9th Circuit Court of Appeals (11 summaries)
Matias Rauda v. Jennings
Under 8 U.S.C. §1252(g), “no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim by or on behalf of any alien arising from decision or action by the Attorney General to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases or execute removal order against any alien.”
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Perez-Camacho v. Merrick Garland
Under the Immigration Nationality Act (INA), “[a]n alien may file one motion to reopen proceedings and must file it within 90 days of the date of entry of a final administrative order of removal.” 8 U.S.C. §1229a(c)(7)(A) and (C)(i). However, a motion to reopen is available if the deadline is eligible for equitable tolling which is available “when a petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error.” Salazar-Gonzalez v. Lynch, 798 F.3d 917, 920 (9th Cir. 2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Borden v. Efinancial, LLC
In determining a violation under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), an autodialer must have the “capacity to use a random or sequential number generator to either store or produce telephone numbers to be called.” Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 141 S. Ct. 1163 (2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
San Antonio Winery, Inc. v. Jiaxing Micarose Trade Co.
Under 15 U.S.C. § 1051(e), a trademark applicant may “either designate a U.S. person to be served with notice of process or submit to service through the director of the Patent Trademark Office.”
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
Cadena v. Customer Connexx, LLC
In determining if an activity performed outside of regular working hours is compensable, the court must consider, “if those activities are an integral and indispensable part of the principal activity for which covered workmen are employed.” Steiner v. Mitchell, 350 U.S. 247, 256 (1956).
Area(s) of Law:- Labor Law
Dong v. Garland
A credibility determination for an asylum application may be based on the “the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant or witness.” See 8 U.S.C. §1158(b)(1)(B)(iii).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
In Re Apple Inc. Device Performance Litigation
In determining if a settlement in a class action is fair and reasonable, the district court “must apply an even higher level of scrutiny” that considers if there are “any subtle signs that class counsel have allowed pursuit of their own self-interest to infect the negotiations.” Roes v. SFBSC Mgmt., LLC, 944 F.3d 1035, 1046 (9th Cir. 2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
San Luis Obispo Coastkeeper v. Santa Maria Valley Water Conservation
“An ESA § 9 claim cannot succeed unless the agency’s conduct is the proximate cause of the alleged take.” Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Cmtys. for a Great Or., 515 U.S. 687, 696 n.9, 700 n.13 (1995).
Area(s) of Law:- Environmental Law
Velasquez-Samayoa v. Merrick Garland
To prevail on a deferral of removal under the CAT, a plaintiff must “establish that it is more likely than not that he . . . would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (providing the standard for withholding of removal under the CAT); see id. §1208.17(a) (providing the standard for deferral of removal under the CAT). To qualify for CAT protection, an applicant must “show only a chance greater than fifty percent that he will be tortured if removed.” Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 770 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Hamoui v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 821, 827 (9th Cir. 2004)).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Mark Bax v. Doctors Med. Ctr. Of Modesto
“Assessing whether an entity provided auxiliary aids where necessary to afford effective communications is a fact-intensive exercise. The tier of fact must weigh [several] factors, including the method of communication used by the individual; the nature, length, and complexity of the communication involved; and the context in which the communication is taking place. Updike v. Multnomah County, 870 F.3d 939, 958 (9th Cir. 2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Disability Law
Al Saud v. Days
Under the Equal Protection Clause, the government is prohibited from classifying individuals based on their religion, “unless the classification is narrowly tailored to satisfy a compelling governmental interest.” Walker v. Beard, 789 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Oregon Court of Appeals (36 summaries)
Cockey v. Mead
When it comes to legal malpractice claims, a court must consider the time when a cause of action accrues to determine when the statute of limitations starts running. The limitation period starts when the client knows or should have known every fact necessary to support their right to judgment. Kaseberg v. Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP, 351 Or 270, 277 (2011).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
J.W.V. v. J.L.W.
Under ORS 109.350(1),the standard for granting a petition for adoption provides, "the court is satisfied as to the identity and relations of the persons, that the petitioner is of sufficient ability to bring up the child and furnish suitable nurture and education, having reference to the degree and condition of the parents, and that it is fit and proper that such adoption... be effected."
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Dep't. of Human Services v. Lindsey
The Court explained that in determining the protected activity under the Anti-SLAPP statute, the court must engage in a two-step burden shifting process. First, the court must determine whether the defendant has met its initial burden to show that the claim against which the motion is made arises out of one or more protected activities described in subsection (2) of the statute. Second, if the defendant meets its burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff in the action to establish that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim by presenting substantial evidence to support a prima facie case. Young v. Davis, 314 P3d 350 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
State v. Brunkal
To preserve an issue for appeal, the appellant must provide the trial court with a specific objection that affords the court an opportunity to analyze any alleged error. State v. Wyatt, 331 Or 335, 344-46 (2000).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Dept. of Human Services v. W.L.J.-E.
Under ORS 418B.504, a court may terminate parental rights if a parent's conduct or condition is seriously detrimental to the child, and it is improbable that the child will be able to return home within a reasonable time due to the conduct or conditions not likely to change
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Haidar v. Psychiatric Security Review Board
In determining whether there was sufficient evidence to support the denial of the request for discharge from PSRB's jurisdiction, the Court considered the evidentiary records to determine if they would make a reasonable person come to those findings. Rinne v. PSRB, Rinne v. PSRB, 443 P3d 731 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
State v. Thomas
In order to assess double jeopardy claims, the Court considered various factors, including whether the conduct involved in both offenses was continuous and uninterrupted, whether it was linked temporally and spatially, and whether it served a single criminal objective. State v. Wilder, 471 P3d 798 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Flores v. Escalona
Under ORS 107.105(1)(f), the Court must consider whether a division of property is just and proper in all circumstances when deciding whether an unequal distribution of real property is warranted.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. Cantwell
In determining whether the fingerprint record created in the booking process is exempt from the hearsay rule by the public records exception, the court considered that it was created as part of the usual routine booking process and did not include the exercise of discretion or judgment by the booking officer. State v. Smith, 675 P2d 510 (1984).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Wagnon
A medical charge is considered reasonable if it is at or below the market rate for the services, drugs, or other items provided. State v. Workman, 455 P3d 566 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Jaimez v. Rosales
Under ORS 20.075(1), the Court was required to consider various factors when deciding whether to award attorney fees, including the conduct of the parties, the reasonableness of their claims and defenses, the deterrence of good faith and meritless claims, the parties' diligence during the proceeding and settlement, the amount of fees for the prevailing party, and any other relevant factors.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. Hejazi
In determining whether a threat constitutes menacing, the court considers whether the harm was imminent or "moments away." State v. C.S., 365 P3d 535 (2015). Similarly, contact for the purpose of stalking must involve threats that instill fear of imminent and serious personal violence, which are likely to be followed by unlawful acts. State v. Rangel, 977 P2d 379 (1999).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Guest v. Mannenbach
In determining whether writs of garnishment are delivered to the garnishee, ORS 18.652(1) “allows for delivery of a writ of garnishment by certified mail, return receipt requested” which “only requires that the receipt be returned signed not that it be returned signed by the garnishee personally; and the actual receipt is not required for effective delivery.”
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Romero v. Amburn
When deciding whether the discovery rule is applicable to a specific statute of limitations, the Court considers ORS 12.010, which states that actions must be initiated within the prescribed periods in the chapter after the cause of action has accrued, unless a different limitation is specified by statute. Moreover, ORS 12.080(1) mandates that any action for contract or liability, whether expressed or implied, must be initiated within six years of its accrual.
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
State v. Taylor
Under ORS 161.07, guilty verdicts must merge when two crimes are committed against the same victims in the same criminal episode, and one is the predicate offense for the other. Martinez v. Cain, 458 P3d 670 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Breedwell
In determining whether a warrant is adequately descriptive, the court must consider, “when otherwise adequately descriptive warrant contains a clerical error, that error does not render the warrant insufficient where the executing officer is aware of that error and uses personal knowledge to remedy the incorrect information in the warrant.” State v. Kauppi, 360 Or 465 (2016). Furthermore, the “officer’s reliance on a magistrate’s probable-cause determination and on the technical sufficiency of the warrant he issues must be objectively reasonable, and it is clear that in some circumstances the officer will have no reasonable grounds for belief that the warrant was properly issued.” US v. Leon, 468 US 897 (1984).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Wilcox
In determining whether officers seized defendant’s backpack, the court looked to case law and determined it “clearly indicate[s] that a ‘seizure’ of property occurs when police physically remove property from a person’s possession.” State v. Juarez-Godinez, 942 P2d 722 (1997).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. LaCoe
A court’s authority to revoke probation based on a violation must be filed before the end of the probationary period even if the violation occurred while the probationbwas effective. A sentencing court’s authority to extend probation after its conclusion must be through a deliberate judicial act. State v. Miller, 244 Or App 642
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Scatamacchia
In determining whether there is an error, the court must “consider the instructions as a whole and in the context of the evidence and record at trial, including the parties’ theories of the case with respect to the various charges and defenses at issue.” State v. Payne, 366 Or. 588 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Hill v. Gold
(1) ORS 60.952(6) allows the court to order the election to buy the stock of the shareholders who filed the claim rather than to pursue litigation when faced with an ORS 60.952 (1) claim. (2) A discount is appropriate if the sale of shares is because of misconduct and the price is determined on their fair value rather than fair market value. Cook v. Fresh Express Foods Corp., 169 Or App 101, 115 (2000).
Area(s) of Law:- Business Law
State v. Grant
(1) Generally, a court has no authority to review a conviction when a defendant pleads guilty. See ORS 138.105(5); see, e.g., State v. Jones, 311 Or. App. 685, 688-89 (2021). (2) A judgment imposing sanctions and continuing probation is not appealable. See ORS 138.035(3); see e.g., State v. Flores, 317 Or. App. 288, 292 (2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Tellez-Suarez
A court will affirm the judgment below if it is determined that there was little likelihood that the error affected the verdict. State v. Owen, 369 Or 288 (2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Crosbie v. Asante
In an unlawful discrimination or retaliation suit, a plaintiff must show that a “protected trait or their involvement in a protected activity was a substantial factor” in the employer’s decision to take adverse action. Ossanna v. Nike Inc., 290 Or App 16, 28 (2018). “Cat’s paw” allows satisfaction of the causation element where the decision-maker was influenced by another person who instead was personally biased against the employee. Id. at 210.
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
State v. Martin
Under ORS 131.505d(4), “criminal episode” is defined as “continuous and uninterrupted conduct that is so joined in time, place or circumstances that such conduct is directed to the accomplishment of a single criminal objective.” A criminal objective, “refers to the pursuit of some object or attainment of some goal beyond the successful commission of the acts constituting the offense charged.” State v. Cloutier, 286 Or 579, 599 (1979).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Garcia-Ascencio v. Gonzalez
A finding that the guidelines support amount is “unjust or inappropriate” is necessary before a court is authorized to consider rebuttal factors and deviate from the guidelines. St. Sawer and St. Sawer, 196 Or App 175 (2004).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. Allen
(1) “[T]he ‘knowingly’ culpable mental state does not apply to the injury element.” State v. Owen, 369 Or 288, 321 (2022). (2) “[T]he result element—physical injury—in the crime of second-degree assault carries, at a minimum, a culpable mental state of criminal negligence and…a trial court errs when it fails to instruct the jury that a defendant must act with a culpable mental state as to the element of causing physical injury. Owen, 369 Or at 321-23.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
DHS v. R.H.
Per ORAP 5.45(3), “Each assignment of error must identify precisely the legal, procedural, factual, or other ruling that is being challenged.”
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. M.D.M.
The “well-settled principle” that an issue generally must be raised in the trial court to be considered on appeal “applie[s] equally to civil commitment cases.” State v. K.J.B., 282 Or App 862, 867-68 (2016), aff’d, 362 Or 777 (2018); see also State v. Wyatt, 331 Or 335 (2000).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Riverman
A defendant “may be ordered to pay restitution for a victim’s objectively verifiable monetary losses, including ‘reasonable’ medical and hospital charges that were ‘necessarily incurred.’” State v. Dickinson, 298 Or App 679, 680 (2019); ORS 31.705; ORS 137.103(2)(a) (generally adopting the definition of “economic damages” in ORS 31.705).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
DHS v. M.H. and T. H.
ORS 419B.809(6) allows a juvenile court to direct that a petition be amended. See ORS 419B.809(6). “A court is bound by the juvenile court’s findings so long as there is any evidence in the record to support them.” Dept. of Human Services v. J.F.D., 255 Or App 742 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Reyes Prado
“[P]robable cause is not a necessary prerequisite to asking a defendant for consent to perform field sobriety tests in the context of a DUII stop.” State v. Ramos, 149 Or. App. 269, 272 (1997) (emphasis in original). “In contrast, if an officer compels a defendant to participate in field sobriety tests, the officer must have probable cause, in conjunction with a recognized exception to the warrant requirement…to do so.” State v. Nagel, 320 Or 24 (1994).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Atkinson v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
The mere possibility that petitioner’s parole status could have changed from active to inactive at an earlier date is not a legally sufficient collateral consequence that would prevent dismissal of the case. Smith v. Board of Parole, 305 Or App 773, 776, rev den, 367 Or 387 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Carr
The Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial requires a unanimous jury verdict to convict a defendant for a serious offense. Ramos v. Louisiana, ___ US ___ (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Underwood v. City of Portland
“At the summary judgment stage, issue preclusion applies as a matter of law only if it can be conclusively established from the record that “all the Nelson requirements [are] sat-isfied.” Barackman v. Anderson, 338 Or 365, 372 (2005).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
McNeil v. Geico Casualty Company, Inc.
In safe harbor provisions for UM/UIM claims, “damages due the insured” “refers to the type of damages that would be payable in that type of case, namely, the damages that the insured would be ‘legally entitled to recover’ from the uninsured or underinsured motorist.” Spearman v. Progressive Classic Ins. Co., 361 Or 584, 593 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Insurance Law
Harcourts Integrity Team Real Estate Services LLC v. Ralph
“A trial court is required to ‘make special findings of fact and state its conclusions of law on the record regarding the issues material to the award or denial of attorney fees’ where a party makes a request by ‘including a request for findings and conclusions in the caption of the statement of attorney fees or cots and disbursements, objection, or response filed pursuant to’ ORCP 68.” Harcourts Integrity Team Real Estate Services LLC. v. Ralph, 497 P3d 1253 (Or. App. 2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure