Ryan Foxx

United States Supreme Court (10 summaries)

Berger v. N.C. State Conf. of the NAACP

North Carolina's legislative leaders are entitled to intervene in litigation regarding voter I.D. laws because they represent a state's interest which is not otherwise being represented.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

U.S. v. Taylor

An attempted, Hobbs Act robbery, does not qualify as a crime of violence because no element of the offense requires proof that the defendant used, attempted to use, or threatened the use of force.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

FBI v. Fazaga

The District Court dismissed Respondent's claims but the Ninth Circuit reversed saying §1806(f) displaced the state secrets privilege. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the holding saying §1806(f) does not have that effect.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sovereign Immunity

Mississippi v. Tennessee

Aquifers are subject to remedy from the courts under equitable apportionment.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Water Rights

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 (6 summaries)

State v. Gray

Or Const, Art I, §11, of the Oregon Constitution entitles Defendant to have his counsel present in the grand jury room during his testimony.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Sheehan/Calderwood v. Oregon Legislative Assembly

The Court has long recognized that the legislature has broad discretion with respect to reapportionment. The Court will not substitute it’s own judgment for the wisdom of the plan.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Election Law

State v. Rogers

Senate Bill 1013 (2019) retains the death penalty but narrowed the definition for aggravated murder.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

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 (66 summaries)

Anthony V. Albertazzi, P. C. v. Jones

ORS 82.010(2) applies to all judgments; an arbitration award is not a “judgment” as contemplated by the statute.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Remedies

Hanley Engineering v. Weitz & Company

The Full Faith and Credit Clause requires a valid final judgment in one state, rendered by a court with jurisdiction over a person and subject matter governed by the judgment be recognized in all states. However, it does not require states to adopt practices of other states regarding enforcement for judgments.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Central Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes County

ORS 215.284(2) “In counties not [within the Willamette Valley] a single-family residential dwelling not provided in conjunction with arm use may be established, subject to approval of the governing body or its designee, in any area zoned for exclusive farm use upon a finding that: (c) The dwelling will be sited on a lot or parcel created before January 1, 1993.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Dept. of Hum. Servs v. J. H.

ORS 419B.498(1)(a) requires DHS to file a petition to terminate parental rights and proceed with adoption when a child or ward has been in substitute care under the responsibility of the department for 15 months of the most recent 22 months unless some exception applies.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

Frehoo, Inc. v. Bureau of Lab. and Indus. of Oregon

To show a hostile workplace, an employee who is subjected to verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature which was unwelcome and resulted in severe or pervasive conditions which alter their employment create an abusive work environment. The court looks at the totality of circumstances.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

Lankford v. Cain

To receive relief, trial counsel’s failure to investigate must result in more than a mere possibility that the proceeding would have ended in a different result.

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

State v. Krieger

An officer is limited to investigatory inquiries that are reasonably related to the traffic stop or must otherwise have an independent constitutional justification.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Sandu v. Kumar

Plaintiff’s failure to list the partnership meant it could not be considered by the bankruptcy trustee, it remains part of the bankruptcy estate.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Corporations

State v. Davis

To be relevant, evidence introduced to impeach a need only have a mere tendency to show bias or interest of the witness.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Messer

A sentencing court shall allow a defendant to be considered for a sentence reduction or release programs unless there are substantial and compelling reasons to do otherwise.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

State v. Cotan

A person commits identity theft if they, with the intent to deceive or defraud, obtain, possess, transfer, create, utters, or converts to the person’s own use the personal identification of another person.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Martineau

The fact that a verdict was unanimous provides assurance in and of itself that no juror was ignored, and all jurors’ reasonable doubts were resolved.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. McLaughlin

A burglar must have the intent to commit some other crime once they have entered the premises unlawfully.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Black

Hightower requires a trial court to consider if the record could have developed in a materially different way but for the erroneous exclusion.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

State v. Phillips

A defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed on a properly raised defense if there is any evidence to support the presence of each element of the defense.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Dept. of Hum. Servs. v. N.S.C

The Department of Human Services (DHS) and juvenile court relied on ORS 419B.476 which says “’if the court determines that further efforts will make it possible for the ward to safely return home within a reasonable time,’ the court may ‘order that the parent participate in specific services for a specific period of time and make specific progress within that period of time.’”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

Michael v. Pugel

ORCP 71 B(1)(a) allows a court to relieve a party or legal representative from a judgment for: mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Dept. of Hum. Servs. v. Z.M.

Juvenile courts may assert dependency jurisdiction over children whose conditions or circumstances are such as to endanger the welfare of the child or of others.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

State v. Deatley

All investigative activities during a traffic stop are subject to subject matter and durational limitation, all activity must reasonably be related to the traffic stop or supported by an independent constitutional justification.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Upham v. Forster

The court has jurisdiction to enjoin public bodies from withholding records and order the production of improperly withheld documents, withholding means to retain and keep in one’s possession and control. Merely receiving the records after a lawsuit has been filed is not enough to “prevail,” Plaintiff did not revive a favorable judgment.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

State v. Curiel

Fourth Degree Assault requires “substantial pain” experienced by the victim meaning the pain should not be fleeting or inconsequential. Statements which purport to explain an instance of domestic violence made within 24 hours of the incident are permissible.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Laune

The trial court plainly erred in assessing petitioner’s ability to pay attorney fees, it is incorrect to assume bail posted by a non-spouse third party belongs to a defendant. However, under the existing case law at the time of Defendant’s trial the court ruled correctly.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Summerlyn

It is plain error to instruct the jury that it can rule non-unanimously, but the unanimous guilty verdict made that error harmless. Departure from sentencing guidelines is permitted where there are compelling reasons to do so.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Ingle v. Matteucci

The “escape clause” exists to give a person extra time to file a petition for post-conviction relief in “extraordinary circumstances,” personal characteristics are not currently relevant to the escape clause.

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

State v. Bates

Imposing conditions of probation in a judgment that have not been announced in open court at sentencing constitutes reversible error generally entitling a defendant to resentencing.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

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

City of Portland v. Gonzalez

Officers’ activities during a traffic stop must be reasonably related to the traffic stop or be 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. Craig

ORS 137.719 provides that if a defendant has been sentenced for two prior felony sex crimes, the presumptive sentence is life without the possibility of parole.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

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

State v. Hsieh

Exigency exists when a person fails to provide the “minimum care” required by statute, and that failure results in imminent physical injury; an officer’s beliefs must be grounded in specific and articulable facts.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Larson

ORS 137.123 generally bars consecutive sentences except under certain circumstances.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

W. A. S. v. Teacher Standards and Practices Comm.

In an agency proceeding, lacking the appearance of fairness is not enough to reverse, a petitioner must show actual bias by the decision maker.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Mouktabis v. Amarou

A guardian ad litem may be but is not required to be an attorney, they do not “step into the shoes” of the represented person for all purposes, nor do they become an attorney by serving as guardian ad litem.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

Nevius v. Palomares

To determine whether plaintiff stated a claim, there must be allegations which are legally sufficient to establish the existence of a justiciable controversy, a challenge becomes moot when a court decision will not have a practical effect on the rights of parties.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Sexton v. Sky Lakes Md. Center

An injury is not compensable unless the injury is the major contributing cause of the consequential condition; or if an otherwise compensable injury combines at any time with a preexisting condition to cause or prolong disability or a need for treatment it is only compensable is the otherwise compensable injury is the major contributing cause of disability.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

State v. Lebanno

Arrests must be supported by probable cause, probable cause is when an officer subjectively believes that a crime has been committed and the person arrested has committed it, subjective belief must be objectively reasonable.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Jackson

Under ORS 161.067(1), merger is required when elements of one offense are subsumed by another.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Kalenius v. City of Corvallis

The “firefighter’s presumption” allows a firefighter to establish the compensability of “cardiovascular-renal disease” as an occupational disease without presenting direct evidence of causation by employment.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

Springleaf Home Equity, Inc. v. Jones

It is premature for a trial court to deny attorney fees where a defendant has pleaded a claim for attorney fees and was entitled to them as a matter of law.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

State v. Witt

Evidence of general wrongdoing or suspicious behavior, standing alone, will not ordinarily be sufficient to permit a reasonable inference that a defendant knew they were using a stolen car.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

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

J.D.B. v. Muller

To support the issuance of an SPO, a petitioner must establish at least two unwanted contacts which each must cause subjective and objectively reasonable alarm or coercion.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Stalking Protective Order

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