April Robinson

United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted (1 summary)

Mike Brown v. Ervine Davenport

May a federal habeas court grant relief based solely on its conclusion that the Brecht test is satisfied, as the Sixth Circuit held, or must the court also find that the state court’s Chapman application was unreasonable under § 2254(d)(1), as the Second, Third, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits have held?

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Oregon Court of Appeals (11 summaries)

Bo and Lia Holdings LLC v. 2021 Morrison LLC

Prescriptive easements permit a “person to acquire an interest in land without paying the owner for it,” Wels v. Hippe, 360 Or 569, 578, (2016), modified on recons, 360 Or 807, (2017), and protect “established patterns of land possession” by “rewarding the long-time user of property, fulfilling expectations fostered by long use, and conforming titles to actual use of the property.” Albany & Eastern Railroad Co. v. Martell, 366 Or 715, 720 (2020).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Property Law

Dept. of Human Services v. C. C.

Under ORS 419B.815 and ORS 419B.816, “once a parent has failed to personally appear at a hearing for which the parent had proper notice… the juvenile court may choose to either immediately proceed with a hearing on the dependency petition or postpone that hearing to a later date. If the court takes the latter course, nothing [in the statutes] requires the court to notify that parent of the newly set hearing date.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

State v. Edgtton

Under State v. Hightower, 361 Or 412, 393 P3d 224 (2017), the court must make a record reflecting the competing interests of a defendant and the court before denying a defendant’s request to proceed pro se.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

State v. Sorrow

Under 164.055, theft “requires a thief to intend permanent or virtually permanent loss to the owner of the possession and use of property.” State v. Christine, 193 Or App 800, 809, 93 P3d 82, rev den, 337 Or 476 (2004).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Allen

Under OEC 403, although “needless presentation of cumulative evidence” may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the threat of prejudice, a defendant’s stipulation to “particular facts does not automatically render all other evidence touching on the same facts cumulative.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Taplin

Privacy is limited within the context of a jail cell. See State v.  Lien/Wilverding, 364 Or 750, 760, 441 P3d 185 (2019). “[P]rivacy  interests  can  be  recognized  only  by  their  association  with  a private place where the claimant has the right to exclude others.” State v. Cromb, 220 Or App 315, 325, 185 P3d 1120, rev den, 345 Or 381 (2008)

Box v. Oregon State Police

Under ORS 30.265(6)(f), Apparent Authority Immunity “applies to public actors who, acting without bad faith or malice, rely on their plausible interpretation of laws that turn out to be unconstitutional, invalid, or inapplicable” which does not include “preshooting tactical decisions” and “OSP’s preshooting supervisory decisions.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

Allied Structural v. CCB

“Except as provided in subsections (4) and (5) of this section, any person who violates any provision of this chapter or any rule adopted by the Construction Contractors Board shall  forfeit  and  pay  into  the  General  Fund  of  the  State Treasury a civil penalty in an amount determined by the board of not more than $5,000 for each offense.” ORS 701.992(1).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

State of Oregon v. Phillip Mark Gregg

Non-unanimous jury instructions are plain error. However, when the jury poll is unanimous, the error is considered to be “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Ramos, 367 Or 292, 320 (2020).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State of Oregon v. Lira

Under Article I, Section 9 and State v. Fair, 353 Or 588, 302 P3d 417 (2013), the “material witness” exception to the warrant requirement does not justify seizure unless the seizure is “reasonably necessary to verify the identity of a material witness or obtain an account of a crime.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Dept. of Human Services v. D.M.

Under ORS 419B.476(2)(a), a child’s permanency plan may be changed from reunification to adoption when a parent fails to make “sufficient progress” and DHS reunification efforts are “reasonable.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

Back to Top