United States Supreme Court (1 summary)
Brownback v. King
A plaintiff needs to plausibly allege, under state law, “the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant” to survive both a Rule 12(b)(6) merits determination and a subject-matter jurisdiction determination. §1346(b)(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted (4 summaries)
Sanchez, Jose S. v. Wolf, Sec. of Homeland
Whether, under 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(f)(4), a grant of Temporary Protected Status authorizes eligible noncitizens to obtain lawful-permanent-resident status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255.
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid
Petition granted limited to the following question: Whether the definition of an automatic telephone dialing system, (“ATDS”) in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 191 (“TCPA”) encompasses any device that can “store” and “automatically dial” telephone numbers, even if the device does not “us[e] a random or sequential number generator.”
Area(s) of Law:- Corporations
Dept. of Justice v. House Comm. on Judiciary
Whether an impeachment trial before a legislative body is a “judicial proceeding” under Rule 6(e)(3)(E)(i) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Dep't of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigiam
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act’s (IIRIRA) limitations on asylum seekers seeking habeas review is constitutional and does not violate due process.
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
Oregon Supreme Court (4 summaries)
State v. Reyes-Herrera
Article I, section 9, of the Oregon constitution protects the people’s right to move freely in the world, with assurance that their liberty will not be significantly restrained without reasonable suspicion that they engaged in criminal activity.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Aguirre-Rodriguez
"Under Oregon law, restitution is to be awarded when a defendant has been convicted of a crime that results in economic damages to the victim and the state has presented evidence of those damages." ORS 137.106(1)(a).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Weaver
“[T]hreats against witnesses are intolerable. Substantial government interference with a defense witness’ free and unhampered choice to testify violates due process rights of the defendant.” United States v. Goodwin, 625 F2d 693, 703 (5th Cir 1980).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Arvidson v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp.
“To constitute a finding that the compensation awarded to the Claimant should not be disallowed or reduced for purposes of [ORS 656.382(2)], such a finding must be made on the merits of the claim.” Timothy L. Williams, 46 Van Natta 2274 (1994)
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
Oregon Court of Appeals (40 summaries)
State v. Juarez-Hernandez
It applies only if either the declarant “testifies at the proceeding and is subject to cross-examination,” or the declarant “is unavailable as a witness” and certain criteria are met. OEC 803(18a)(b).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Dorn v. Teacher Standards and Practices Comm.
“Our review function under ORS 183.450 ‘is not to substitute a court’s findings of fact for an ALJ’s [or agency’s] findings of fact, when there is substantial evidence in the record for [a] finding. This is true even when there is also substantial evidence to the contrary.’" Gaylord v. DMV, 283 Or App 811, 822, 391 P3d 900 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
State v. Venable
“When determining causation, a trial court must determine whether there is a ‘but-for’ connection between the victim’s damages and the crime and whether the victim’s economic damages were a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant’s crime.” State v. Andrews, 366 Or 65, 69, 456 P3d 261 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Hisey v. Patrick
"The presumption of adversity applies where 'the person claiming the easement by prescription is a stranger to the landowner.'" Wels v. Hippe, 360 Or at 579.
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
State v. Shelnutt
“‘The restriction on the possession of firearms by a felon has a well-established, historical, and obvious relationship to public safety. Even under intermediate scrutiny, ORS 166.270 is substantially related to an important governmental objective.’” State v. Beeman, 290 Or App 429, 417 P3d 541, rev den, 363 Or 119 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
State v. Shields
"Under OAR 213-004-0011(1), prior out-of-state convictions are to be included in a defendant’s criminal history only 'if the elements of the offense would have constituted a felony or Class A misdemeanor under Oregon law.'"
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
McDonnell v. Premo
“Although the Post-Conviction Hearing Act does not explicitly list summary judgment as a procedure available to challenge claims, the Act does not preclude it.”
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
H.L.P. v. Jones
"To obtain an SPO under Oregon’s civil stalking statute, a petitioner must establish the following elements by a preponderance of the evidence: '(1) That the respondent engaged in "repeated and unwanted contact" with the petitioner; (2) that the petitioner was subjectively alarmed or coerced by the contact and that such alarm or coercion was objectively reasonable; (3) that the petitioner subjectively experienced apprehension about personal safety as a result of the contact and that such apprehension was objectively reasonable; and (4) that the respondent acted with the requisite mental state.'” Retherford v. Wafula, 305 Or App 344, 352, 471 P3d 786 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Stalking Protective Order
State v. Henderson
ORS 137.540(2) grants a trial court broad discretion in imposing special conditions of probation, but those conditions must be “reasonably related to the crime of conviction or the needs of the probationer for the protection of the public or reformation of the probationer, or both.” State v. Gaskill, 250 Or App 100, 102-03, 279 P3d 275 (2012).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Stalking Protective Order
State v. Pusztai
“Generally, we will affirm a judgment, even after concluding that a trial court erred in sentencing, when the record shows that the trial court could have imposed the same total sentence without the error, and we are ‘completely confident’ that the trial court would impose the same sentence if the case were remanded for resentencing.” State v. Ortega-Gonsalez, 287 Or App 526, 530, 404 P3d 1081 (2017) (quoting State v. Calderon-Ortiz, 222 Or App 1, 8, 191 P3d 808 (2008), rev den, 345 Or 618 (2009)).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State ex rel Maney v. Hsu
Under the plain wording of the statute, the “trigger” for the requirement of a rehabilitation hearing “is the imposition of a minimum period of confinement.” State ex rel Engweiler v. Felton, 350 Or 592, 260 P3d 448 (2011).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Jensen
A criminal defendant is liable in restitution for all the economic damages that “result from” the defendant’s crime. State v. Ramos, 358 Or 581, 587, 368 P3d 446 (2016) (paraphrasing ORS 137.106(1)).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Jordan
“The test for voluntariness is whether, under the totality of the circumstances, the consent was given by an act of a defendant’s free will as opposed to resulting from express or implied coercion.” State v. Jepson, 254 Or App 290, 294, 292 P3d 660 (2012).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Waveseer of Oregon, LLC v. Deschutes County
"ORS 215.416(8)(a) generally does not permit a county to develop land use approval standards and criteria through quasi-adjudicative decision-making; the standards must be reasonably discernible from provisions of the code itself." Zirker v. City of Bend, 233 Or App 601, 610, 227 P3d 1174, rev den, 348 Or 415 (2010).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Stanton v. Medellin
Under the ORLTA effective at the time of the landlord/tenant agreement, "neither the ORLTA nor public policy prohibit a landlord from bargaining away the landlord’s ability to terminate a tenancy..."
Area(s) of Law:- Landlord Tenant
Moore v. City of Eugene
“A land use regulation is defined by Measure 49 to include a “provision of a city comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance or land decision ordinance that restricts the residential use of private real property zoned for residential use.” ORS 195.300(14)(c).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
State v. Zamora-Skaar
“As Mink made clear, due to Oregon’s statutory scheme, a voluntary non-compliance with a court order, hence, violating a defendant’s due process rights, cannot be blamed on “lack of funds, staff, facilities.” See Oregon Advocacy Center v. Mink, 322 F3d 1101, 1121 (9th Cir 2003).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Dilallo
Considerations that may weigh in the balance in examining preservation of an assignment of error include: “the competing interests of the parties; the nature of the case; the gravity of the error; the ends of justice in the particular case; how the error came to the court’s attention; and whether the policies behind the general rule requiring preservation of error have been served in the case in another way, i.e., whether the trial court was, in some manner, presented with both sides of the issue and given an opportunity to correct any error.” Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or at 382 n 6.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Daly
The court determined that a “‘proper occasion’ to give the witness-false-in-part instruction exists when, considering the testimony and other evidence a party has brought to the court’s attention in support of the requested instruction, the trial court concludes that sufficient evidence exists for the jury to decide that at least one witness consciously testified falsely and that the false testimony concerns a material issue.” State v. Payne, 366 Or 588, 468 P3d 445 (2020) (Payne II).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Rusen
OAR 213-012-0040(2)(a) states that “[i]f more than one term of probationary supervision is revoked for a single supervision violation, the sentencing judge shall impose the incarceration sanctions concurrently.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Garibay
“A person commits the crime of unlawful use of a weapon (UUW) if the person ‘[a]ttempts to use unlawfully against another, or carries or possesses with intent to use unlawfully against another, any dangerous or deadly weapons.’” ORS 166.220(1)(a).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. McKerrall
Under ORS 137.106, restitution must be awarded to victims for economic damages resulting from crimes of which a defendant has been convicted.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Kinstler
“[A] ‘proper occasion’ to give the statutory witness-false-in-part instruction exists when, considering the testimony and other evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction, the trial court concludes that sufficient evidence exists for the jury to decide that at least one witness consciously testified falsely and that the false testimony concerns a material issue.” State v. Payne, 366 Or 588, 468 P3d 445 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Davidson
“Nothing in the text of OAR 213- 008-0003(2) precludes its application to departure sentences imposed under ORS 137.719(2).”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Carrera
"The consideration of prior juvenile adjudications in sentencing does not violate the sixth amendment, but, if the existence of a juvenile adjudication is offered as an enhancement factor to increase a criminal sentence, its existence must be proved to a trier of fact or admitted by a defendant for sentencing purposes following an informed and knowing waiver." State v. Harris, 339 Or 157, 175 (2005).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Nyland v. City of Portland
"There is no applicable 'comprehensive [and exclusive] pattern for judicial review,' as there was in Bay River. Cf. Bay River, 26 Or App at 720.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Muthukan and Easterbrook
In distributing property acquired before the marriage on dissolution of the marriage, the court is to consider only what is “just and proper in all the circumstances.” Kunze and Kunze, 337 Or 122, 135, 92 P3d 100 (2004).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
S.L.S. v. Tippery
“For the imminent-danger requirement to be met, the trial court had to make a finding—supported by evidence—that respondent is reasonably likely to abuse petitioner in the near future.” Hess v. Hess, 305 Or App 801, 806, P3d (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Abuse Prevention Act
State v. Ankeny
The U.S. Supreme Court has reasoned that although “the officer lawfully stopped defendant for the purposes of investigation reasonably related to the apparent traffic infraction of operating a vehicle without license plates,” upon seeing the temporary permit, “the justification of any investigation was vitiated. Plain and simple, the officer had no statutory authority to proceed further. That authority ended with the officer’s discovery that the traffic infraction he was investigating had not actually occurred.” State v. Farley, 308 Or 91, 94 P2d 835 (1989).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Rapp
Under Oregon law, a person acts knowingly with respect to criminal conduct described by statute if the person “acts with an awareness that the conduct of the person is of a nature so described.” ORS 161.085(8).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Krieger
"Under Article I, section 10, [the Court] consider[s] three factors in evaluating a speedy trial claim: (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; and (3) the resulting prejudice to the defendant." State v. Mende, 304 Or 18, 21, 741 P2d 496 (1987).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. McCarthy
“If in determining that a person is financially eligible for appointed counsel under ORS 151.485 . . . the court shall enter a limited judgment requiring that the person . . . the amount that it finds the person is able to pay without creating substantial hardship in providing basic economic necessities to the person or the person’s dependent family.” ORS 151.487(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Brown
The reckless driving statute provides: “A person commits the offense of reckless driving if the person recklessly drives a vehicle upon a highway * * * in a manner that endangers the safety of persons or property.” ORS 811.140(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Berger v. Safeco Ins. Co.
ORS 742.061(3) only disqualifies a defendant from the fee exemption if the defendant raises “issues” outside the scope of the safe harbor. Robinson v. Tri-Met, 277 Or App 60, 72, 370 P3d 864 (2016), rev den, 361 Or 886 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Insurance Law
State v. Savage
"Where a previous judgment of acquittal was based upon a general verdict, as is usually the case, this approach requires a court to ‘examine the record of a prior proceeding, taking into account the pleadings, evidence, charge, and other relevant matter, and conclude whether a rational jury could have grounded its verdict upon an issue other than that which the defendant seeks to foreclose from consideration.’ The inquiry ‘must be set in a practical frame and viewed with an eye to all the circumstances of the proceedings.’ ” State v. Mozorosky, 277 Or 493, 498 (1977) (quoting Ashe v. Swenson, 397 US 436, 444 (1970)) (internal citations omitted).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Guzman-Vera
"[W]illfulness can be shown through proof that the defendant knew about the order but chose to ignore it, and then failed to comply with the order’s requirements in that state of elective ignorance: 'A party cannot ignore a court order and then claim that the act of ignoring it is not willful.'" Dept. of Rev. v. Carpet Warehouse, 296 Or 400, 407, 676 P2d 299 (1984); see Pamplin v. Victoria, 138 Or App 563, 566-67, 909 P2d 1245.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Abuse Prevention Act
Aguilar v. Badger
“[T]he rationale for the change-in-circumstances rule is that, unless the parent who seeks a change in custody establishes that the facts that formed the basis for the prior custody determination have changed materially by the time of the modification hearing, the prior adjudication is preclusive with respect to the issue of the best interests of the child under the extant facts.” State ex rel Johnson v. Bail, 325 Or 392, 397, 938 P2d 209 (1997)
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. Bates
[U]nder ORS 163.684, “the legislature intended a visual recording of sexually explicit conduct involving a child to be synonymous with “a visual recording that depicts a child in an act of sexually explicit conduct.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Sanchez-Cacatzun
Under Article VII (Amended), section 3, of the Oregon Constitution, an appellate court must affirm a conviction, notwithstanding any error, if there is “little likelihood that the particular error affected the verdict.” State v. Davis, 336 Or 19, 32, 77 P3d 1111 (2003).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Zachery
"When a criminal episode violates only one statutory provision and involves only one victim, repeated violations are separately punishable if they are separated from other such violations by a sufficient pause in the defendant’s criminal conduct to afford the defendant an opportunity to renounce the criminal intent.” ORS 161.067(3).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law