Olivia Courogen

United States Supreme Court (14 summaries)

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 (8 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

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 (42 summaries)

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. 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

Rodriguez v. Keystone RV – Thor Industries

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

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

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. 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. 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

Back to Top