Olivia Jackson

United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted (1 summary)

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization

Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Oregon Supreme Court (1 summary)

Allianz Global Risks v. ACE Property & Casualty Ins. Co.

“[I]nterpretation of insurance policies is a question of law to be decided by the court… The court is to consider the plain meaning of the relevant policy terms; if a term is ambiguous, the court considers the context in which the term appears and then the context of the policy as a whole; if ambiguity remains, the term is construed against the drafter.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

Oregon Court of Appeals (13 summaries)

Canales-Robles v. Laney

ORS 138.510(3) provides: “A petition pursuant to ORS 138.510 to 138.680 must be filed within two years of the [date that the conviction became final], unless the court on hearing a subsequent petition finds grounds for relief asserted which could not reasonably have been raised in the original or amended petition.”

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

State v. Shelby

[P]olice officers must provide Miranda-like warnings to a defendant who is in custody or in compel-ling circumstances prior to questioning. See State v. Roble-Baker, 340 Or 631, 638, 136 P3d 22 (2006). In determining whether a defendant is subject to compelling circumstances, the court examines ‘whether the officers created the sort of police-dominated atmosphere that Miranda warnings were intended to counteract.’ Id. At 641.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Threlkeld

“[A]n expert on a given subject is a person who ‘has acquired certain habits of judgment based on experience of special observation that enable[] him or her to draw from the facts inferences that are uniquely beneficial to the [factfinder].” Mall v. Horton, 292 OR App 319, 324, 423 P3d 730, rev den, 363 Or 744 (2018).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Allen

“In Lawson/James, the court held that the threshold inquiry from Classen—whether there had been suggestive police procedures—was unnecessary as a preliminary and independent inquiry: ‘There is no reason to hinder the analysis of eyewitness reliability with purposeless distinctions between suggestiveness and other sources of unreliability.’” State v. Wesley, 254 Or App 697, 711, 295 P3d 1147, rev den, 354 Or 62 (2013)(quoting  Lawson/James, 352 Or at 747).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Jones

Under ORS 138.105(5)(a) and (b) the appellate court can only review a conviction when (1) “the trial court’s adverse determination of a pretrial motion reserved a conditional plea of guilty or no contest under ORS 135.335” and (2) “[if] the trial court erred by not merging determinations of guilt of two or more offenses, unless the entry of separate convictions results from an agreement between the state and the defendant.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

State v. Payton

The Oregon Supreme Court decided in State v. Henderson that “because the defendant developed the intent to commit an additional crime—and did commit an additional crime—while unlawfully present in the house” the defendant was guilty of first-degree burglary. 366 Or 14, 455 P3d 503, (2019).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

A.J.T v. Croft

Following a contested hearing, under the FAPA, the record must include evidence (1) of past abuse committed by the respondent (within 180 days of filing), (2) that the petitioner reasonably fears for her physical safety, and (3) that the respondent represents a credible threat to the petitioner’s safety or the safety of her child. ORS 107.716(3).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Abuse Prevention Act

Lyons v. Beeman

The parol evidence rule, ORS 147.740 explains that “a binding, completely integrated, written agreement supersedes or discharges all agreements, written or oral, that were made before the completely integrated agreement, to the extent that the prior agreements are within the scope of the completely integrated agreement.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Contract Law

State v. McClour

In order to survive an MJOA, evidence must be present so that the factfinder “could reasonably infer that the [stolen item] possessed ‘some value,’ the minimum needed to define it as ‘property’ ” for purposes of third-degree theft.” State v. Waterhouse, 359 Or 351, 361-62, 373 P3d 131 (2016).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Trenary-Brown

The “failure to give a concurrence instruction is not harmless when, given the evidence and the parties’ theories, jurors could have based their verdicts on different occurrences.” State v. Teagues, 281 Or App 182, 194, 383 P3d 320 (2016).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

McCoin v. PSRB

Under ORS 161.341, a person may be discharged from the board’s jurisdiction even if the person has a mental disease or defect, if that person “no longer presents a substantial danger to others.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Commitment

McMullin v. Amsberry

To establish a violation of adequate counsel it must be shown that counsel “failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgement,” and second, that petitioner “suffered prejudice as a result of counsel’s inadequacy.” Johnson v. Premo, 361 Or 688, 699, 399 P3d 431 (2017).

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

State v. L.D.

A person with a mental illness is a person who is a danger to themselves because of their mental disorder. ORS 426.005(1)(f)(A).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Commitment

Back to Top