United States Supreme Court (1 summary)
Eklof v. Persson
Petitioner could not reasonably have raised Brady claims in the prior post-conviction proceeding. Accordingly, the Court held the Petitioner’s claims were not futile and the post-conviction court had abused its discretion in denying Petitioner leave to amend her complaint.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
9th Circuit Court of Appeals (6 summaries)
Shayler v. 1310 PCH
“In ADA cases, a prevailing plaintiff may recover a reasonable attorney’s fee. 42 U.S.C. § 12205. A reasonable attorney’s fee... can be adjusted upward or downward based on other factors. Machowski v. 333 N. Placentia Prop., LLC, 38 F.4th 837, 840-41 (9th Cir. 2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Disability Law
Peck v. Montoya
“In evaluating a Fourth Amendment claim of excessive force, we ask whether the officers’ actions are objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them.” Rice v. Morehouse, 989 F.3d 1112.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights § 1983
United States v. Saelee
To establish that evidence originally acquired unlawfully has been independently attained, the State must show that, “no information gained from the Fourth Amendment violations “affected either [1] the law enforcement officers’ decision to seek a warrant or [2] the magistrate’s decision to grant it.” Murray, 487 U.S. at 539–40.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Save the Bull Trout v. Williams
Claim preclusion applies where “the earlier suit (1) involved the same ‘claim’ or cause of action as the later suit, (2) reached a final judgment on the merits, and (3) involved identical parties or privies.” Mpoyo v. Litton Electro-Optical Sys., 430 F.3d 985, 987 (9th Cir. 2005).
Area(s) of Law:- Wildlife Law
De La Rosa-Rodriguez v. Garland
The Limited Review Provision provides that: Nothing in subparagraph (B) or (C), which limits or eliminates judicial review, shall be construed as precluding review of constitutional claims or questions of law raised upon a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
The Geo Group v. Newsom
The Supreme Court has interpreted the Supremacy Clause “as prohibiting States from interfering with or controlling the operations of the Federal Government.” Washington, 142 S. Ct. at 1984.
Area(s) of Law:- Preemption
Oregon Supreme Court (2 summaries)
Mason/Turrill v. Rosenblum
A ballot title must include a caption of “not more than 15 words that reasonably identifies the subject matter of the state measure.” ORS 250.035(2)(a). ORS 250.035(2)(d) specifies, a summary must provide a concise and impartial statement.
Area(s) of Law:- Ballot Titles
State v. Oatney
Kastigar has been used to determine the scope of derivative use immunity, and can be violated in two ways. First, a Kastigar violation can occur if the government uses the immunized information “to motivate another witness to give incriminating testimony.” Second, a violation can occur if the content of a witness’s subsequent testimony is “‘shaped, altered, or affected’ by such exposure.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Oregon Court of Appeals (19 summaries)
Jane Does v. Reddit
“To hold a defendant criminally liable as a beneficiary of sex trafficking, the defendant must have actually engaged in some aspect of the sex trafficking.” United States v. Afyare, 632 F. App’x 272, 286 (6th Cir. 2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
Wakefield v. ViSalus
In determining whether a Plaintiff has established a concrete injury in fact in order to have standing to sue under Article III, “an intangible injury is sufficiently concrete when Congress created a statutory cause of action for the injury.” TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez 141 S. Ct. at 2204–07.
Area(s) of Law:- Standing
Muñoz v. U.S. Dep't of State
In the case of a visa denial, if the government fails to provide "a facially legitimate and bona fide reason for denying the visa” Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 770 (1972). Or, if despite a "bona fide reason" the petitioner makes an "affirmative showing" of bad faith, judicial review is permitted. Kerry v. Din, 576 U.S. 86, 105 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Farnsworth v. Meadowland Ranches, Inc.
Quiet title was properly granted to Plaintiff because Defendant failed to prove the existence of the easement on the merits. Defendant's strongest argument was denied because Defendant did not provide enough evidence to show, "Meadowland engaged in “open and known” acts of public dedication... that would give rise to an implied dedication."
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
State v. Givens
“ORS 161.370(10) provides for discharge of a defendant who “remains committed” under ORS 161.370(9)." Therefore, under ORS 161.370(13) the trial court is not required to dismiss the refiled charges if a defendant is not presently committed to the state hospital.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Wallace
“The ability to consent consists of two related concepts: (1) understanding the nature of sexual conduct and (2) exercising judgment and making choices based on that understanding." Reed, 339 Or at 244.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. McCormack/Senter
The imposition of OAR 635-041-0025(3) to restrict the use of gill nets by treaty fishers fishing in usual and accustomed sites may be beneficial to its conservation interest but not necessary.
Area(s) of Law:- Tribal Law
State v. Yaeger
Overruling Gardner, the Supreme Court stated, “the trial court had not determined whether, despite the ultimate validity of the warrant, the State would have inevitably discovered the challenged evidence absent the unlawful seizure of the defendant's residence”. State v. DeJong, 368 Or 640, 497 P3d 710 (2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Unit Owners of Cornell Meadows Condo v. Jensen
“[M]oney judgment for unpaid assessments may be maintained without foreclosing or waiving the lien securing the claim for unpaid assessments. A judgment entered on the action does not extinguish the lien.” ORS 100.450(4). This amended statute and the pre-amendment statute do not prevent foreclosure of a lien if a prior personal judgment was made.
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
State v. Pilon
“In assessing the proper remedy for a discovery violation, prejudice becomes the threshold issue. Wolfe, 273 Or at 524-25. In King, we noted that the prejudice inquiry must focus on the extent of surprise and the impact of the violation on trial preparation.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Bohr v. Tillamook County Creamery Assn.
Plaintiff must prove they purchased the product in reliance on the alleged false marketing, pursuant to ORS 646.608 (b) and (d). A business engages in unlawful practice if it, “(b) causes likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding as to the source of goods, and (d) uses deceptive representations or designations of geographic origin in connection with goods.”
Area(s) of Law:- Business Law
Shepard Investment Group LLC v. Ormandy
The legislature would have chosen specific language if it was their intention to allow a tenant to recover either one month’s rent or twice the amount wrongfully charged for each violation. Therefore, the tenant can recover twice the amount he was wrongfully charged for the entire year
Area(s) of Law:- Landlord Tenant
State v. Hilding
Defendant did not withhold attention from C because it was Defendant’s abusive attention that posed the safety risk. A person can not withhold necessary care from a dependent person by continuing to care for them.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Dippre
A defendant commits the inchoate crime of attempted delivery of a controlled substance when that person takes a substantial step towards transferring a controlled substance. ORS 161.405(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Townsend
A person commits second-degree forgery when, "with intent to injure or defraud, the person utters a written instrument which the person knows to be forged,” ORS 165.007(1)(b), and in that context, “utter” means “to issue, deliver, publish, circulate, disseminate, transfer or tender a written instrument or other object to another,” ORS 165.002(7).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Wirth v. Wirth
ORS 107.105(1)(d)(C) sets forth a nonexclusive list of factors, including earning capacity, that the court considers when awarding spousal maintenance support. In “assessing earning capacity, the court considers a range of considerations other than actual current income.” Crump and Crump, 138 Or App 362, 366, 908 P2d 839 (1995).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. Edwards
Under the Oregon Constitution,“the fact of arrest does not grant an unqualified right to search an arrestee’s person for crime evidence,” State v. Owens, 302 Or 196, 201, 729 P2d 524 (1986), and requirements must be met for the exception to apply.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Farr
Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. OEC 801(3). To establish first-degree criminal mischief under ORS 164.365(1)(a)(A), the state must prove that the defendant damaged another’s property “[i]n an amount exceeding $1,000.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Miller
Article I, Section 9, prohibits “unreasonable” searches and seizures. A “stop” is a type of seizure that amounts to a “temporary detention” conducted “for investigatory purposes.” Maciel-Figueroa, 361 Or at 169-70. A stop must be justified by a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. State v. Rodgers/Kirkeby, 347 Or 610, 621, 227 P3d 695 (2010).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law