United States Supreme Court (2 summaries)
National Collegiate Athletic Assn. v. Alston
The rule of reason standard requires a court to engage in a fact specific inquiry of the market power and market structure to measure the competitive impact of restraints on competition and is required when the restraint at issue involves complex structures.
Area(s) of Law:- Antitrust
Van Buren v. United States
Under 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2), the phrase “exceeds authorized access” is limited by the phrase “entitled so to obtain,” such that an individual cannot to have been said to violate the statute for obtaining information from a computer that they are otherwise authorized to access, even if the individual accessed the information for improper purposes.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Oregon Court of Appeals (31 summaries)
State v. Gastiaburu
Proof of how much is paid in medical bills by an insurer is not enough by itself to sufficiently prove that the amount paid is reasonable for determining restitution.
Area(s) of Law:- Remedies
Thoens v. Safeco Ins. Co.
An insurer can be liable for the insured’s attorney’s fees if it leaves the safe harbor provisions of ORS 742.061(3) by injecting other issues that become a matter of live controversy that are not covered in ORS 742.061(3).
Area(s) of Law:- Insurance Law
Scott, Inc. v. City of Ontario
If a proposed land use is conditional within a zoning designation, then the use is not prohibited, and the city may not mark the application as such.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Westhaven, LLC v. City of Dayton
The court of appeals only has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a municipal court not of record when the petitioner challenges the constitutionality of the municipal ordinance for which he was convicted.
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
State v. Halfmoon
Under ORS 137.106(1)(a), a victim has 90 days to file for restitution for damage caused by the person convicted of a crime described in ORS 153.008; however, the 90-day timeline may be extended by the court for good cause.
Area(s) of Law:- Remedies
Dept. of Human Services v. D.E.P.
Termination of parental rights must be shown by clear and convincing evidence that it is highly probable that doing so is in the best interest of the child. Dept. of Human Services v. T.L.M.H., 294 Or. App. 749, 750 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. DeJong
Under Johnson, if the defendant establishes a factual nexus between the challenged evidence and the unlawful seizure the burden shifts to the state to establish that the challenged evidence was not tainted by the unlawful police conduct.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
SAIF Corporation v. Coria
Termination of benefits is reasonable if the insurer has “legitimate doubt” about its obligation to pay the claimant, and reasonableness is determined through the evidence accessible to the insurer at the time it terminated the benefits.
Area(s) of Law:- Disability Law
State v. Fitzgerald
A trial court must have ample opportunity to address a request made to the court in order to preserve an issue on appeal.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Hassan
Evidence to prove motive is relevant if it has the tendency to make the motive more or less likely and the evidence is based on a rational relationship between the issues to be proven and the motive.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Huynh
Under ORS 136.785(3), enhancement facts must be found by the jury “equal to or greater than the number of jurors that was required to find the defendant guilty of the crime.”
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Canales-Robles v. Laney
An untimely petition for post-conviction relief may be excused if, within the two-year limitation period the applicable law is established, and the petitioner could have reasonably asserted the applicable legal ground for relief.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. Shelby
Miranda warnings are required before questioning when police question a defendant under circumstances that Miranda warnings were intended to counteract.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Threlkeld
A witness is qualified as an expert when the witness has developed superior knowledge based on experience, and the competency of the expert must be assessed in relation to the specific subject about which the expert is asked.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Fitzgerald
The ability to appeal a trial court’s ruling rests on the whether the issue was preserved at trial.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Walton v. Neskowin Regional Sanitary Authority
A six-year statute of limitations applies to inverse condemnation claims and the statute beings to run when the physical taking occurs.
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
State v. Jackson
ORS 161.067 prevents merger when two or more provisions of criminal law are violated, and each provision necessitates proof of an additional element that the others do not.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Hightower
To interpret the appellate court’s decision to remand a case, the trial court should focus not only on the explicit and implicit instructions provided in the appellate court’s opinion, but also on the entirety of the record as it relates to the identified error.
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
State v. Sjogren
A building, as defined by ORS 164.205(1), can be a structure that is mostly enclosed and adapted to accommodate business operations.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
State v. Reasoner
There is no constitutional requirement that all delegations of legislative power must be accompanied by a statement of standards circumscribing its exercise.’ Warren v. Marion County, 222 Or 307, 313, 353 P2d 257 (1960). Rather, the procedure established for the exercise of that power must furnish adequate safeguards against the arbitrary exercise of the delegated power.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Lora
Evidence found during a warrantless search must be obtained in a reasonable manner and as such, evidence found pursuant to an unlawful seizure is inadmissible.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
HollyFrontier Cheyenne Refining, LLC v. Renewable Fuels Assn.
Under the RFP, “a small refinery may at any time petition the Administrator for an extension of the exemption under subparagraph (A) for the reason of disproportionate economic hardship.” 42 U.S.C. § 7545(o)(9)(B)(i).
Area(s) of Law:- Environmental Law
Charlton v. Ed Staub And Sons Petroleum, Inc.
“Aid-or-abet liability under ORS 659A.030(1)(g) is no limited to employers and employees. Anyone qualifying as a ‘person’ under ORS 659A.001(9) may be an aider or abettor of an unlawful employment practice in a way that subjects them to liability.” Hernandez v. Catholic Health Initiatives, 311 Or App 70, 80-81 (2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
State v. Postlethwait
ORS 161.067(1) provides, “when the same conduct or criminal episode violates two or more statutory provisions and each provision requires proof of an element that the others do not, there are as many separately punishable offenses as there are separate statutory violations.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Reid
The officer’s testimony that defendant “failed,” when viewed in the context of testimony about standardized tests, would have led the jury to believe that the tests had been scientifically calibrated to detect impairment. State v. Beltran-Chavez, 286 Or App 590 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Sachdev v. Oregon Medical Board
Administrative procedures are reviewed for constitutional violations by balancing the individual and governmental interests. Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 US 471, 481 (1972). When issuing a final order, “the rational connection between the facts and the legal conclusion it draws from them” must be clearly articulable. Ross v. Springfield School Dist. No. 19, 294 Or 357, 370 (1982).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Senvoy, LLC v. Employment Department
“A party must provide the trial court with an explanation of [its] objection that is specific enough to ensure that the court can identify its alleged error with enough clarity to permit it to consider and correct the error immediately.” State v. Vanornum, 354 Or 614, 632 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Macy
“It is error for a trial court to impose a fine or fee as part of a sentence on a misdemeanor conviction in a judgment when that fine or fee was not previously announced in open court at the defendant’s sentencing hearing.” State v. Tison, 292 Or App 369, 374 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Tatman
A person commits the crime of endangering the welfare of a minor when the person subjects a child to prolonged presence in a location where “a principal or substantial use of the place is to facilitate unlawful drug activity.” State v. Gonzalez-Valenzuela, 358 OR 451, 473 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Edwards v. Cavenham Forest Industries
Compensation may be recovered for medical services for conditions caused in material part by the original injury or for conditions consequential to the original injury, where the original injury is the major contributing cause of the consequential condition. ORS 656.245(1)(a).
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
State v. Sheikhuna
The State needs only to prove that Defendant was aware of the assaultive nature of his conduct and that his conduct in fact caused the injury. State v. Barnes, 329 Or. 327, 337-38 (1999).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law