United States Supreme Court (7 summaries)
Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski
"[For Article III standing requirements], [t]he plaintiff must have (1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision." Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S.Ct. 1540, 1547 (2016) (internal citation omitted).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Rutledge, Att'y Gen. of AK v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Ass'n
The purpose of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 “to make the benefits promised by an employer more secure by mandating certain oversight systems and other standard procedures.” Gobeille v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 577 U. S. 312, 320-321 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Preemption
Trump v. Mazars, USA, LLP
Interbranch conflicts between the President and Congress calls for a level of scrutiny higher than what is required for an ordinary subpoena, but lower than what is required to overcome executive privilege.
Area(s) of Law:- Sovereign Immunity
Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue
Denying a benefit, generally available, based only on religious identity imposes on the free exercise clause and can only be justified by the highest order of state interest.
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
U.S. Forest Serv. v. Cowpasture River Pres. Ass’n
"Rights-of-way through any Federal lands may be granted by the Secretary of the Interior or appropriate agency head for pipeline purposes for the transportation of oil, natural gas, synthetic liquid or gaseous fuels, or any refined product produced therefrom to any applicant possessing the qualifications provided in section 181 of this title in accordance with the provisions of this section." 30 U.S.C. § 185(a).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS Corp. v. Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC.
"A written provision in any maritime transaction or a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract or transaction*** shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract." 9 USC §2.
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
Kelly v. United States
A person commits wire fraud or fraud on a government entity only when they commit actual fraud and the fraud “obtain[s] property or money." 18 U.S.C. §§ 343, 666(a)(1)(A). Even if a scheme of fraud "obtains property," the second element requires that the "obtaining property or money" be the principal object of the fraud; this means that the scheme does not "obtain[] property or money" inadvertently. See Pasquantino v. United States, 544 U.S. 349, 364 (2005).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted (8 summaries)
United States v. Vaello-Madero, Jose L.
Whether Congress violated the equal-protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment by establishing Supplemental Security Income—a program that provides benefits to needy aged, blind, and disabled individuals—in the 50 States and the District of Columbia, and in the Northern Mariana Islands pursuant to a negotiated covenant, but not extending it to Puerto Rico.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
American Medical Assn. v. Cochran, Sec. of H&HS
In 2019, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a Rule imposing major changes on the Title X family planning program. See 84 Fed. Reg. 7,714 (Mar. 4, 2019). The Rule both prohibits and compels certain pregnancy-related speech between a Title X provider and her patient, proscribing abortion-related information but requiring information about non-abortion options—regardless of what the patient wants. The Rule also imposes burdensome physical separation requirements on any Title X provider engaging in abortion-related activities outside the Title X program. 1. Whether the Rule is arbitrary and capricious. 2. Whether the Rule violates the Title X appropriations act, which requires that “all pregnancy counseling” under Title X 'shall be nondirective.' 3. Whether the Rule violates Section 1554 of the Affordable Care Act, 42 U.S.C. § 18114, which requires that HHS 'shall not promulgate any regulation' that harms patient care in any one of six ways, including by 'interfer[ing] with communications' between a patient and her provider.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
PennEast Pipeline Co., LLC v. New Jersey
Whether the NGA delegates to FERC certificate holders the authority to exercise the federal government’s eminent domain power to condemn land in which a state claims an interest.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Gov't of Guam v. United States
1. Whether a non-CERCLA settlement can trigger a contribution claim under CERCLA Section 113(f)(3)(B). 2. Whether a settlement that expressly disclaims any liability determination and leaves the settling party exposed to future liability can trigger a contribution claim under CERCLA Section 113(f)(3)(B).
Area(s) of Law:- Environmental Law
NCAA v. Alston, Shawne
Whether the Sherman Act authorizes a court to subject the product-defining rules of a joint venture to full Rule of Reason review, and to hold those rules unlawful if, in the court’s view, they are not the least restrictive means that could have been used to accomplish their procompetitive goal.
Area(s) of Law:- Antitrust
United States v. Cooley, Joshua J.
Whether the lower courts erred in suppressing evidence on the theory that a police officer of an Indian tribe lacked authority to temporarily detain and search respondent, a non-Indian, on a public right-of-way within a reservation based on a potential violation of state or federal law.
Area(s) of Law:- Tribal Law
Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid
Whether the uncompensated appropriation of an easement that is limited in time effects a per se physical taking under the Fifth Amendment.
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp
(1) Whether the “expropriation exception” of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, (“FSIA”) 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(3), which abrogates foreign sovereign immunity when “rights in property taken in violation of international law are in issue,” provides jurisdiction over claims that a foreign sovereign has violated international human-rights law when taking property from its own national within its own borders, even though such claims do not implicate the established international law governing states’ responsibility for takings of property. (2) Whether the doctrine of international comity is unavailable in cases against foreign sovereigns, even in cases of considerable historical and political significance to the foreign sovereign, and even where the foreign nation has a domestic framework for addressing the claims.
Area(s) of Law:- Sovereign Immunity
Oregon Supreme Court (1 summary)
Multnomah County v. Mehrwein
Under Article 1, section 8 of the Oregon Constitution, laws restricting speech are facially unconstitutional only if "written in terms directed at the substance of [speech]" unless "within some historical exception." State v. Robertson, 293 Or 402, 412 (1982).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Oregon Court of Appeals (41 summaries)
State v. Scott
"[With]... the burden on the beneficiary of the error... before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Morgan
“Although the state necessarily must prove that the person charged with committing a crime is, in fact, the person who committed the crime, that does not mean that the state is required to prove that a particular person sitting at counsel table with defense counsel is the person who is charged with a crime.” See ORS 132.540.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
J.N.D v. Dehkordi
"Any person who has been the victim of abuse within the preceding 180 days may petition the circuit court for relief under ORS 107.700 (Short title) to 107.735 (Duties of State Court Administrator), if the person is in imminent danger of further abuse from the abuser." ORS 107.710(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. Soto-Navarro
"When conducting an investigation during a lawful stop, 'activities' of law enforcement must 'be reasonably related to that investigation and reasonably necessary to effectuate it.'" State v. Arreola-Botello, 365 Or. 695 (2019) (quoting State v. Watson, 353 Or 768, 781 (2013)).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Merrill
Ramos established that Sixth Amendment requires that all jury verdicts for serious criminal offenses be unanimous. However, error may merit reversal only if the error substantially injured the rights of the petitioner. See State v. Ulery, 366 Or 500, 504 (2020). If an erroneously instructed jury still returns a unanimous verdict, then the error does not merit reversal. State v. Flores Ramos, 367 Or 292, 334 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Fockler
"[T]his court has not held that a trial court must recite on the record how it evaluated the probative and prejudicial value of evidence and how it balanced the two. Rather, as Turnidge demonstrates, a court will make a sufficient record under Mayfield if the trial court's ruling, considered in light of the parties' arguments, demonstrates that the court balanced the appropriate considerations." State v. Anderson, 363 Or 392, 406 (2018) (discussing State v. Turnidge, 359 Or 364 (2016) and State v. Mayfield, 302 Or 631 (1987)).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Thompson
"Oregon's constitutional test for affirmance despite error consists of a single inquiry: Is there little likelihood that the particular error affected the verdict? The correct focus of the inquiry regarding affirmance despite error is on the possible influence of the error on the verdict rendered, not whether this court, sitting as a fact-finder, would regard the evidence of guilt as substantial and compelling." State v. Davis, 336 Or 19, 32 (2003).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Vaughn v. Vaughn
“As has long been settled, and as we reaffirm today, a state court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only so long as there exist ‘minimum contacts’ between the defendant and the forum State.” World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 291 (1980) (quoting International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945)).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Stewart v. Albertson's, inc.
“However, we now interpret ORS 646.638 to provide that a violation by the defendant entitles the plaintiff to recover compensatory damages or $200, whichever is greater; the jury can also award punitive damages if it finds deterrence is called for and the defendant's conduct is particularly aggravated.” Crooks v. Payless Drug Stores, 285 Or 481, 490 (1979).
Area(s) of Law:- Remedies
Jennewein v. MCIMetro Access Transmission Services
"Foreseeability plays a role in at least two overlapping common-law negligence determinations: (1) whether the defendant's conduct unreasonably created a foreseeable risk of harm to a protected interest of the plaintiff such that the defendant may be held liable for that conduct—formerly described in terms of 'duty' and 'breach' as measures of negligent conduct; and (2) whether, because the risk of harm was reasonably foreseeable, the defendant may be held liable to the plaintiff for the particular harm that befell the plaintiff." Piazza v. Kellim, 360 Or 58, 70 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
McCormick v. State Parks & Recreation Dept
"Except as provided in subsections (4) to (7) of this section, the immunities provided by ORS 105.682 (Liabilities of owner of land used by public for recreational purposes, gardening, woodcutting or harvest of special forest products) do not apply if the owner makes any charge for permission to use the land for recreational purposes, gardening, woodcutting or the harvest of special forest products." ORS 105.688(3).
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
Jensen v. DMV
"The court shall set aside or remand the order if the court finds that the order is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. 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." ORS 183.482(8)(c).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
M.A.B. v. Buell
"The court’s task... [in protective order cases is]... to determine whether respondent continued to be a credible threat to petitioner’s physical safety and whether she was in imminent danger of further abuse from respondent. At its core, that task required the court to forecast the future by evaluating past conduct and discerning the likelihood that abuse would occur again: a calculation laden with the peril of uncertainty that is intrinsically human." P.K.W. v. Steagall, 299 Or App 820, 825 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
B. M. v. Deaton
ORS 30.866 requires courts to "assess the objective reasonableness of a person's apprehension over personal safety by examining the cumulative effect of the relevant unwanted contacts on that person." P.M.H. ex rel. M.M.H. v. Landolt, 267 Or App 753, 759 (2014).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Stalking Protective Order
Wood v. Taylor
"A person may acquire fee simple title to real property by adverse possession only if: the person entering into possession had the honest belief that the person was the actual owner of the property." ORS 105.620(1)(b).
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
State v. Herfurth
“There can be no question either that the Sixth Amendment's unanimity requirement applies to state and federal criminal trials equally. This Court has long explained that the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial is ‘fundamental to the American scheme of justice’ and incorporated against the States under the Fourteenth Amendment.” Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S Ct 1390, 1397-98 (2020) (internal citation omitted).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Dept of Human Services v. F.T.R.
"Barring exceptional circumstances, the requirement for a question-by-question invocation is necessary for the court to determine whether the privilege applies, by evaluating whether 'the answer to that particular question would subject the witness to a real danger of * * * crimination[,]' as opposed to 'a mere imaginary possibility of increasing the danger of prosecution.'" State v. Rodriguez, 301 Or App 404, 412 (2019) (quoting Rogers v. United States, 340 U.S. 367, 374-75 (1951))
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Stokes v. Cain
"[There is no] per se rule. The proper question [for ruling on motions to withdraw] to ask is whether, given the circumstances involved, defense counsel adequately performed 'those functions of professional assistance which an accused relies upon counsel to perform on his behalf.'" State v. Davis, 345 Or 551, 581-82 (2008) (quoting Krummacher v. Gierloff, 290 Or 867, 872 (1981).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Snyder v. Amsberry
"ORS chapter 138 contemplates two different courses for resolving post-conviction petitions. On the one hand, a court may appoint counsel, hold a hearing, and, if appropriate, permit amendments to the petition. . . Having followed that course, a court may dismiss the petition with prejudice. . . On the other hand, a trial court may dismiss a meritless petition before appointing counsel and without a hearing but only if it dismisses without prejudice." Ware v. Hall, 342 Or 444, 453 (2007).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Lowell v. Wright
“The constitutional guarantees require, we think, a federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with ‘actual malice’—that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279-80 (1964).
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
Dept. of Human Services v. N. L. B.
"ORS 419B.100(1)(c) grants a juvenile court jurisdiction over a child '[w]hose condition or circumstances are such as to endanger the welfare of the person or of others[.]' Whether the “conditions or circumstances” warrant jurisdiction requires us to consider if, under the totality of the circumstances, there is a reasonable likelihood of harm to the welfare of the child." In re N.S., 258 Or App 624, 633-34 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Monger
"[A] search warrant shall be executed between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. and within five days from the date of issuance." ORS 133.565(3).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Fanagyon v. State of Oregon
"[A] judgment denying claims for post-conviction relief must, at a minimum: (1) identify the claims for relief that the court considered and make separate rulings on each claim; (2) declare, with regard to each claim, whether the denial is based on a petitioner's failure to utilize or follow available state procedures or a failure to establish the merits of the claim; and (3) make the legal bases for denial of relief apparent." Datt v. Hill, 347 Or 672, 685 (2010)
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. Colpo
"A person commits the crime of criminal mistreatment in the first degree if: The person, in violation of a legal duty to provide care for a dependent person or elderly person, or having assumed the permanent or temporary care, custody or responsibility for the supervision of a dependent person or elderly person, intentionally or knowingly: Causes physical injury or injuries to the dependent person or elderly person." ORS 163.205(1)(b)(A).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Cerner Middle East Limited v. Belbadi Enterprises LLC
"A court of this state having jurisdiction of the subject matter has jurisdiction over a party served in an action pursuant to Rule 7 under any of the following circumstances. . . [i]n any action, whether arising within or without this state, against a defendant who when the action is commenced. . . [i]s a corporation created by or under the laws of this state." ORCP 4(A)(3).
Area(s) of Law:- Corporations
Johnston v. Gordon Trucking-Heartland Express
"The worker must prove that employment conditions were the major contributing cause of the disease." ORS 656.802 (2)(a).
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
Waste Not of Yamhill County v. Yamhill County
Uses "may be approved only where the local governing body or its designee finds that the use will not: (a) Force a significant change in accepted farm or forest practices on surrounding lands devoted to farm or forest use; or (b) Significantly increase the cost of accepted farm or forest practices on surrounding lands devoted to farm or forest use." ORS 215.296(1)
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
State v. Alatorre
“[T]he existence of valid third-party consent depends either on the third party’s common authority over the property based on her or his own property interest." State v. Bonilla, 358 Or 475, 486 (2015)
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Music
"Article I, section 11, enumerates a number of rights that attach '[i]n all criminal prosecutions.' Among those rights is that the accused is entitled 'to be heard by himself and counsel.' This court has long held that the right 'to be heard by' oneself includes the right to self-representation at trial." State v. Hightower, 361 Or 412, 416 (2017)
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Arrowood Indemnity Co V. Fasching
The business records exception to the rule against hearsay extends to "[a] memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, in any form, of acts, events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, made at or near the time by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge, if kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity, and if it was the regular practice of that business activity to make the memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, all as shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness, unless the source of information or the method of circumstances of preparation indicate lack of trustworthiness." Rule 803(6) (ORS 40.460).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Partney v. Russell
"A pure easement appurtenant is one where the land of one person, the servient tenement, is subjected to some use or burden for the benefit of the lands of another person, the dominant tenement." Bloomfield v. Weakland, 224 Or App 433, 445 (2008).
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
Mata v. Dept. of Transportation
"An agency conducting a contested case hearing may modify a finding of historical fact made by the administrative law judge assigned from the Office of Administrative Hearings only if the agency determines that there is clear and convincing evidence in the record that the finding was wrong. For the purposes of this section, an administrative law judge makes a finding of historical fact if the administrative law judge determines that an event did or did not occur in the past or that a circumstance or status did or did not exist either before the hearing or at the time of the hearing." ORS 183.650(3).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Nichols v. Persson
For state claims, when claimants assert counsel’s investigation was inadequate, prejudice means that there is “more than a mere possibility” that a “reasonable investigation” would have yielded a different result at trial. See Richardson v. Belleque, 362 Or 236, 268 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. Barton
"When the same conduct or criminal episode violates two or more statutory provisions and each provision requires proof of an element that the others do not, there are as many separately punishable offenses as there are separate statutory violations." ORS 161.067(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Silver
"In addition to and not in lieu of any other sentence it may impose, a court may require a defendant convicted under ORS 167.315 to 167.333, 167.340, 167.355 or 167.365 to forfeit any rights of the defendant in the animal subjected to the violation, and to repay the reasonable costs incurred by a government agency, a humane investigation agency or its agent or a person prior to judgment in caring for each animal associated with the criminal proceeding." ORS 167.350(1) (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Wildlife Law
Dep’t of Human Services v. A.J.G.
"[I]n order to justify continued jurisdiction, the department has to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that conditions or circumstances related to father's conduct or condition give rise to a current threat of serious loss or injury to the child." In re T.P., 255 Or App 51, 56 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Waters v. Kippel Water Inc.
Under ORS 20.105(1) "a trial court shall award reasonable attorney fees to a party who prevails against a claim if the court determines that there 'was no objectively reasonable basis for asserting the claim.'"
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
State v. Johnson
"If a defendant requires a continuance to adequately prepare a defense and would be prejudiced by a denial, then a trial court abuses its discretion by denying a motion for continuance." State v. Hickey, 79 Or App 200 (1986)
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Walker
Under ORS 135.715, an error in an accusatory instrument does not require dismissal of charges unless the error would "prejudice of the substantial rights of the defendant upon the merits.”
Area(s) of Law:- Traffic Infractions
Meyer v. Sugahara
“The absolute immunity accorded to government prosecutors encompasses not only their conduct of trials but all of their activities that can fairly be characterized as closely associated with the conduct of litigation or potential litigation.” Barrett v. United States, 798 F2d 565, 571-72 (2d Cir 1986) (interpreting U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence on “absolute immunity”).
Area(s) of Law:- Qualified Immunity
State v. Madison
Oregon appellate courts have “authority under [article VII, section 3, of the Oregon Constitution to direct entry of a lesser-included offense that we determine should have been entered by the trial court.” State v. Pittman, 276 Or App 491, 495, 369 P3d 99 (2016); see Or. Const. art. VII, § 3.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law