Kyle Sessions

United States Supreme Court (1 summary)

Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.

To the extent that computer interface code is copyrightable, the copying of a small portion of that code to transform it into a mobile operating system is fair use.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Copyright

United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted (5 summaries)

Sherman v. Dept. of Human Services

The Oregon Tort Claims Act provides express statutory permission for child abuse suits to proceed without state immunity regardless of the time limitations imposed by ORS 12.115 because ORS 12.117 provides an exception for claims of this nature.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

Shinn v. Ramirez

Does application of the equitable rule this Court announced in Martinez v. Ryan render 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2) inapplicable to a federal court’s merits review of a claim for habeas relief?

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Niz-Chavez v. Garland

“[T]he stop-time rule is triggered when the alien is served a notice to appear under section 1229(a).”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen

Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Servotronics, INC., v. Rolls-Royce PLC & The Boeing Co.

Whether the discretion granted to district courts in 28 U.S.C. §1782(a) to render assistance in gathering evidence for use in “a foreign or international tribunal” encompasses private commercial arbitral tribunals, as the Fourth and Sixth Circuits have held, or excludes such tribunals without expressing an exclusionary intent, as the Second, Fifth, and, in the case below, the Seventh Circuit, have held.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution

Oregon Supreme Court (4 summaries)

Dept. of Human Services v. J. S.

ORS 109.751(b) allows the dependency court to make child custody determinations that are effective until a home state court issues its own order.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

Level 3 Communications, LLC v. Dept. of Rev.

ORS 308.505(14) defines property so broadly as to include all property of the company that may be discovered.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tax Law

Simi v. LTI Inc. - Lynden Inc.

Under ORS 656.262(7)(c), “If a condition is found compensable after claim closure, the insurer or self-insured employer shall reopen the claim for processing regarding that condition.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

State v. Ramoz

ORCP 64 B(1) states that a new trial is warranted when a substantial right of the moving party is affected by an “[i]regularity in the proceedings of the court, jury or adverse party, or any order of the court, or abuse of discretion, by which such party was prevented from having a fair trial.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Oregon Court of Appeals (26 summaries)

N. F. M. v. Khalidi

ORS 107.716(3)(a) permits continuation of a restraining order if “petitioner reasonably fears for the petitioner’s physical safety” and “respondent represents a credible threat to the physical safety of the petitioner or the petitioner’s child.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

State v. Halvorson

Double jeopardy may be triggered by an “ostensibly civil proceeding” if that proceeding is “so punitive either in purpose or effect as to transform what was clearly intended as a civil remedy into a criminal penalty.” Hudson v. United States, 522 US 93, 99, (1997). Under ORS 137.106(1)(a), if the victim in a criminal case has suffered economic damages, the defendant must repay those damages in full.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Remedies

State v. Osborn

A defendant can be restrained at trial if they pose an “immediate and serious risk of dangerous or disruptive behavior.” State v. Moore, 45 Or App 837, 839-40 (1980). Further, the trial court’s decision to restrain a defendant must be supported by developing a record of the basis for choosing to exercise its discretion.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Camirand

“The [Supreme Court] observed that references to facts outside the record can be prejudicial in two ways: First, they encourage the jury to speculate about evidence beyond that presented at trial; and, second, they ‘provide a preemptive explanation for the state’s failure to present evidence that the jury might expect it to present.’”State v.  Banks, 367 Or 574, 481 P3d 1275 (2021).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Indian Ridge I, LLC v. Lenahan

Lis Pendens can be filed to notify of a lawsuit “in which the title to or any interest in or lien upon real property is involved, affected, or brought in question.” ORS 93.740.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Property Law

Willms v. AmeriTitle, Inc.

[T]he statute of limitations for civil ORICO claims under ORS 166.725(11)(a) is five years, but the action can be brought either five years “after the conduct in violation [of ORICO] terminates” or within five years after the action “accrues.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

Bean v. Cain

Oregon law assumes that it is reasonable for a petitioner to rely on his attorney to timely file, meeting their “most basic professional obligations.” Winstead v. State of Oregon, 287 Or App 737, 740 (2017).

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

Dancingbear v. SAIF

ORS 656.383(1) provides that a workers compensation claimant’s attorney is entitled to a fee award if the attorney “is instrumental in obtaining temporary disability compensation benefits [under ORS 656.268].

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

Hejazi v. Gifford

ORS 30.643(1) applies to all fee waivers and deferrals in civil actions brought by an “adult in custody. . . against a public body.” When a plaintiff fails to apply the proper statute in their briefing, the rules of appellate procedure require the court to affirm. Smith v. Dept. of Corrections, 314 Or App 1, 3 (2021).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

State v. Burnett

The Court must affirm the conviction notwithstanding the omission of a concurrence instruction if there is “little likelihood that the error affected the verdict.” State v. Ashkins, 357 Or 642, 660 (2015).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Padilla v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co.

ORS 742.524(1)(b) provides that PIP benefits are subject to a maximum payment period “in the aggregate of 52 weeks.” Black’s Law Dictionary states that “aggregate” means “to collect into a whole.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Insurance Law

State v. Hsieh

When dealing with animal neglect, exigent circumstances exist when “a person fails to provide the ‘minimum care’ required by statute, ORS 167.310(9), and the failure results in imminent ‘physical injury,’ ORS 167.310(10), or imminent ‘serious physical injury,’ ORS 167.310(13).”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Kiesau

It is impermissible vouching for a prosecutor to give their personal opinion of the credibility of their witnesses because the opinions are typically based on facts not in evidence which distracts the jury. See State v. Serous, 365 Or 121, 129 (2019).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Larson

The Court must have evidence that the defendant intended to commit multiple criminal acts, typically shown by temporal or qualitative deference to impose consecutive sentences. State v. Porter, 313 Or App 565 (2021).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

Hersey v. Leon

Oregon law states that “[a]n appellant bears the burden of providing a record sufficient to demonstrate that error occurred.” Ferguson v. Nelson, 216 Or App 541 (2007).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Property Law

State v. Bonome

Oregon law demands that a waiver of counsel be done “knowingly and intelligently.” Typically, this standard is met when the court conducts a colloquy with the defendant explaining the risks of proceeding without representation. Additionally, under Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., the court can exercise its discretion to correct plain errors that serve the “ends of justice.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Doyle

In Ramos, the United States Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment requires a unanimous jury verdict to convict.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

State v. Fitzgerald

For an error to be considered on appeal, it must be preserved. See Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209, 219-21 (2008).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Ramirez-Carmona

“In reviewing the voluntariness of a defendant’s consent to a search, we consider whether, under the totality of the circumstances, the consent was given by an act of free will or was the result of coercion, express or implied.” State v. Moore, 354 Or 493, 505 (2013).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Leinweber

OAR 257-030-0130 requires that a breath test operator “is certain that the subject has not * * * vomited, or regurgitated * * * for at least fifteen minutes before taking the test.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Appleyard v. Port of Portland

“[A]n invitee’s failure to exercise reasonable care for his or her own safety may be the basis of a comparative-fault defense if the invitee’s negligence relates and contributes to the harm or risk of harm created by the defendant’s negligence.” Appleyard v. Port of Portland, 311 Or App 498 (2021).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

State v. Bledsoe

The crime of interference with a peace officer under ORS 162.247(1)(b) states that a person commits the crime by knowingly “refus[ing] to obey a lawful order” given by an officer. The exception under ORS 162.247(3)(b) states that passive resistance “does not apply.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Greinier

“[A] person is justified in using physical force upon another person for self-defense or to defend a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force, and the person may use a degree of force which the person reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose.” ORS 161.209.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Johnson

According to ORS 136.425(2), the state must corroborate a confession with “some other proof” that “the jury could draw an inference that tends to prove: (1) the injury or harm specified in the crime occurred and (2) that this injury or harm was caused by someone’s criminal activity.” State v. Moreno, 276 Or App 102, 108, 366 P3d 839, rev den, 359 Or 525, cert den, 137 S Ct 342 (2016). 

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Harris

A conviction of reckless endangerment of another person requires: (1) the defendant to have carried out an act; (2) the defendant’s actions created a “substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person;” (3) the defendant’s actions were a gross deviation from a sensible standard of care; (4) the defendant was aware of the risk; and (5) the defendant’s actions were a conscious disregard of the risk. State v. Nelson, 224 Or App 398, 402-03, 198 P3d 439 (2008).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Banerjee and Fiorillo

ORS 19.270(1) provides that the Court of Appeals only has jurisdiction to hear a case when appellant meets the time and manner requirements of ORS 19.240, 19.250, and 19.255. Generally, this means the notice of appeal is filed and served on the parties within 30 days of the entry of the judgment appealed.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

Land Use Board of Appeals (2 summaries)

Central Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes County

Goal 6, or OAR 660-015-0000(6), is to “maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Schaefer v. Marion County

OAR 660-012-0065(3)(n) specifically provides that “expansions or alterations of public use airports* * * meet planning goals 3, 4, 11, and 14 as a matter of law.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Back to Top