Ryan Foxx

United States Supreme Court (6 summaries)

Terry v. U.S.

In light of the clear text, we hold that §2(a) of the Fair Sentencing Act modified the statutory penalties only for subparagraph (A) and (B) crack offenses—that is, the offenses that triggered mandatory-minimum penalties.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

United States v. Cooley

The Court relied on its decision in Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981), saying that a tribe retains authority over the conduct of non-Indians “when that conduct threatens or has a direct effect on the political integrity, economic security, or the health and welfare of the tribe.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tribal Law

San Antonio v. Hotels.com

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 39 governs the taxation of appellate “costs,” and the question in this case is whether a district court has the discretion to deny or reduce those costs.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

United States v. Palomar-Santiago

The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit, holding that each statutory requirement under 8 U.S.C. §1326(d) is mandatory.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

AMG Cap. Mgmt., LLC v. FTC

Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act does not explicitly authorize the Federal Trade Commission to obtain court-ordered monetary relief.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Mays v. Hines

Under 28 U.S.C §2254(d)(2), a writ of habeas corpus shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless adjudication resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidenced presented in the State court proceedings.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Post-Conviction Relief

United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted (1 summary)

Badgerow v. Walters

Whether federal courts have subject-matter jurisdiction to confirm or vacate an arbitration award under Sections 9 and 10 of the FAA where the only basis for jurisdiction is that the underlying dispute involved a federal question.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Arbitration

Oregon Supreme Court (3 summaries)

Sherman v. State

OTCA makes a public body liable for its tortious acts or omissions, subject only to the limitations set out in that act. ORS 30.265(1). By its terms, ORS 12.117 applies, in lieu of ORS 12.115, without exception or limitation, to actions “based on conduct that constitutes child abuse,” and we cannot read an exception for public entities or a limitation on the statute’s application into that statute. See Gaines, 346 Or at 173.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

Bert Brundige, LLC v. Department of Revenue

ORS 307.827 provides, “logging equipment” refers to equipment used in logging and reforestation; equipment specially designed for activities related to water quality and wildlife habitat protection; and “excavators used in logging road construction, maintenance, reconstruction or improvements.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tax Law

Otnes v. PCC Structurals, Inc.

UTCR 21.080(5) authorizes a trial court to relate the filing date of a rejected document back to the original date the document was tendered for filing, if the filing party cures the deficiency identified by the trial court within three days.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Oregon Court of Appeals (27 summaries)

City of Portland v. Gonzalez

All investigative activities conducted during a traffic stop have subject-matter and durational limitations, officers’ activities during a traffic stop must be reasonably related to the purpose of the stop or supported by an independent constitutional justification.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Skinner and Skinner

ORS 82.010(2)(c), which refers to prejudgment interest, applies only to some judgments, spousal support judgments do not accrue prejudgment interest.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

State v. D.F.U.

To preserve a challenge on appeal, an appellant must raise the issue before the trial court with enough specificity to allow the court to consider the issue and rule on it.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Bowers v. Betschart

When two or more amendments to a county charter are submitted to the electors of the county at the same election, they shall be so submitted that each amendment shall be voted on separately.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

State v. Belleque

A defect in an indictment or a defective waiver of an indictment or preliminary hearing does not divest a trial court of subject matter jurisdiction.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Moir v. Ozeruga

A notice of appeal must be served and filed within 30 days after the judgment appealed from is entered in the register, the timeline is extended only for corrected portions and portions affected by the correction. There can only be one prevailing party for each claim for the purposes of claiming attorney fees.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

State v. Cervantes

ORS 164.245 does not contain a “clarity requirement” for notice of property from which a person is excluded.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Mull

To be found guilty of theft by receiving, the state must prove that defendant must have known or believed that the property was stolen. Circumstantial evidence may be relied on to make reasonable inferences but, if the conclusion requires too great of an inferential leap, then it will be insufficient.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Waterfront Pearl Condo. Owners v. Waterfront Pearl

An “injury” is discovered when a plaintiff knows or should have known of the existence of three elements: (1) harm; (2) causation; and (3) tortious conduct. The statute of limitations starts running when the plaintiff knows or should have known facts that would make a reasonable person aware of a substantial possibility that each of the elements exists. The plaintiff must be aware of the conduct and the “tortious nature” of the conduct.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

Pohlman v. Cain

“Preservation principles apply in the context of post-conviction relief and, as a general rule, arguments not made to the post-conviction court in support of a claim will not be considered on appeal.” Hale v. Belleque, 255 Or App 653, 660, 298 P3d 596, adh’d to on recons, 258 Or App 587, 312 P3d 533, rev den, 354 Or 597 (2013).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Post-Conviction Relief

State v. Farris

A probation condition violates the Oregon Constitution if its terms are not sufficiently explicit to inform those subjects to them as to what conduct will render them in violation of the condition.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Parole and Post-Prison Supervision

State v. Lasheski

Post-opinion dismissal motions are disfavored by the court and will be granted only when the appellant presents a compelling reason for dismissal.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

State v. Perez-Salas

Where a building consists of separate units, including but not limited to, separate apartments, offices, or rented rooms, each unit, in addition to being a part of the same building, is a separate building.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Dart

ORS 161.200 requires that a defendant’s perception of a threat be reasonable as gauged by an objective “reasonable person” standard and not a subjective, defendant specific standard for the choice of evils defense.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Estrada-Robles

Since the trial court’s decision in 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 140 S Ct 1390 (2020), which declared non-unanimous verdicts to violate the Sixth Amendment.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Bilton

It is well settled that a trial court errors when imposing a DUII fee without first announcing it at sentencing.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Coats

A “sufficient pause” for purposes of ORS 161.067(3) means a “temporary or brief cessation of a defendant’s criminal conduct that occurs between repeated violations and is so marked in scope or quality that it affords a defendant the opportunity to renounce his or her criminal intent.” State v. Huffman, 234 Or App 177, 184, 227 P3d 1206 (2010).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Phillips

Protective measures taken by police officers must be proportionate to the perceived threat, reasonable suspicion would develop if a Defendant took some substantial step towards the end alleged.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Ceaser v. Dept. of Human Services

Under ORS 183.310 to 183.690, “[r]eview of a contested case shall be confined to the record, and the court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to any issue of fact or agency discretion.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

State v. McIntyre

Police unlawfully expanded the scope of the traffic stop even though they did not unlawfully extend duration, this case is analogous to State v. Hallam, 307 Or App 796 (2020).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Damper

Receipt of a nonunanimous verdict is plain error that an appellate court should exercise its discretion to review, it is an error that cannot be found harmless.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Phillips

Under OEC 404(3) “evidence of other crimes wrongs or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that the person acted in conformity therewith,” but allows such evidence for reasons such as proof of motive, the proponent bears the burden of showing relevance.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Tinoco-Camarena

Under OEC 404(3), “evidence of other crimes wrongs or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that the person acted in conformity therewith,” but allows such evidence for reasons such as proof of intent.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Jasperse

OEC 403 allows relevant evidence to be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of confusion of the issues or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Royal Blue Organics v. City of Springfield

In reviewing whether LUBA’s decision was “unlawful in substance,” ORS 197.850(9)(a), we review the pertinent city code provisions to determine whether LUBA interpreted them consistently with the ordinary principles of statutory, or code, construction.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Lane v. Marion County D.A.'s Office

The Supreme Court identified three criteria to “guide the determination of whether a decision-making process was quasi-judicial, (1) Was the process, once begun, bound to result in a decision? (2) Was the decision-maker bound to apply pre-existing criteria to concrete facts? (3) Was the decision directed at a closely circumscribed factual situation or a relatively small number of persons?” Hicks v. Cent. Point Sch. Dist., 270 Or App at 544 (2015) (citing Strawberry Hill 4 Wheelers v. Board of Comm’rs, 287 Or at 602-03).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

State v. Gilbreath

ORS 163.411 provides that a person commits unlawful sexual penetration in the first degree if the person penetrates the vagina, anus, or penis of another with any object other than the penis or mouth no “sexual or injurious intent” is required.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Back to Top