9th Circuit Court of Appeals (9 summaries)
Cal. Rest. Ass鈥檔 v. City of Berkeley
鈥淓PCA鈥檚 preemption clause establishes that, once a federal energy conservation standard becomes effective for a covered product, 鈥榥o State regulation concerning the energy efficiency, energy use, or water use of such covered product shall be effective with respect to such product[.]鈥 42 U.S.C. 搂 6297(c).鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Preemption
York County v. HP, Inc
鈥淸A] defendant establishes that a complaint is time-barred under 搂1658(b)(1) if it conclusively shows that either (1) the plaintiff could have pleaded an adequate complaint based on facts discovered prior to the critical date and failed to do so, or (2) the complaint does not include any facts necessary to plead an adequate complaint that were discovered following the critical date.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Business Law
City of Los Angeles v. FAA
鈥淣EPA requires that a federal agency consider every significant aspect of the environmental impact of a proposed action 鈥 [and] inform the public that it has indeed considered environmental concerns in its decision-making process.鈥 Earth Island Inst. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 351 F.3d 1291, 1300 (9th Cir. 2003).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Buero v. Amazon.com Services, Inc.
According to the Oregon Supreme Court, 鈥淥regon law aligns with federal law regarding what activities are compensable. Therefore, under Oregon law, as under federal law, time that employees spend on the employer鈥檚 premises waiting for and undergoing mandatory security screenings before or after their work shifts is compensable only if the screenings are either (1) an integral and indispensable part of the employees鈥 principal activities or (2) compensable as a matter of contract, custom, or practice.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Wide Voice, LLC v. FCC
鈥淯nder 搂 706, [the court] must determine whether the agency鈥檚 decision was 鈥渁rbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.鈥 5 U.S.C. 搂 706(2)(A)
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
No On E v. David Chiu
鈥淭he district court applied exacting scrutiny, which requires a 鈥榮ubstantial relation鈥 between the disclosure requirement and a 鈥榮ufficiently important鈥 governmental interest.鈥 Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310, 366鈥67 (2010).
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
US v. Farias-Contreras
鈥淸W]hen a plea rests in any significant degree on a promise or agreement of the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the inducement or consideration, such promise must be fulfilled.鈥 Santobello v. New York , 404 U.S. 257, 262 (1971).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Clarkson v. Alaska Airlines, Inc.
鈥淯SERRA 搂 4316(b)(1) requires employers to provide employees who take military leave with the same non-seniority rights and benefits as their colleagues who take comparable non-military leaves.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Labor Law
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Haaland
鈥淎n agency action is 鈥榝inal鈥 only if it both (1) 鈥榤ark[s] the consummation of the agency鈥檚 decision-making process鈥攊t must not be of a merely tentative or interlocutory nature,鈥 and (2) is 鈥榦ne by which rights or obligations have been determined, or from which legal consequences will flow.鈥 Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 177鈥78 (1997).鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Oregon Court of Appeals (11 summaries)
State v. H.D.
A court may order a conditional release of a person with mental illness only if the release is requested by the legal guardian, relative or friend of the person who requested to be allowed to care for the person 鈥渄uring the period of commitment in a place satisfactory to the judge,鈥 and who has the ability and adequate financial resources to care for the person. ORS 426.125(1)(a)-(c).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
Peeler v. Reyes
Under federal law, 鈥渁bsent misrepresentation or other impermissible conduct by state agents 鈥 a voluntary plea of guilty intelligently made in the light of then applicable law does not become vulnerable because later judicial decisions indicate that the plea rested on a faulty premise.鈥 Brady v. United States, 397 US 742, 756-57 (1970).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. Miller
鈥淰ouching refers to the expression of one鈥檚 personal opinion about the credibility of a witness.鈥 State v. Chandler, 360 Or 323, 330-31 (2016) (internal quotations omitted). 鈥淐redibility determinations are the exclusive province of the jury, so witnesses are categorically prohibited from expressing a view on whether another witness is telling the truth.鈥 State v. Middleton, 294 Or 427, 438 (1983) (internal quotations omitted).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Wolfston v. Eastside Bend, LLC.
ORS 36.705(1)(a) states: 鈥渢he court shall vacate an award made in the arbitration proceeding if 鈥 [t]he award was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Arbitration
Person v. Board of Parole
鈥淸T]o grant parole consideration under ORS 144.228 (1987), the board must find that the person鈥檚 severe personality disorder indicating a propensity toward continuing dangerous criminal activity is absent or in remission.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
State v. Wesley
鈥淎fter [State v. Hubbell, 314 Or App 844, 870-871, (2021)], where a person has taken a substantial step toward delivery of a controlled substance, but has not yet attempted the transfer itself, the person will have committed the inchoate crime of attempted delivery of a controlled substance, rather than delivery.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Gramada v. SAIF Corp.
鈥淎 finding of impairment requires (1) that there is a loss of use or function of the body part or system, and (2) that the loss is due to the compensable injury.鈥 Robinette v. SAIF, 369 Or 767, 781-82 (2022) (citing ORS 656.214). 鈥淓ach loss of use or function is to be considered separately, and a loss is 鈥榙ue to the compensable injury鈥 when the accepted condition is found to be a material cause of the loss.鈥 Johnson v. SAIF, 369 Or 707, 603 (2022); Robinette, 369 Or at 784.
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
State v. Brown
Under State v. Garrett, 300 Or App 671 (2019), to determine if offenses are of the same or similar character, the Court will consider 鈥渇actors such as the temporal proximity of the acts, similarities in the elements of the offenses, whether there will be similar evidence or evidentiary overlap, and whether the charges involve the same or similar victims, locations, intent, modus operandi, or acts.鈥 Under State v. Dewhitt, 276 Or App 373 (2016), 鈥渙ffenses are 鈥榗onnected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan鈥 when they are 鈥榣ogically related, and there is a large area of overlapping proof between them.鈥欌
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Vannoy
鈥淯nder Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, 鈥榓 seizure occurs when (1) a police officer intentionally and significantly interferes with an individual鈥檚 liberty or freedom of movement; or (2) a reasonable person, under the totality of the circumstances, would believe that his or her liberty or freedom of movement has been significantly restricted.鈥 State v. Arreola-Botello, 365 Or 695, 701 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Hathaway v. B & J Property Investments, Inc.
鈥淥RS 12.125 states that 鈥榌a]n action arising under a rental agreement or [ORTLA] shall be commenced within one year.鈥欌 ORS 12.010 states that statute of limitations for actions brought under ORS chapter 12 are tolled 鈥渁fter the cause of action shall have accrued.鈥 Under Rice v. Rabb, 354 Or 721 (2014), 鈥淸a] claim 鈥榓ccrue[s]鈥 under ORS 12.010 when the 鈥減laintiff obtained knowledge, or reasonably should have obtained knowledge鈥 of the claim.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Landlord Tenant
Davis & Galm, LLC v. Neve
鈥淸U]nder Oregon law, 鈥榯he plaintiff鈥檚 concrete stake in the outcome must continue throughout the pendency of the case.鈥 [Couey v. Atkins, 357 Or 460, 469 (2006)]. If plaintiffs鈥 concrete stake in the outcome evaporates after initiation of the action, the case becomes moot and must be dismissed for want of justiciability. Id.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure