United States Supreme Court (1 summary)
Sackett v. EPA
The Court held that the CWA extends to only those 鈥渨etlands with a continuous surface connection to bodies that are 鈥榳aters of the United States鈥 in their own right,鈥 so that they are 鈥渋ndistinguishable鈥 from those waters. Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715, 739, 126 S.Ct. 2208, (2006).
Area(s) of Law:- Environmental Law
United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted (1 summary)
West Virginia v. EPA
Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act should be narrowly construed to regulate individual power plants. The CPP's scheme to create generation shifting for the nation's power sector as a whole is not within its authority under Section 111(d).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
9th Circuit Court of Appeals (4 summaries)
In re: Klamath Irrigation District v. U.S.D.C. Or. Medford
The Court applies the 鈥淏auman factors,鈥 in determining whether mandamus is warranted: (1) whether the petitioner has 鈥渘o other adequate means, such as a direct appeal,鈥 to attain the desired relief, (2) whether 鈥淸t]he petitioner will be damaged or prejudiced in a way not correctable on appeal,鈥 (3) whether the 鈥渄istrict court鈥檚 order is clearly erroneous as a matter of law,鈥 (4) whether the order makes an 鈥渙ft-repeated error, or manifests a persistent disregard of the federal rules,鈥 and (5) whether the order raises 鈥渘ew and important problems鈥 or legal issues of first impression. Bauman v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 557 F.2d 650, 654鈥55 (9th Cir. 1977). A clear error requires 鈥渇irm conviction鈥 that the district court 鈥渕isinterpreted the law鈥 or 鈥渃ommitted a clear abuse of discretion.鈥 In re Perez, 749 F.3d 849, 855 (9th Cir. 2014).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Johnson v. Walmart, Inc.
When substantial evidence supports that two contracts are separate, independent agreements, an arbitration agreement consented to for an initial purchase 鈥渄oes not control the [second] agreement of the parties.鈥 Int鈥檒 Ambassador Programs, Inc. v. Archexpo, 68 F.3d 337, 340 (9th Cir. 1995).
Area(s) of Law:- Arbitration
U.S. v. Mongol Nation
鈥淸T]he purposes of the Mongols Gang . . . included, but were not limited to,鈥 several unlawful purposes. Because the indictment expressly contemplated that the association may exist for other purposes鈥攑erhaps including lawful ones鈥攊t is not facially inconsistent with Mongol Nation鈥檚 interpretation of the definition of 鈥減erson鈥 in the RICO statute[.]"
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
U.S. v. Knight
Where a waiver would deprive the defendant of a constitutional right, courts generally require that it be a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent choice among alternative courses of action, made without coercion and with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences that would arise from the waiver. See, e.g., Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 748鈥49 (1970); Parke v. Raley, 506 U.S. 20, 29 (1992).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Oregon Court of Appeals (7 summaries)
Marks v. L.C.D.C.
The IGAs are likely to have a significant impact on land use in Stafford and the surrounding area within the meaning of the significant impact test due to the control over expansion of the UGB and timing of concept planning. See, e.g., Hemstreet v. Seaside Improvement Commission, 93 Or App 73, 75, 761 P2d 533 (1988) (articulating significant impact test).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Mouktabis v. Clackamas County
ORS 31.150 provides a mechanism for a defendant to move to strike certain nonmeritorious claims predicated on speech and petitioning activity potentially entitled to constitutional protection.鈥 Tokarski v. Wildfang, 313 Or App 19, 21, 496 P3d 22, rev den, 368 Or 788 (2021). Accordingly, reports to the police about whether court orders are being violated 听are "matters of public interest" under ORS 31.150(2)(d) because they implicate public safety and effective governance.听
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
State v. Wagner
Similarly to McCormack, the Court was permitted to sidestep answering whether the state鈥檚 authority to enforce hunting regulations against treaty hunters is an issue of subject matter jurisdiction because of the 鈥渃onservation necessity standard鈥 under the Bronson framework. 鈥淸I]f the tribe itself has enacted similar valid laws[,]鈥 the state may enforce regulations against a treaty hunter. State v. Bronson, 122 Or App 493 (1993).
Area(s) of Law:- Wildlife Law
Brown v. Glaxosmithkline, LLC. and Providence Health System - Oregon
Considering the plain meaning of a "seller... engaged in the business of selling" a product, is one who transfers ownership of the product to another in exchange for valuable consideration, Hospitals that provide medication in exchange for valuable consideration can be liable for product liability under ORS 30.920.
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
State v. Bordeaux
Violations of ORS 509.006 do not require that the actions taken are completed or intentional, because 鈥渁ttempt to fish鈥 was specifically included as part of the definition of 鈥渢ake.鈥 ORS 506.006(12).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Ybarra v. Dominguez Family Enterprises, Inc.
Cases determining 鈥渇air value鈥 under dissenter鈥檚 rights statute inform the meaning of 鈥渇air value鈥 for purposes of ORS 60.952(5). The appropriateness of applying marketability or minority discount to determination of fair value 鈥渘ecessarily depends on the circumstances of the particular case.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Corporations
State v. Williams
Based on the factors in State v. Jarnagin, 351 Or 703, 716, 277 P3d 535 (2012), the State did not meet its burden to prove that Defendant鈥檚 consent to a DNA sample was not the result of the Miranda violation.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure