United States Supreme Court (3 summaries)
Health & Hosp. Corp. v. Talevski
A statute creates a §1983-enforceable right when the statute “unambiguously confer[s] individual federal rights. Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 535 U.S. 273, 280 (2002).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights § 1983
Carson v. Makin
Programs that prohibit private beneficiaries from using public funds at religious entities violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Shoop v. Twyford
"A transportation order that allows a prisoner to search for new evidence is not 'necessary or appropriate in aid of' a federal court’s adjudication of a habeas corpus action, 28 U.S.C. §1651(a), when the prisoner has not shown that the desired evidence would be admissible in connection with a particular claim for relief."
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted (2 summaries)
Garland v. Gonzalez
District Courts do not have jurisdiction to grant class-wide injunctive relief under the Immigration and Nationality Act. 8 U.S.C. §1252(f)(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Brown v. Davenport
A petitioner must satisfy the burdens for both the Brecht and the AEDPA tests in order to qualify for habeas relief.
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
9th Circuit Court of Appeals (11 summaries)
Ayanian v. Garland
A motion to reopen will be granted when a petitioner produces new, material evidence that the conditions of their country of origin have changed that sufficiently establishes “prima facie eligibility for the relief sought.” Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Forbes Media LLC v. U.S.
Records may be unsealed when they have historically been made available to the public, when public access is beneficial to the procedure, and when unsealing the records is not outweighed by a compelling governmental interest. In re Copley Press, Inc., 518 F.3d 1022, 1026 (9th Cir. 2008).
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
Grier v. Finjan Holdings, Inc.
Proof of scienter is not required to prove Section 14(e) claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78n(e). Varjabedian v. Emulex Corp., 888 F.3d 399, 407 (9th Cir. 2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Corporations
Singh v. Garland
Under Flores Molina, an asylum applicant has faced past persecution when they have repeatedly fled their homes after receiving “immediate threat[s] of severe physical violence or death.” Flores Molina v. Garland, 37 F.4th 626, 634 (9th Cir. 2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Reichert v. Rapid Investments, Inc.
In Washington, a contract is formed when both parties accept services after they have a “reasonable opportunity to reject [the] offered services.” Jones v. Brisbin, 247 P.2d 891, 894 (Wash. 1952).
Area(s) of Law:- Arbitration
Mejia v. Miller
Under Bivens, “an implied damages remedy” when federal officers perform an unreasonable search and seizure. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Egbert, limits the availability of a Bivens cause of action in "new contexts" if there is, “[A]ny rational reason ... to think that Congress is better suited to weigh the costs and benefits” is enough to preclude extending Bivens." Egbert v. Boule, 142 S. Ct. 1793, 1805 (2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Qualified Immunity
Eaton v. Blewett
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, prisoners must exhaust “such administrative remedies as are available” before bringing a claim to federal court. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). However, if a claim is not barred if a remedy is effectively unavailable. McBride v. Lopez, 807 F.3d 982, 986 (9th Cir. 2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
U.S. v. Rosenow
The Fourth Amendment encompasses a private party’s search if the private party is acting “as an agent of the Government or with the participation of knowledge of any governmental official.” United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113 (1984).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Johnson v. City of Grants Pass
“The Eighth Amendment prohibits the imposition of criminal penalties for sitting, sleeping, or lying outside on public property for homeless individuals who cannot obtain shelter.” Martin v. City of Boise, 902 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Ochoa v. Public Consulting Group, Inc.
State action exists when the Plaintiff shows that her rights were deprived “by a rule of conduct imposed by the state or by a person for whom the State is responsible.” Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 937 (1982).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights § 1983
Wright v. SEIU Local 503
In order to establish a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must demonstrate that a defendant “deprived [the plaintiff] of a right secured by the Constitution” and “acted under color of state law.” Collins v. Womancare, 878 F.2d 1145, 1147 (9th Cir. 1989 (citation omitted).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights § 1983
Oregon Supreme Court (31 summaries)
State v. A.R.H.
Under ORS 163A.030, “[t]he person who is the subject of the hearing has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the person is rehabilitated and does not pose a threat to the safety of the public.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Living Essentials, LLC.
Under ORS 646.608(1)(b) and (1)(e), a business practice is unlawful if it “[c]auses likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding as to the source, . . . approval, or certification of . . . goods” or it “[r]epresents that . . . goods . . . have . . . approval, characteristics, . . . uses, benefits, quantities or qualities that the . . . goods . . . do not have.”
Area(s) of Law:- Business Law
State v. Mott
In deciding whether to grant a post-opinion motion to dismiss, the Court of Appeals should weigh a number of factors including whether the motion is unopposed, whether the dismissal would allow a party to avoid legal consequences, and if there are compelling practical consequences the appealing party wishes to avoid. State v. Lasheski, 312 Or App 714, 721-22 P3d 1118 (2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
Wilhelms v. Rosenblum
ORS 250.035(2)(a) requires ballot-title captions to “reasonably identify[y] the subject matter of the state measure. ORS 250.035(2)(b) requires that yes statements be “simple and understandable statement[s] . . . that describe[] the result if the state measure is approved.” ORS 250.035(2)(d) requires that the summaries “summarize[e] the state measure and its major effect.”
Area(s) of Law:- Ballot Titles
Lawrence v. Oregon State Fair Council
Under State v. Hitz, a party must not be “ambushed, or misled or denied an opportunity” to respond to an opposing party’s or court’s statements. State v. Hitz, 307 Or 183, 189, 766 P2d 373 (1988).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
In re DuBoff
Under RPC 1.8(a), a lawyer who enters into a business transaction with a client must obtain the client’s informed consent by providing “in a writing signed by the client, [] the essential terms of the transaction…”
Area(s) of Law:- Professional Responsibility
State v. Craigen
“Once an attorney is appointed or retained, there can be no interrogation of a defendant concerning the events surrounding the crime charged unless the attorney representing the defendant on that charge is notified and afforded a reasonable opportunity to attend.” State v. Sparklin, 296 Or 85, 93, 672 P2d 1182 (1983).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Huggett v. Kelly
Under Watkins v. Ackley, 370 Or. 604, 523 P.3d 86 (2022), petitioners are eligible for post-conviction relief when their cases were decided by nonunanimous jury verdicts, unless the State raises a procedural defense.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Jones v. Brown
Under Watkins v. Ackley, 370 Or. 604, 523 P.3d 86 (2022), the Court held that Ramos applied to all decisions decided by nonunanimous juries, even if the decisions were finalized before Ramos.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Watkins v. Ackley
Under ORS 138.530(1)(a), post-conviction relief based on the denial of constitutional rights is appropriate when the rights at issue are “consequential in the criminal [] proceeding” and “offensive to our judicial sense of fairness.” Brooks v. Gladden, 226 Or 191, 204 (1961) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
State v Delaney
Under ORS 132.560(3), a court may sever claims from joinder when “the state or defendant is substantially prejudiced by a joinder of offenses . . .”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Colgrove
ORS 138.105(5) states “[t]he appellate court has no authority to review the validity of the defendant’s plea of guilty or no contest, or a conviction based on the defendant’s plea of guilty or no contest.”
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
State v. Fox
Under the American Rule, crime victims who have filed civil lawsuits are able to recover economic damages but they are precluded from recovering attorney fees.
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
I. H. v. Ammi
Under OEC 507-1, correspondence between a certified advocate and victim is privileged unless the victim has brought an action against the certified advocate or the program that the certified advocate works through.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Ralston
When making a post-trial claim of prejudice, the defendant must show “a more concrete likelihood” that there was “actual prejudice” that affected the preparation for the defense. State v. Mende, 304 OR 18, 22-23 (1987).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Murdoch v. Dep’t of Motor Vehicles Servs. Div.
Under ORS 813.130 (2017), officers are required to inform drivers of the enumerated rights and consequences of refusing a breathalyzer and shall present the information “substantially in the form prepared by the Department of Transportation.” Additional explanation of legal consequences is not prohibited.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Burris
ORS 166.250(1) states “except as otherwise provided under ORS . . . 166.270 . . . a person commits the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm if the person knowingly: . . . (C) [h]as been convicted of a felony[.]” ORS 166.270(4) provides exceptions to being a felon in possession of a firearm if the person has only been convicted of one felony and they finished their sentence more than fifteen years ago.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Thompson
The exigency exception to warrantless seizures requires that the police have probable cause and that an exigent circumstance, one that requires prompt action, exists. State v. McCarthy, 369 Or. 129, 142 (2021). Police cannot extend the exigent circumstance by not promptly seeking a warrant. State v. Fondren, 285 Or 361, 366-67 (1979).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Sills v. State
The fugitive dismissal rule grants appellate courts the authority to dismiss an appeal made by a defendant who fled the court’s jurisdiction. State v. Moss, 352 OR 46, 50-51 (2012).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
E.J.T. v. Jefferson County
The Vulnerable Person Act allows for a suit against a public body. Additionally, the child-abuse-reporting statutes do not create a liability for a public body.
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
State v. Hershey
Article I, section 17 of the Oregon Constitution guarantees the right to a jury trial in civil cases that historically used jury trials before the Oregon Constitution was enacted and “cases ‘of like nature.’” Horton v. Or. Health & Sci. Univ., 376 P3d 998 (Or. 2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Carlisle
A person commits third degree sexual abuse when “(a) [t]he person subjects another person to sexual contact and: (A) [t]he victim does not consent to the sexual contact[.]” ORS 163.415(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Gist v. ZoAn Management, Inc.
Under ORS 652.360(1), employers cannot create “special contract[s] or any other means” to circumvent statutes related to paying wages.
Area(s) of Law:- Arbitration
Lowell v. Wright
The First Amendment public comment defense applies when the speech involves a public concern and can be examined using a true-false analysis. Neumann v. Liles, 358 Or 706, 714 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
Marietta Mem'l Hosp. Emp. Health Benefit Plan v. DaVita Inc.
When health care plan terms are applied uniformly to all plan participants, the plan does not violate the Medicare Secondary Payer statute because it does not “differentiate in the benefits it provides” or takes into account Medicare eligibility.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Querbach v. Dept. of Human Services
“ ‘Reasonable cause’ is a subjectively and objectively reasonable belief, given all of the circumstances and based on specific and articulable facts.” OAR 413-015-0115(58).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Abraham v. Corizon Health, Inc.
Pursuant to ORS 659A.400(2), “public accommodation does not include . . . a local correction facility . . . [or] an institution, bona fide club or place of accommodation that is in its nature distinctly private.”
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
Robinette v. SAIF
ORS 656.214 defines “impairment” as “the loss of use or function of a body part or system due to the compensable industrial injury.”
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
City of Portland v. Bartlett
Under ORS 192.390, public records shall be made available after twenty-five years “notwithstanding ORS 192.355.” ORS 192.355(9)(a) creates an exemption for the disclosure of privileged documents.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Harris
The Wiretap Act requires a “principal prosecuting attorney” to authorize wiretaps and it prohibits courts from admitting evidence collected from a wiretap in violation of the act. 18 USC §§ 2515 - 2516.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Jackson
The Court reasoned that the legislature intended ORS 19.420(3) to apply when the lost record is “practically necessary” for commencing an appeal, presenting the issues to the appellate court, or for the court to resolve the issues on appeal. The Court found that the issue required the court to review the “totality of the circumstances” and therefore held that Exhibit 15 was practically necessary to do so.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Oregon Court of Appeals (18 summaries)
DeHart v. Tofte
Under ORS 31.150, a defendant can succeed on an anti-SLAPP motion to strike after demonstrating that the defendant’s actions were in furtherance of free speech that related to a matter of public interest and that the plaintiffs had not provided evidence to support a prima facie case for their claim.
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
State v. Skotland
At trial, the state cannot comment on a defendant’s failure to produce evidence when the evidence is “related to the defendant’s lack of knowledge.” (internal quotations omitted) State v. Mayo, 303 Or App 525, 534, 465 P3d 267 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc v. OHA
Under 42 USC section 1396r-8(d)(5), a state can “require, as a condition of coverage or payment for a covered outpatient drug . . . the approval of the drug before its dispensing for any medically accepted indication[.]”
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
State v. Priester
“A criminal defendant has the right to have their sentence announced in open court.” ORS 137.030(1). A probation condition is unconstitutionally vague under the Due Process Clause if people with common intelligence would “necessarily guess at its meaning” or if it would “allow[] those who enforce it to do so in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner.” State v. Farris, 312 Or App 618, 624, (2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. M. D. D.
ORS 174.120(1) states that the statutory time clock “exclude[es] the first day and include[es] the last day, unless the first day falls upon any legal holiday or on Saturday, in which case the last day is also excluded.”
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
Allison v. Dolich
Under ORS 659A.030(1), unlawful employment practices occur when “any person, whether an employer or an employee, [] aid[s], abet[s], incite[s], compel[s], or coerce[s] the doing of any [forbidden acts].”
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Department of Human Services v. H.K.
When family reunification is the desired outcome for a permanency hearing, DHS must show it “has made reasonable efforts for the ward to safely return home.” ORS 419B.476(2)(a). It was not sufficient that DHS only facilitated one in-person family therapy session with the mother.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Klamath Irrigation District v. Oregon Water Resources Dept.
Under ORCP 29 B, if, after weighing whether the absent party would be subject to a prejudicial judgment, the extent a prejudicial judgment can be avoided, whether a judgment would be adequate, and whether the Plaintiff has another adequate remedy available, a judgment cannot be made “in equity and good conscience,” the party would be indispensable.
Area(s) of Law:- Water Rights
State v. Williams
For testimony to be admissible, “[i]t must be relevant OEC 401; it must possess sufficient indicia of scientific validity and be helpful to the jury, OEC 702; and its prejudicial effect must not outweigh its probative value, OEC 403.” State v. Southard, 218 P.3d 104 (Or. 2009).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Hershey
Article I, section 17 of the Oregon Constitution guarantees the right to a jury trial in civil cases that historically used jury trials before the Oregon Constitution was enacted and “cases ‘of like nature.’” Horton v. Or. Health & Sci. Univ., 376 P3d 998 (Or. 2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Wildlife Law
Marteeny v. Brown
Under ORS 144.650, “[w]hen an application for a pardon, commutation, or remission is made to the Governor, a copy of the application . . . shall be served upon: (a) [t]he district attorney . . . [and] the district attorney . . . shall (a) [n]otify the victim of the crime.”
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. Delaurent
District attorneys are not law enforcement officers for the purpose of the wiretapping statute, ORS 165.540.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Bostwick
Under ORS 162.355, a person falsely simulates the legal process when they intentionally transmit "fake, imitation, counterfeit, or pretend document that appears to be, in both form and substance, a genuine legal document."
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Davis
To determine whether to admit evidence of uncharged acts of sexual misconduct in trials for sex crimes, the court must use the LeMay factors test, which considers: “(1) the similarity of the uncharged misconduct; (2) the temporal proximity of the uncharged acts to the charged acts; (3) the frequency of the prior acts; (4) the existence or nonexistence of intervening circumstances; and (5) the need for the evidence in addition to the testimony.” State v. Terry, 309 Or App 459, 465 (2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Aranda
Under OEC 609(1), “[f]or the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted…”
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
State v. Lee
“[N]o warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath, or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized.” Ore. Const. Art. I, § 9.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
NW Metals, Inc. v. DMV
A dismantler may face penalties if they “[a]cquire[] a motor vehicle or major component part without obtaining a certificate of sale.” ORS 822.137(2)(a).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
State v. Lipka
To determine whether a warrantless search is lawful, it must be “reasonable to believe that evidence reasonably related to the crime of arrest could be concealed in the location being searched.” State v. Hernandez, 299 Ore. App. 544, 550-51 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure