders sentenced under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) have a “covered offense” under Section 404 of the First Step Act.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Azar, Sec. of H&HS v. Gresham
Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit erred in concluding that the secretary of health and human services may not authorize demonstration projects to test requirements that are designed to promote the provision of health-care coverage by means of facilitating the transition of Medicaid beneficiaries to commercial coverage and improving their health.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Caniglia v. Strom
Whether the “community caretaking” exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement extends to the home.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Davis v. Saul
Whether a claimant seeking disability benefits or supplemental security income under the Social Security Act must exhaust an Appointments Clause challenge with the administrative law judge whose appointment the claimant is challenging in order to obtain judicial review of that challenge.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Republic of Hungary v. Simon
Petition granted limited to the following question: May the district court abstain from exercising jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act for reasons of international comity, where former Hungarian nationals have sued the nation of Hungary to recover the value of property lost in Hungary during World War II, and where the plaintiffs made no attempt to exhaust local Hungarian remedies?
Area(s) of Law:- Sovereign Immunity
Oregon Supreme Court (9 summaries)
Dept. of Human Services v. P. D.
When a parent appeals from a jurisdictional judgment and the underlying dependency petition is subsequently dismissed, “termination of such a wardship does not necessarily render the appeal moot; whether dismissal is appropriate will depend on the particular circumstances presented.” Dept. of Human Services v. A.B., 362 Or 412, 414, 412 P3d 1169 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Batten v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co.
Any added term that causes the UM/UIM coverage under a policy to be less favorable to the insured than the model policy is “unenforceable.” Erickson v. Farmers Ins. Co., 331 Or 681, 685, 21 P3d 90 (2001).
Area(s) of Law:- Insurance Law
State v. Wolfe
After the enactment of Senate Bill 1013, the homicide of a child under 14 can only qualify as aggravated murder if it was premeditated. Or Laws 2019, ch 635, § 4; ORS 163.095(2)(b).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Pittman
In the context of Article I, section 12, of the Oregon Constitution, an act is not “testimonial” whenever its performance requires an individual to use his or her mental faculties. Rather, “[t]he information that an act communicates, and not the uncommunicated use of the mind, is what makes an act testimonial.”
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Mathis v. St. Helens Auto Center, Inc.
Under the reasoning of Powers v. Quigley, the “reasonable” attorney fee required by ORS 652.200(2) cannot be categorically limited through ORCP 54 E(3). 345 Or 432, 438, 198 P3d 919 (2008).
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
State v. Chorney-Phillips
In Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. ___, 140 S Ct 1390, 206 L Ed 2d 583 (2020), the Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment requires a jury to be unanimous in order to convict a defendant of a serious offense. Even in light of that decision, for the court to address a defendant’s assignment of error which turns entirely on the sufficiency of the record to demonstrate jury unanimity “would be contrary to the basic goal of procedural fairness to the parties and to the trial court that motivates the preservation requirement.” State v. Dilallo, 367 Or 340, 348, ___ P3d ___ (2020) (internal citations omitted).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Kincheloe
Under the Supreme Court’s decision in Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. ___, 140 S Ct 1390, 206 L Ed 2d 583 (2020), the Sixth Amendment requires a jury to be unanimous in order to convict a defendant of a serious offense.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Albany & Eastern Railroad Co. v. Martell
In determining the circumstances in which one’s use of another’s property gives rise to a prescriptive easement, any subjective misunderstanding does not affect the "presumption of adversity" in regards to the private or public nature of the property, which should be determined by the “objectively observable acts of the user and rightful owner.”
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
In Re Harris
The exception to the rule against the unauthorized practice of law provided under RPC 5.5(c) applies to an out-of-state lawyer in good standing who is awaiting reciprocal admission to the Oregon State Bar and meets at least one of the criteria set out in RPC 5.5(c)(1) to (5), even if he has accepted permanent employment in Oregon.
Area(s) of Law:- Professional Responsibility
Oregon Court of Appeals (68 summaries)
State v. Brown
Mere proximity to suspected criminal activity, or association with a suspected or known criminal, is insufficient to support reasonable suspicion. State v. Kingsmith, 256 Or App 762, 772, 302 P3d 471 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Mohabeer v. Farmers Ins. Exchange
Oregon’s anti-SLAPP statute provides “an expedited procedure for dismissal of certain nonmeritorious civil cases without prejudice at the pleading stage.” Neumann v. Liles, 358 Or 706, 723, 369 P3d 1117 (2016). In the context of a special motion to strike, it is not premature for the court to decide whether prima facie evidence of the elements of the claim has been presented before full discovery or for a party to raise the issue on appeal of the denial of a special motion to strike.
State v. Soprych
A prosecutor’s reference to or comment on a defendant’s invocation of a constitutional right, such as the right to counsel, the right to remain silent, or the right to a trial, may prejudice a defendant’s ability to have a fair trial if the jury is likely to draw a negative inference from the exercise of that right. State v. Smallwood, 277 Or 503, 505-06, 561 P2d 600, cert den, 434 US 849, 98 S Ct 160, 54 L Ed 2d 118 (1977).
Evans v. Nooth
To obtain relief under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution, a post-conviction petitioner must show “that counsel failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment, and that the petitioner suffered prejudice as a result of counsel’s inadequacy.” Johnson v. Premo, 361 Or 688, 699, 399 P3d 431 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. Merritt
“From the fact that the legislature made arrival of the protected party a prerequisite to the enforcement of a foreign restraining order that has not been presented to a sheriff or filed in the circuit court, we infer that the legislature intended that such an order would not be enforceable absent arrival.” See ORS 24.190.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Polezhaev
An officer has objective probable cause to arrest someone for possession of heroin if the facts known to the officer make it objectively reasonable to believe that it is more likely than not that the person possesses some amount of heroin. State v. Madden, 315 Or App 787, 795, 502 P3d 746 (2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Buell
According to State v. Hubbell, 314 Or App 844, 870, 500 P3d 728 (2021), when ORS 475.005(8) is properly construed, an “attempted transfer” requires proof of an “incomplete or unsuccessful transfer” of a controlled substance from one person to another.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Park
A trial court plainly errs when it orders restitution where there is no evidence establishing that the defendant’s criminal conduct resulted in economic damages to the victim. See State v. Tippetts, 239 Or App 429, 244 P3d 891 (2010); State v. Martinez, 250 Or App 342, 280 P3d 399 (2012).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Kaser v. PERS
For the purposes of ORS 238.440, the term “determine” does not necessarily entail a robust investigation. Rather, “determine” is better understood to denote decision-making in which investigation may be incidental but does not play a primary role.
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
State v. Woods
Under State ex rel Maney v. Hsu, 308 Or App 822, 827, 482 P3d 136, rev den, 368 Or 273 (2021), it must “plainly be the case” that subsequent Supreme Court decisions undercut the validity of prior decisions before the Court of Appeals will overrule its precedents.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Wilcox
When a party unsuccessfully offers evidence as a whole, without segregating admissible from inadmissible parts of the offer, the trial court’s ruling sustaining an objection will be affirmed on appeal if part of the offer is inadmissible. See State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 358-59, 800 P2d 259 (1990).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Bales
After an appellate court remands based on an erroneous trial-court ruling, a trial court must not limit itself to considering whether it might again rule similarly (but on a permissible basis), but must also consider what effect its erroneous ruling had at the time it was made and whether the evidentiary record or the parties’ arguments might have developed in a materially different way at that time had the trial court not erred. See State v. Hightower, 368 Or 378, 491 P3d 769 (2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Twigg v. Opsahl
Under ORS 18.775, a court may find a garnishee liable for an amount equal to the value of unreported garnishable property held by the garnishee at the time of garnishment. According to ORS 18.615, “garnishable property” includes “monetary obligations owing to the debtor that are then in existence.”
Area(s) of Law:- Bankruptcy Law
Miles v. Bi-Mart Corp.
Under ORS 656.005(7)(a), when a person is injured at work, that injury is compensable if it “aris[es] out of and in the course of employment.”
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
State v. Hawthorne
“An exigent circumstance is “a situation that requires police to act swiftly to prevent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall a suspect’s escape or the destruction of evidence.” State v. Snow, 337 Or 219, 223, 94 P3d 872 (2004).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Austin
Under existing United States Supreme Court case law, “it is not obvious or beyond dispute that the federal constitutional right to be convicted only by unanimous jury verdict is the type of ‘relevant’ circumstance that a defendant must know for his waiver of the right to a jury trial to be knowing and intelligent.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Dept. of Fish and Wildlife v. Crook County
While a mitigation plan prepared for ORS 215.446 approval must be “concordant with the Mitigation Policy and not show any substantive conflicting elements,” the plan “need not follow the submittal requirements set out in OAR 635-415-0020(8).”
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Ragaway v. City of Portland
Under ORS 30.265(6), “[e]very public body and its officers, employees and agents acting within the scope of their employment or duties . . . are immune from liability for . . . [a]ny claim based upon the performance of or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty, whether or not the discretion is abused.”
Area(s) of Law:- Preemption
Dept. of Human Services v. J. S. E. S.
The determination to terminate parental rights under ORS 419B.500 is focused on the needs of the child. Dept. of Human Services v. T. M. D., 365 Or 143, 166, 442 P3d 1100 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. Gocan
The Oregon Supreme Court has announced that “a ‘proper occasion’ to give the witness-false-in-part instruction exists when, considering the testimony and other evidence a party has brought to the court’s attention in support of the requested instruction, the trial court concludes that sufficient evidence exists for the jury to decide that at least one witness consciously testified falsely and that the false testimony concerns a material issue.” State v. Payne, 366 Or 588, 600, 468 P3d 445 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Montgomery
Under ORS 163.545, whether a child is “unattended” for purposes of child neglect turns on whether there was or was not a responsible person present who can take care of the child’s needs. That determination is made considering the totality of the circumstances, including the child’s age, the location where the child is left, and the period of time the child was left.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Dept. of Human Services v. H. M. I. F.
In assessing whether a permanency plan should be changed from reunification, “both DHS’s efforts and a parent’s progress are evaluated by reference to the facts that formed the bases for juvenile court jurisdiction.” Dept. of Human Services v. N. T., 247 Or App 706, 715, 271 P3d 143 (2012).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Dept. of Human Services v. T. N. M.
A juvenile court may assert jurisdiction over a child under ORS 419B.100(1)(c) when it finds that, considering the totality of the circumstances, the child’s conditions or circumstances endanger the child’s welfare. When a parent’s alleged risk-causing conduct is at issue, DHS has the burden of demonstrating a nexus between the parent’s conduct and the threatened harm to the child. Dept. of Human Services v. L. E. F., 307 Or App 254, 258, 476 P3d 119 (2020), rev den, 367 Or 559 (2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Harned v. Amsberry
As stated in Jones v. Mississippi, in sentencing a juvenile homicide offender, “a State’s discretionary sentencing system is both constitutionally necessary and constitutionally sufficient.” After Jones, so long as the court is allowed to consider relevant mitigating circumstances and has the discretion to impose a lesser sentence than life without parole, no more is required.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. Jones
For an appellate court to uphold a trial court’s ruling on the basis that it was “right for the wrong reason,” (1) the facts of record must be sufficient to support the alternative basis for affirmance; (2) the trial court’s ruling must be consistent with the view of the evidence under the alternative basis for affirmance; and (3) the record must materially be the same one that would have developed had the prevailing party raised the alternative basis for affirmance below. See Outdoor Media Dimensions Inc. v. State of Oregon, 331 Or 634, 659-60, 20 P3d 180 (2001).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Martinez
OEC 404(3) bars the use of other-acts evidence “to prove that a person has a propensity to engage in certain types of behavior and that the person acted in conformance with that propensity on a particular occasion.” State v. Skillicorn, 367 Or 464, 476, 479 P3d 254 (2021). When other-acts evidence is offered under OEC 404(3), the proponent must articulate a theory of relevance that does not logically depend on propensity reasoning. See State v. Levasseur, 309 Or App 745, 753, 483 P3d 1167, clarified and adh’d on recons, 312 Or App 733, 489 P3d 630 (2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Mooney v. Oregon Health Authority
We long have held that the repeal or replacement of an administrative rule means an ORS 183.400 challenge seeking to invalidate the displaced rule is moot. See Reid v. DCBS, 235 Or App 397, 401, 232 P3d 994 (2010) (so holding); see also Hay v. Dept. of Transportation, 301 Or 129, 133-34, 719 P2d 860 (1986) (expiration of rule mooted ORS 183.400 challenge to the rule).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
State v. Center
As the Supreme Court has explained, “the purpose of the common-law rule and the statute that now embodies it,” i.e., ORS 136.425(1), “is to exclude potentially false—and thus unreliable—confessions from evidence.” State v. Powell, 352 Or 210, 222, 282 P3d 845 (2012).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Wulf
ORS 811.365(1)(a) prohibits U-turns in any intersection with an electrical traffic control signal (unless “posted otherwise,” which was not the case here).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Allen
In the context of Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, investigative activities and inquiries during a traffic stop must be reasonably related to the purpose of the stop or be supported by an independent constitutional justification. See State v. Arreola-Botello, 365 Or 695, 712, 451 P3d 939 (2019). An officer’s deployment of a drug-detection dog during a traffic stop for failing to signal continuously for at least 100 feet before turning—without any independent constitutional justification—is a violation of this requirement.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Gaona-Mandujano
ORS 137.540(2) gives the trial court discretion to impose any special conditions of probation “that are reasonably related to the crime of conviction or the needs of the probationer for the protection of the public or reformation of the probationer, or both.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Kulick
To prove constructive possession, the state must prove that a defendant knowingly exercised control over, or had the right to control, the contraband.” State v. Evans, 161 Or App 86, 89, 983 P2d 1055 (1999). However, a defendant’s “mere presence in the proximity of a controlled substance is not a sufficient basis from which to draw an inference of constructive possession.” State v. Fry, 191 Or App 90, 93, 80 P3d 506 (2003).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Oregon Tech AAUP v. Oregon Institute of Technology
Under the Public Employee Collective Bargaining Act (PECBA), “[p]ublic employees have the right to form, join and participate in the activities of labor organizations of their own choosing for the purpose of representation and collective bargaining with their public employer on matters concerning employment relations.” ORS 243.662.
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Chaimov v. Dept. of Admin. Services
As the Supreme Court said in Crimson Trace Corp. v. Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, 355 Or 476, 487-88, 326 P3d 1181 (2014), although the statutory privilege “requires the existence of an ‘attorney-client relationship’ in some sense” (emphasis added), the existence of a sufficient relationship for the privilege is determined exclusively by reference to the statutory privilege rule itself—not by reference to other sources of law defining an attorney-client relationship.
Area(s) of Law:- Professional Responsibility
Laack v. Botello
Under Phan v. Morrow, 185 Or App 628, 633, 60 P3d 1111 (2003), “the striking of pleadings and the dismissal of claims as a sanction is not within the court’s authority under ORS 1.010 and must be statutorily authorized.”
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Allen
Under Savinskiy, “the Article I, section 11, right to counsel on pending charges does not guarantee that the State will provide notice to a defendant’s attorney before questioning the Defendant about new, uncharged and ongoing criminal conduct.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Dept. of Human Services v. H. C. W.
A Tribe’s right to define its own membership for Tribal purposes has long been recognized as central to its existence as an independent political community. Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 US 49, 72 n 32, 98 S Ct 1670, 56 L Ed 2d 106 (1978).
Area(s) of Law:- Indian Law
State v. Moore
The reasonable suspicion standard “is met when an officer can point to specific and articulable facts that give rise to a reasonable inference that the defendant committed or was about to commit a specific crime or type of crime.” State v. Maciel-Figueroa, 361 Or 163, 165, 389 P3d 1121 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Oxford
The scope of the consent defines the scope of the intrusion under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution. State v. Wyman, 59 Or App 542, 545, 651 P2d 195 (1982). Consent to administer emergency aid does not necessarily give an officer consent to remain or reenter premises once that function has ceased, and consent to enter initially for one purpose does not mean that different officers can enter for a different purpose. See State v. Will, 131 Or App 498, 503, 885 P2d 715 (1994).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. R.L.M.
Under ORS 426.005(1)(f)(B) and for the purposes of a basic-needs civil commitment, the evidence must establish not only that a person’s inability to attend to a basic need risks the person suffering an adverse medical consequence, but also how soon that adverse consequence is likely to occur.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. O’Hare
The possession of “tools of the trade” might, in some circumstances, be sufficient to support a conviction for delivery of methamphetamine under ORS 475.890, depending on what those tools were, how many were possessed, and the surrounding context. However, to conclude that so little—mere possession of things that could be used to deliver drugs—could support a delivery conviction would “unlawfully punish a defendant for the status of being a drug dealer rather than for the act of transferring or attempting to transfer controlled substances.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Dean
Under Article I, section 12, of the Oregon Constitution, police may continue speaking with a defendant who has invoked the rights to remain silent or to counsel only to ask questions or make statements that are “normally attendant to arrest and custody.” State v. Schmidtke, 290 Or App 880, 885, 417 P3d 563 (2018). Any statements obtained in violation of those rights must be suppressed.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
State v. Barden
Under OEC 901, the proponent must present “some evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims so as to admit the evidence to the jury—for the jury remains the ultimate arbiter on authenticity, veracity, and reliability of evidence.”
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Rideout
Under ORS 137.690, a person who has been convicted of more than one “major felony sex crime” is subject to a mandatory minimum term of 25 years. If, pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision in Ramos, one of the two convictions is reversed, the trial court will no longer have the authority to impose a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years under ORS 137.690 on the remining conviction.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Olson and Olson
The phrase “reasonably incurred” as used in ORS 107.105(1)(j) is intended to qualify only “costs and expenses.” Therefore, an award of attorney fees under that provision is not limited to fees actually incurred.
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
State v. Mosley
Requiring a party to preserve an issue in the trial court serves several purposes: it permits a trial court to consider and rule on a contention, thereby possibly avoiding an error altogether or correcting one already made and it also “fosters full development of the record, which aids the trial court in making a decision and the appellate court in reviewing it.” Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209, 291-20, 181 P3d 637 (2008).
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
State v. Buswell
Plaintiffs can recover the value of accrued sick time when they have used that earned employment benefit due to tortious injury and, consequently, are no longer able to avail themselves of that time, which otherwise would have been available for alternate uses. Under Oregon law, a plaintiff in a civil case would be entitled to damages for used sick leave under that same theory of economic loss.
Area(s) of Law:- Remedies
State v. Moore
After an amendment made in 2013, ORS 137.106 now “does not require the court to determine the amount of restitution or enter a restitution judgment within any specific time.” State v. Taylor, 300 Or App 626, 629-30, 455 P3d 609 (2019), rev den, 366 Or 493 (2020). Moreover, ORS 137.106(1)(a) allows the time for the prosecutor’s presentation of restitution information to be extended for “good cause.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
OR-OSHA v. Stahlbush Island Farms, Inc.
Under OAR 437-001-0145, a safety violation’s penalty is determined by its “probability” and “severity” ratings. The probability rating is “[t]he probability of an accident that could result in an injury or illness from a violation” and is based on a number of factors listed under OAR 437-001-0135.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Rogowski v. Safeco Ins. Co.
An insurer’s duty to defend its insured is determined by comparing the four corners of the complaint to the four corners of the insurance policy. West Hills Development Co. v. Chartis Claims, 360 Or 650, 653, 385 P3d 1053 (2016). Under that so-called “four-corners” or “eight-corners” rule, “[t]he insurer has a duty to defend if the complaint provides any basis for which the insurer provides coverage,” even if the complaint also asserts claims that fall outside the policy’s coverage. Ledford v. Gutoski, 319 Or 397, 403, 877 P2d 80 (1994) (emphasis in original).
Area(s) of Law:- Insurance Law
Dement Ranch v. Curry County Board of Commissioners
ORS 607.020 was repealed by the legislature in 2019. However, nothing in the text of the 2017 version of ORS 607.020(5) implied a contiguity requirement when annexing into an existing livestock district.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
State ex rel Select Reform Com. v. City of Jefferson
To distinguish that which is legislative from that which is administrative, the court must determine “whether the ordinance was one making a law or one executing a law already in existence.” Monahan v. Funk, 137 Or 580, 585, 3 P2d 778 (1931). Under ORS 222.127, once certain requirements are met, a city “shall” annex the property without a vote.
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
Dorn v. Three Rivers School Dist.
Under State v. Wright, a party may not challenge an adverse for-cause ruling on appeal if the party could have used an available peremptory challenge to cure any prejudice flowing from that ruling. 294 Or App 772 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Kumenaker
Under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, as interpreted in State v. Atkinson, an inventory policy is constitutional if it is “conducted pursuant to a properly authorized administrative program, designed and systematically administered so that the inventory involves no exercise of discretion by the law enforcement person directing or taking the inventory. 298 Or 1, 10, 688 P2d 832 (1984).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Gist v. Zoan Management, Inc.
When the determination of unconscionability concerns the arbitration provisions of a contract, the court is the proper forum. A challenge to the validity of the contract as a whole, and not specifically to the arbitration clause, must go to the arbitrator. Vasquez-Lopez v. Beneficial Oregon, Inc., 210 Or App 553, 562, 152 P2d 940 (2007).
Area(s) of Law:- Alternative Dispute Resolution
H. K. v. Spine Surgery Center of Eugene
If another employee’s behavior creates a hostile working environment, an employee must prove that the employer “knew or should have known” of the harassment and failed to take prompt remedial action. Garcez v. Freightliner Corp., 188 Or App 397, 410 (2003). However, when the actor is the employer, “liability is direct, and there is no burden to separately prove the employer’s knowledge.” Schram v. Albertson’s, Inc., 146 Or App 415, (1997).
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Lycette v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan
Whether an attorney engaged in “deliberate misconduct” within the context of ORS 20.125 is a factual determination that will be reviewed “for any evidence in the record.” Unless the court reviewing the award finds an abuse of discretion, it will not modify the trial court’s decision.
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
State v. Bunch
For purposes of Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, a disclaimer of ownership of an item may—but does not necessarily—demonstrate an abandonment of all constitutionally protected interests in the item.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
State v. Lynch
Under Article I, section 42, of the Oregon Constitution, “a victim may not be granted restitution if that would result in a reduction of the criminal defendant’s rights afforded by the federal constitution.” State v. Barrett, 350 Or 390, 255 P3d 472 (2011). Because a defendant relinquishes many important constitutional rights when he elects to resolve his case by plea, it would be “fundamentally unfair to deprive [him] of the benefit of the bargain struck.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Oregon AFSCME Council 75 v. OJD - Yamhill County
Under ORS 243.650(1), the Employment Relation Board (ERB) may certify a labor organization as the exclusive representative of a group of public employees if ERB determines that the group would comprise an “appropriate bargaining unit.” That determination requires comparative analysis of the community interest factor in ORS 243.682(1)(a) and, if the record lacks substantial evidence or substantial reason, the Court has discretion to set aside or remand ERB’s order. ORS 183.482(7)(c).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
State v. Montiel-Delvalle
To determine whether a defendant manifested an intention to relinquish a constitutionally protected interest in property, courts will consider six factors set in State v. Ipsen, 288 Or App 395, 406 P3d 105 (2017). To defeat a motion to suppress, a defendant’s relinquishment of constitutionally protected rights in property need not be permanent.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
State v. Edwards
A lawful arrest does not, in and of itself, allow for the lawful exploratory seizure of all personal property on the arrestee’s person. The fact of arrest authorizes the seizure of limited categories of personal effects related to the probable cause for the arrest and even more limited categories of unrelated effects.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
City of Corvallis v. State of Oregon
ORS 222.127, which allows a city’s legislative body to annex certain territory within its boundary “without submitting the proposal to the electors of the city” if specific conditions are met, does not violate the “home rule” provisions of the Oregon Constitution.
Area(s) of Law:- Municipal Law
State v. Foss-Vigil
“[A] circuit court obtains jurisdiction to try or convict a defendant in a felony case only upon issuance of an indictment, an information supported by a probable-cause determination made following preliminary hearing, or the defendant’s knowing waiver of indictment or preliminary hearing.” Keys, 302 Or App at 523-24. “[I]n the absence of indictment, preliminary hearing, or waiver, the circuit court lacks jurisdiction to try the defendant and any judgment rendered in that case is void.” Id. at 524.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Spencer
Under OEC 901, the approach to establishing authenticity for recordings is flexible and depends on the circumstances presented and the nature of the proffered evidence. See State v. Sassarini, 300 Or App 106, 452 P3d 457 (2019). In assessing whether a proponent presented a prima facie case of authenticity, a court considers traditional factors rather than strict requirements.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Lobue
The rationale concerning probation revocation does not extend to confrontation rights in sentencing. See United States v. Littlesun, 444 F3d 1196, 1200 (9th Cir 2006). The personal liberty interests at stake in a probation revocation proceeding are not implicated in setting restitution as a part of sentencing. See Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 482-83 (1972).
State v. Sherriff
Under State v. Arreola-Botello, 365 Or 695 (2019) and for the purposes of Article I, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution, all activities conducted during a traffic stop are part of an ongoing seizure and must be reasonably related to the purpose of the traffic stop or grounded in an independent constitutional justification.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure