Sierra Cullen

United States Supreme Court (1 summary)

Sackett v. EPA

The Court held that the CWA extends to only those “wetlands with a continuous surface connection to bodies that are ‘waters of the United States’ in their own right,” so that they are “indistinguishable” from those waters. Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715, 739, 126 S.Ct. 2208, (2006).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Environmental Law

United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted (1 summary)

West Virginia v. EPA

Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act should be narrowly construed to regulate individual power plants. The CPP's scheme to create generation shifting for the nation's power sector as a whole is not within its authority under Section 111(d).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

9th Circuit Court of Appeals (4 summaries)

In re: Klamath Irrigation District v. U.S.D.C. Or. Medford

The Court applies the “Bauman factors,” in determining whether mandamus is warranted: (1) whether the petitioner has “no other adequate means, such as a direct appeal,” to attain the desired relief, (2) whether “[t]he petitioner will be damaged or prejudiced in a way not correctable on appeal,” (3) whether the “district court’s order is clearly erroneous as a matter of law,” (4) whether the order makes an “oft-repeated error, or manifests a persistent disregard of the federal rules,” and (5) whether the order raises “new and important problems” or legal issues of first impression. Bauman v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 557 F.2d 650, 654–55 (9th Cir. 1977). A clear error requires “firm conviction” that the district court “misinterpreted the law” or “committed a clear abuse of discretion.” In re Perez, 749 F.3d 849, 855 (9th Cir. 2014).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Johnson v. Walmart, Inc.

When substantial evidence supports that two contracts are separate, independent agreements, an arbitration agreement consented to for an initial purchase “does not control the [second] agreement of the parties.” Int’l Ambassador Programs, Inc. v. Archexpo, 68 F.3d 337, 340 (9th Cir. 1995).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Arbitration

U.S. v. Mongol Nation

“[T]he purposes of the Mongols Gang . . . included, but were not limited to,” several unlawful purposes. Because the indictment expressly contemplated that the association may exist for other purposes—perhaps including lawful ones—it is not facially inconsistent with Mongol Nation’s interpretation of the definition of “person” in the RICO statute[.]"

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

U.S. v. Knight

Where a waiver would deprive the defendant of a constitutional right, courts generally require that it be a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent choice among alternative courses of action, made without coercion and with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences that would arise from the waiver. See, e.g., Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 748–49 (1970); Parke v. Raley, 506 U.S. 20, 29 (1992).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Oregon Court of Appeals (7 summaries)

Marks v. L.C.D.C.

The IGAs are likely to have a significant impact on land use in Stafford and the surrounding area within the meaning of the significant impact test due to the control over expansion of the UGB and timing of concept planning. See, e.g., Hemstreet v. Seaside Improvement Commission, 93 Or App 73, 75, 761 P2d 533 (1988) (articulating significant impact test).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Mouktabis v. Clackamas County

ORS 31.150 provides a mechanism for a defendant to move to strike certain nonmeritorious claims predicated on speech and petitioning activity potentially entitled to constitutional protection.” Tokarski v. Wildfang, 313 Or App 19, 21, 496 P3d 22, rev den, 368 Or 788 (2021). Accordingly, reports to the police about whether court orders are being violated  are "matters of public interest" under ORS 31.150(2)(d) because they implicate public safety and effective governance. 

Area(s) of Law:
  • First Amendment

State v. Wagner

Similarly to McCormack, the Court was permitted to sidestep answering whether the state’s authority to enforce hunting regulations against treaty hunters is an issue of subject matter jurisdiction because of the “conservation necessity standard” under the Bronson framework. “[I]f the tribe itself has enacted similar valid laws[,]” the state may enforce regulations against a treaty hunter. State v. Bronson, 122 Or App 493 (1993).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Wildlife Law

Brown v. Glaxosmithkline, LLC. and Providence Health System - Oregon

Considering the plain meaning of a "seller... engaged in the business of selling" a product, is one who transfers ownership of the product to another in exchange for valuable consideration, Hospitals that provide medication in exchange for valuable consideration can be liable for product liability under ORS 30.920.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

State v. Bordeaux

Violations of ORS 509.006 do not require that the actions taken are completed or intentional, because “attempt to fish” was specifically included as part of the definition of “take.” ORS 506.006(12).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Ybarra v. Dominguez Family Enterprises, Inc.

Cases determining “fair value” under dissenter’s rights statute inform the meaning of “fair value” for purposes of ORS 60.952(5). The appropriateness of applying marketability or minority discount to determination of fair value “necessarily depends on the circumstances of the particular case.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Corporations

State v. Williams

Based on the factors in State v. Jarnagin, 351 Or 703, 716, 277 P3d 535 (2012), the State did not meet its burden to prove that Defendant’s consent to a DNA sample was not the result of the Miranda violation.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Back to Top