Abby Espinosa

9th Circuit Court of Appeals (2 summaries)

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 (17 summaries)

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

Back to Top