United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted (1 summary)
Borden v. United States
The ACCA applies to individuals who have committed three or more acts of violence with a mens rea greater than recklessness.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Oregon Court of Appeals (12 summaries)
State v. C. A. M.-D.
Restitution is appropriate when the state presents evidence that the criminal activities have caused economic damages. State v. McClelland, 278 Or App 138, 141, 372 P3d 614, rev den, 360 Or 423 (2016). A causal connection requires that the defendant’s criminal conduct be a “but for” cause of the victim’s damages and that the damages were a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant’s criminal conduct. State v. Emerine, 308 Or App 211, 216-17, 480 P3d 308 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Stewart v. Board of Parole
Under ORS 183.482(8)(c), “substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.”
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
State v. Vinson
For accomplice liability to attach, the defendant (1) must have the requisite mens rea and (2) must perform the requisite actus reus. The Court determined the evidence presented did not prove either intent or the requisite action needed to establish guilt as an accomplice.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Ungerman and Ungerman
A parent seeking to change custody must demonstrate that since the original judgment, circumstances relevant to the proper care of the child have changed and that it would be in the child’s best interest to change custody. The relevant circumstances must be material and have “injuriously affected” the child or have “affected the custodial parent’s ‘ability or inclination to care for the child in the best possible manner.’” Botofan-Miller and Miller, 365 Or 504, 520, 446 P3d 1280 (2019) (quoting Boldt and Boldt, 344 Or 1, 9, 176 P3d 388 (2008)).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Luttropp and Luttropp
“Social Security benefits are not marital property and are not subject to outright division in dissolution actions,” because, “federal law preempts any state law that authorizes the assignment or transfer” of those benefits. Herald and Steadman, 355 Or 104, 112, 322 P3d 546 (2014), cert den, 574 US 1073 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. Craigen
Questioning a defendant, outside of counsel, about new criminal conduct is not prohibited by Article I, section 11 when that conduct is: (1) different in nature from pending charges, (2) separated by a substantial amount of time from the pending charges, and (3) investigated by different officers than those that investigated the criminal activity responsible for the pending charges. State v. Craigen, 295 Or App 17, 432 P3d 274 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Rodriguez-Aquino
Confessions are presumptively involuntary and the burden lies with the interrogator to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a defendant’s will was not overcome by the inducement held out by the interrogator. State v. Vasquez-Santiago, 301 Or App 90, 106, 456 P3d 270 (2019); State v. Powell, 352 Or 210, 222, 282 P3d 845 (2012).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Lincoln Loan Co. v. Estate of George Geppert
Under ORS 88.120(c), foreclosure of a mortgage is allowed if no lien or right of a third party has attached to the property after the expiration of the 10-year period.
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
State v. Henley
When evaluating the scientific validity of testimony under OEC 702, some subject matter may require a more flexible evaluation, utilizing criteria like 1) whether the testimony is generally accepted in the field, 2) whether there is supporting literature for the testimony, and 3) whether the testimony is inordinately novel or subjective. State v. Perry, 347 Or 110, 122, 218 P3d 95 (2009).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Payne
A passenger in a traffic stop is lawfully seized when there is "something more” than a mere traffic violation. State v. T.T., 308 Or App 408, 418, 479 P3d 598 (2021). Safety concerns are a legitimate justification for seizure when the totality of circumstances show: (1) there are “specific and articulable facts” that establish a “reasonable suspicion” that the person poses an “immediate threat to the officer’s or another person’s safety,” and (2) the officer’s actions were reasonable. State v. Madden, 363 Or 703, 713, 427 P3d 157 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Dept. of Human Services v. C. C.
A child’s welfare is at risk, and thus the juvenile court has jurisdiction, if the child is unprotected from circumstances that present a “current threat of serious loss or injury and there is a reasonable likelihood that the threat will be realized.” Dept. of Human Services v. C. J. T., 258 Or App 57, 61, 308 P3d 307 (2013). Whether an issue has been preserved turns on “whether the policies underlying the preservation rule have been adequately met.” State v. Parkins, 346 Or 333, 341, 221 P3d 262 (2009).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Bolton
Under OEC 702, expert evidence is “scientific” when: (1) it is expressly presented to the jury as scientifically grounded; (2) "draws its convincing force from some principle of science"; or (3) "implies a grounding in methods and procedures of science" and is characterized as having the "persuasive appeal of science.” State v. Henley, 363 Or 284, 422 P3d 217 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence