9th Circuit Court of Appeals (8 summaries)
Pino v. Cardone Capital, LLC
鈥淎 person may be liable as a 鈥渟eller鈥 under the predecessor version of 搂 12(a) if the person either: (1) passes title to the securities to the plaintiff; or (2) 鈥渆ngages in solicitation,鈥 i.e., 鈥渟olicits the purchase [of the securities], motivated at least in part by a desire to serve his own financial interests or those of the securities owner.鈥 Pinter v. Dahl, 486 U.S. 622, 643, 647鈥48 (1988).
Area(s) of Law:- Business Law
United States v. Barai
鈥淲hen called on to interpret a statute, this Court generally seeks to discern and apply the ordinary meaning of its terms at the time of their adoption.鈥 BP P.L.C. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 141 S. Ct. 1532, 1537 (2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Gearing v. City of Half Moon Bay
鈥淧ullman abstention is 鈥榓n equitable doctrine that allows federal courts to refrain from deciding sensitive federal constitutional questions when state law issues may moot or narrow the constitutional questions.鈥 San Remo Hotel v. City & County of San Franscisco, 145 F.3d (9th Cir. 1998). 鈥淸Abstention] is appropriate where (1) the federal constitutional claim 鈥榯ouches a sensitive area of social policy,鈥 (2) 鈥檆onstitutional adjudication plainly can be avoided by a state court,鈥 and (3) a 鈥榩ossibly determinative issue of state law is doubtful.鈥 Sinclair Oil Corp v. County of Santa Barbara, 96 F.3d 401 (9th Cir. 1996)(quoting Pearl INv. Co. v. City & County of San Francisco, 774 F.2d 1460 (9th Cir. 1985)).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
San Carlos Apache Tribe v. Becerra
鈥淸B]ecause the canons of construction applicable in Indian law are rooted in the unique trust relationship between the United States and the Indians, . . . statutes are to be construed liberally in favor of the Indians, with ambiguous provisions interpreted to their benefit.鈥 Montana v. Blackfeet Tribe of Indians, 471 U.S. 759 (1985).
Area(s) of Law:- Indian Law
Online Merchants Guild v. Maduros
Under the TIA, "district courts shall not enjoin, suspend or restrain the assessment, levy or collection of any tax under State law where a plain, speedy and efficient remedy may be had in the courts of such State." 28 U.S.C.听搂 1342.
Area(s) of Law:- Tax Law
City of Reno v. Netflix, Inc.
Under Nevada law, courts determine whether a statute creates an implied right of action by considering: "(1) whether the plaintiffs are of the class for whose [special] benefit the statute was enacted; (2) whether the legislative history indicates any intention to create or deny a private remedy; and (3) whether implying such a remedy is consistent with the underlying purposes of the legislative [sch]eme."听Baldonado v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC, 194 P.3d 96 (Nev. 2008).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Bliss Sequoia Ins. & Risk Advisors, Inc. v. Allied Prop & Casualty Ins. Co.
A broad interpretation of 鈥渂ecause of鈥 is not a reasonable one, and "a but-for cause is not always (in fact not often) a cause relevant to legal liability.鈥 United States v. Hatfield, 591 F.3d 945, 948 (7th Cir. 2010).
Area(s) of Law:- Insurance Law
Cox v. Persson
鈥淎 trial court generally has the discretionary authority to reopen a case on remand or otherwise to allow for presentation of additional evidence.鈥 ZRZ Realty v. Beneficial Fire and Casualty Ins., 349 Or 657 (2011).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Oregon Court of Appeals (28 summaries)
State v. Donato
鈥淎n order given under ORS 162.247(1)(b) is 鈥榣awful鈥 if it is authorized by, and is not contrary to, substantive law.鈥 State v. Kreis, 365 Or 659 (2019). 鈥淸T]he term lawful order in ORS 162.247(1)(b) does not create an opening for unequal or discretionary application鈥 and 鈥渓eaves nothing to the ad hoc judgment of an individual police officer.鈥 State v. Navickas, 271 Or App 447 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Kizer Excavating Co. v. Stout Building Contractors, LLC
鈥淐laims in quantum meruit can proceed on two distinct theories: a theory based on a promise to pay for services 鈥渋mplied in fact,鈥 which 鈥渞etains a contractual character,鈥 or a theory based on an obligation 鈥榠mplied at law鈥 as necessary to avoid unjust enrichment.鈥 In re Klamp, 363 Or 62, 418 P3d 733 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
Randall v. Valk
鈥淎 notice that fails to comply with statutory requirements for its contents is invalid.鈥 See Hickey v. Scott, 370 Or 97 (2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Landlord Tenant
Marshall v. Meyers
鈥淸W]e now hold that, when a petitioner seeks post-conviction relief, on Sixth Amendment grounds, from a judgment of conviction which was based on a nonunamimous verdict and which became final before the Supreme Court鈥檚 Ramos decision issued, the petitioner is entitled to relief - assuming that none of the procedural defenses in the Post-Conviction Hearings Act have been raised and sustained.鈥 Watkins v. Ackley, 370 Or 604 (2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. Dent
The framework required for issuing a warrant upon an affidavit is 鈥(1) whether there is reason to believe that the facts are true, and (2) whether the facts and circumstances disclosed by the affidavit, if true, are sufficient to establish probable cause to justify the search requested.鈥 State v. Goodman, 328 Or 318 (1999). Charges are cross-related if they 鈥渁rise out of the same act or transaction.鈥 State v. Dulfu, 363 Or 647, 669 (2018).听鈥淸T]wo charges arise out of the same act or transaction if they are so closely linked in time, place and circumstance that a complete account of one charge cannot be related without relating details of the other charge.鈥 Id.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Thomas
ORS 813.131(5)(b) provides: 鈥淎 chemical analysis of a person鈥檚 urine is valid if analysis is performed in an accredited or licensed toxicology laboratory.鈥 鈥淪o long as the jury is correctly instructed that a finding of guilty cannot be made on less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, it cannot be error to also instruct them that they may use their powers to reason and common sense, and may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence.鈥 State v. Hines, 84 Or App 681 (1987).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Boggs
A culpable mental state other than knowledge attaches to the property value element of theft in the first degree.听State v. Shedrick, 370 Or 255 (2022).听鈥淸T]he mens rea of criminal negligence includes two components: (1) A failure of the person 鈥榯o be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstance exists,鈥 ORS 161.085(10); and (2) a risk of 鈥榮uch nature and degree that the failure to be aware of it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.鈥澨齀d.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Sells
ORS 161.125(1) provides, "voluntary intoxication 'shall not, as such, constitute a defense to a criminal charge'[.]鈥 Further, evidence of voluntary intoxication "may be offered whenever it is relevant to negat[e] an element of the crime charged.鈥 Id.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Lawson v. Cain
The Unnecessary Rigor Clause听鈥渋s addressed specifically to the treatment of persons arrested, or confined in jail,鈥 so 鈥渢here can be no argument that rights under this guarantee are forfeited by conviction of crime or under lawful police custody.鈥 Sterling, 290 Or at 619.
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
Ride PDX, LLC v. Tee & B, LLC
The Court agreed with Defendants that the record did not support a particular statement having been made and modified the opinion to delete the last two sentences of the first full paragraph at 322 Or App at 180, accordingly.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
State v. Hadd
"If a defendant is in custody or compelling circumstances, then 'police must give Miranda warnings.'鈥 State v. Roble-Baker, 340 Or 631, 638 (2006). "In determining whether the circumstances were compelling, our 'overarching inquiry is whether the officers created the sort of police-dominated atmosphere that Miranda warnings were intended to counteract.'鈥 Id. at 641.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Birdnest Mobile Estates, LLC v. MCH Prop. Mgmt., LLC
鈥淲here the bargained for but not obtained insurance would have covered the damages at issue in the case, the party who agreed but failed to obtain such insurance waived its claim against the contractual counterparty.鈥 Koch v. Spann, 193 Or App 608 (2004).
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
State v. Wood
ORS 138.105(1) provides, "[o]n appeal by a defendant, the appellate court has authority to review the judgment or order being appealed." "[O]nce final judgment in a criminal case is entered, its validity and regularity are presumed."听听State v. Jacob, 208 Or App 62, 67 (2006).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Barrett v. Bd. of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
鈥淚n reviewing a rule challenge we may declare the rule invalid only if we conclude that it violates the constitutional provision, exceeds the statutory authority of the agency that adopted the rule, or was adopted without complying with rulemaking procedures.鈥 Assn. of Acupuncture v. Bd. of Chiropractic Examiners, 260 Or App 676 P3d 575 (2014).
Area(s) of Law:- Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
Ramos v. Potkowksi
鈥淏oundary-by-agreement is a common law doctrine with three elements; (1) There must have been an initial and mutual uncertainty about the true location of the boundary; (2) There must have been a resolution to the uncertainty by either an express or implied agreement mutually agreed upon by both parties to recognize the boundary line permanently; and (3) Evidence of the agreement by subsequent action by parties such as a written agreement, or occupying the property up to the borderline in the case of an oral agreement.鈥 Powers Ranch Company v. Plum Creek Marketing, 243 Or App 371 (2011).鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
State v. Johnson
鈥淎n encounter rises to a seizure when (1) a law enforcement officer intentionally and significantly interferes with an individual鈥檚 liberty or freedom of movement, or (2) a reasonable person under the totality of circumstances would believe that his or her liberty or freedom of movement has been significantly restricted.鈥 State v. Ashbuagh, 349 Or 297 (2010).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Sullivan
"To determine whether an officer's belief was objectively reasonable, we consider the totality of the circumstances presented to the officer and reasonable inferences that may be drawn from those circumstances.听State v. Keller, 280 Or. App. 249, 253 (2016). For traffic infractions, an officer's subjective belief is objectively reasonable, "if...the facts as the officer perceived them actually satisfy the elements of a traffic infraction."听State v. Tiffin, 202 Or. App. 199, 204 (2005).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Deschutes County v. Leak
OAR 436-035-0400 (2018) requires an evaluation of the worker鈥檚 permanent condition, specifically including the effects of the permanent changes on activities of daily life and deterioration in work settings, not merely the worker鈥檚 current symptoms at the time of claim closure.
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
State v. Straub
Admissions of probation violations, unlike guilty pleas, do not automatically trigger sentencing; therefore, a colloquy to ensure a knowing and intelligent waiver in the context of a probation revocation hearing is not required. United States v. Segal, 549 F2d 1293 (9th Cir. 1977).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Omar
鈥淚f [a] trial court determines that the record could have developed in a materially different way if the error had not occurred, then a defendant is entitled to a new trial.鈥 State v. Hightower, 368 Or 378, 387 (2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. McKibben
鈥淎 person is 鈥渟eized鈥 for purposes of Article I, Section 9 in either one of two situations: 鈥(a) if a law enforcement officer intentionally and significantly restricts, interferes with, or otherwise deprives an individual of that individual鈥檚 liberty or freedom of movement; or (b) if a reasonable person under the totality of the circumstances would believe that (a) above has occurred.鈥 State v. Ashbaugh, 349 Or 297, 316 (2010) (emphasis in original; footnote omitted).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Rojo-Garfias v. State
鈥淲hen the law is not succinct and straightforward a criminal defense attorney need do no more than advise a noncitizen client that pending criminal charges may carry a risk of adverse immigration consequences.鈥 See Padilla, at 559 US at 369.
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
State v. Abbott
In the absence of a Meyrick colloquy, a trial court鈥檚 acceptance of a defendant鈥檚 waiver of counsel is proper if, when considering the totality of the circumstances, the record reflects that the defendant 鈥渟ubstantially appreciates the material risks of self-representation in [their] case.鈥 State v. Jackson, 172 Or App 414, 423 (2001).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Donahue v. Nagel
鈥淎 promise to convey an interest in real property, no less than the conveyance itself, is subject to the statute of frauds.鈥 Parthenon Construction & Design, Inc. v. Neuman, 166 Or App 172 (2000).
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
State v. De Leon Say
In State v. Skillicorn, the Supreme Court clarified that sexual-predisposition evidence is not propensity evidence. State v. Skillicorn, 367 Or 464 (2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Renard
When a court properly admits challenged testimony as nonscientific expert opinion, the court need not decide whether the testimony was also admissible as lay opinion. State v. Rambo, 250 Or App 186, (2012).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Lipka
鈥淓vidence is unfairly prejudicial when it has an undue tendency to suggest a decision on an improper basis commonly although not always an emotional one, or when the preferences of the trier of fact are affected by reasons essentially unrelated to the persuasive power of the evidence to establish a fact of consequence.鈥 State v. Lyons, 324 Or 256 P2d 802(1996)
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. B.A.F.
(1) 鈥淎 trial court is required to advise a person alleged to have a mental illness of all the possible results of the proceeding and failure to do so is plain error. State v. B.A.F., 414 P3d 486 (Or App 2022) (citing State v. M.M., 288 Or App 111, 115-16 (2017)) (emphasis in original) (2) 鈥淎n appeal from a civil commitment order does not become moot after the expiration of the commitment period.鈥 State v. Van Tassel, 5 Or App 376, 385 (1971)
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment