United States Supreme Court (4 summaries)
Mahanoy Area Sch. Dist. v. B.L.
Schools have the authority to regulate some off-campus student speech without violating the First Amendment.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
California v. Texas
鈥淲here a standing theory rests on speculation about the decision of an independent third party (here an individual's decision to enroll in a program like Medicaid), the plaintiff must show at the least 鈥渢hat third parties will likely react in predictable ways.鈥 Department of Commerce v. New York, 588 U.S. ___, ___, 139 S. Ct. 2551, 2566, 204 L. Ed. 2d 978.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Garland v. Ming Dai
The INA provides that a reviewing court must accept 鈥渁dministrative findings鈥 as 鈥渃onclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.鈥 搂1252(b)(4)(B).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Caniglia v. Strom et al.
The 鈥渃ommunity caretaking exception鈥 to warrantless searches articulated in Cady v. Dombrowski does not apply to homes, because there is a constitutional difference between vehicles and homes.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted (2 summaries)
Alaska v. Wright
A habeas petitioner does not remain "in custody" under a conviction "after the sentence imposed for it has fully expired, merely because of the possibility that the prior conviction will be used to enhance the sentences imposed for any subsequent crimes of which he is convicted.鈥 Maleng v. Cook, 490 U. S. 492 (1989).
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
Houston Community College System v. Wilson
Whether the First Amendment鈥檚 Free Speech Clause limits a local government鈥檚 censure power.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Oregon Supreme Court (4 summaries)
State v. Ford
Ford presented the same issue decided in State v. Kyger, where the Court determined that 鈥淸t]he occurrence of multiple deaths is required for the completed crime of aggravated murder, but it is not required for the inchoate crime of attempted aggravated murder.鈥 369 Or 363 (2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Kyger
For purposes of ORS 163.095(1)(d), 鈥淸t]he occurrence of multiple deaths is required for the completed crime of aggravated murder, but it is not required for the inchoate crime of attempted aggravated murder.鈥 State v. Kyger, 369 Or 363 (2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Estate of Evans v. Dept. of Rev.
鈥淚f the resident's interest in the intangible property is sufficiently substantial, such that it is a source of actual or potential wealth to and cannot be dissociated from the resident, then his or her enjoyment of the benefits and protections offered by the state鈥攊ncluding simply the benefit of living in an 'orderly, civilized society' for which the state is responsible, J.C. Penney Co., 311 U.S. at 444鈥攊s a sufficient justification for the state to impose its tax on that property.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Tax Law
Allianz Global Risks v. ACE Property & Casualty Ins. Co.
"The existence of side agreements, indemnification promises, or an insured's waiver of policy terms is simply irrelevant to the contribution rights set out in the OECAA. Under that statute, as under our coverage cases,听see听Ledford听v. Gutoski, 319 Ore. 397, 399-400, 877 P2d 80 (1994), whether an insurance company has a 'duty to defend or indemnify' its insured depends on听two documents: the insurance policy and the complaint."
Area(s) of Law:- Business Law
Oregon Court of Appeals (58 summaries)
Sound-Rite Plastics, Ltd. v. Wright
鈥淯nder Washington law, 鈥榓n anticipatory breach occurs when one of the parties to a bilateral contract either expressly or impliedly repudiates the contract prior to the time of performance. A party鈥檚 intent not to perform may not be implied from doubtful and indefinite statements that performance may or may not take place.鈥欌 Wallace Real Estate Inv., Inc. v. Groves, 124 Wash听 2d听 881, 898, 881 P2d 1010, 1019 (1994).
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
State v. V. L.
鈥淸T]he facts in a juvenile petition that must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt under ORS 419C.400(2) are the facts described in ORS 419C.255(1)(b), and that that set of facts is separate from, and does not include, facts about a youth鈥檚 age. Thus, ORS 419C.400(2) does not require facts about a youth鈥檚 age to be established beyond a reasonable doubt.鈥 See State v. Stamper, 197 Or App 413, 420, 106 P3d 172, rev den, 339 Or 230 (2005).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Moody v. Dept. of Human Services
鈥淏y running a period of a specified number of days from a date of mailing, the legislature indicates its intention that the period extend exactly that number of days from the date of mailing and no more.鈥 See Quillen, 159 Or App at 9-10.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Sedgwick CMS, Inc. v. Dover
鈥淸T]he third-party statutes, understood together, require that a paying agency is an insurer that is responsible for paying benefits on a compensable claim at the time of settlement with a third-party tortfeasor.鈥 Sedgwick CMS, Inc. v. Dover, 318 Or App 38, 50 (2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
State v. J. R.
鈥溾榌A]djudication鈥 and 鈥榙isposition鈥 of the allegations are understood to refer to distinct phases of delinquency proceedings,鈥 M. A. S., 302 Or App at 701, and that, had the legislature intended the phrase detention 鈥渂efore adjudication on the merits鈥 to mean detention before both the adjudication and the disposition stages, it would not have chosen to omit the term 鈥渄isposition鈥 from ORS 419C.145. Cf. PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606, 611, 859 P2d 1143 (1993).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. D.L.
For purposes of ORS 426.130(1)(a)(C) multiple violent acts or a violent act coupled with additional threats will demonstrate that a person is highly likely to engage in future violence; however, 鈥淸a]cts of violence are not required to establish that a person is dangerous; verbal threats may be sufficient, if the evidence provides a foundation for predicting future violent behavior.鈥 State v. J. D., 315 Or App 316, 321, 499 P3d 113 (2021) (citing J. G., 302 Or App at 101 n 3).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Gilkey
For the state to establish that a officer has not exceeded the scope of a stop, it must present evidence that (1) the officer perceived a circumstance-specific danger, and that perception was objectively reasonable, and (2) the officer decided that the questions asked were necessary to address that danger, and it is objectively reasonable that those questions would ameliorate or clarify the safety concern. Jimenez, 357 Or at 430.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Shaw
鈥淸P]rosecutorial knowledge which would bar a second prosecution after a plea of guilty on the first charge has to be knowledge which the prosecutor had or should have had at a time when he was in a position to call the attention of the court to the problem and move for joinder prior to the offer of a guilty plea on the first charge by the defendant and the acceptance of it by the court.鈥 20 Or App at 337.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Cruz-Salazar v. SAIF
By providing a process for claim closure in claims involving combined conditions, ORS 656.268(1)(b) (setting forth procedure for the denial of combined conditions), the legislature had created an exception to the 鈥済eneral rule鈥 that a worker is to be compensated for total impairment that is caused in material part by the compensable injury. Caren, 365 Or at 487.
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
State v. Campoverde
鈥淸F]or the purposes of Article I, section 9, all investigative activities, including investigative inquiries, conducted during a traffic stop are part of an ongoing seizure and are subject to both subject-matter and durational limitations. Accordingly, an officer is limited to investigatory inquiries that are reasonably related to the purpose of the traffic stop or that have an independent constitutional justification.鈥 State v. Arreola-Botello, 365 Or 695, 451 P3d 939 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Carlson
If a defendant is a cardholder, then, under ORS 137.542(2), the trial court must impose supervision conditions related to usable marijuana, medical cannabinoid products, cannabinoid concentrates, and cannabinoid extracts in the same manner as it would impose supervision conditions related to prescription drugs.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Dept. of Human Services v. R. O.
To determine if good cause exists, courts "need not identify the universe or totality of considerations that might bear on good cause鈥 because 鈥渢he trial court鈥檚 鈥榞ood cause鈥 determination [is] ultimately predicated on a consideration that is legally sufficient by itself to establish 鈥榞ood cause鈥 and that is supported by evidence in this record.鈥 Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold at 553.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Gibson v. ESIS
鈥淸W]hether an agency鈥檚 ultimate conclusions from its findings of fact are supported by substantial reason turns on whether the agency鈥檚 order supplies a rational connection between the facts and the legal conclusions it draws from them such that the conclusions are sufficiently reviewable by an appellate court.鈥 United Academics of OSU, 315 Or App at 355-56.
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
State v. F. T.
To determine whether an issue is 鈥渓ikely to evade review,鈥 the question is not whether a person in youth鈥檚 same circumstances would also fail to obtain appellate review, but 鈥渨hether the general type or category of challenge at issue is likely to evade being fully litigated.鈥 Eastern Oregon Mining Association v. DEQ, 360 Or 10, 17, 376 P3d 288 (2016)
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Leers
To obtain a conviction under ORS 165.572(1) for interference with making a report, the state must prove three elements: (1) that the defendant took an action鈥攔emoving, damaging or interfering with a telephone; (2) that the action 鈥渉ad the effect of preventing or hindering another person from making a report to 9-1-1鈥; and (3) that the defendant did so intentionally. 259 Or App at 40.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Assn. v. Chin
ORS 31.152 does not provide authority under ORCP 54 A(3) to award 鈥渁ny costs and disbursements, including attorney fees, provided by contract, statute, or rule.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Dept. of Human Services v. E. J.
In order to overcome the privilege codified in ORS 419A.255, the party seeking to introduce evidence has the burden of showing that the contested records were not (1) history and prognosis information and (2) that they were not located in the supplemental confidential file or record of the case. Oregon Law Commission, Juvenile Records Work Group Report 14 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Cross
鈥淭he defendant鈥檚 intent with respect to the scope of consent is unambiguously expressed, that manifestation of intent is controlling.鈥 Id. at 539; see also State v. Winn, 361 Or 636, 643, 396 P3d 926 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Dept. of Human Services v. T. L. M.
A juvenile court is authorized to order a psychological evaluation only where such an evaluation 鈥渋s for a service that is rationally related to the findings that bring the child into the court鈥檚 jurisdiction.鈥 W. C. T.,314 Or App at 776.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Double Tree Hotel v. Ansarinezhad
The plain and unambiguous text of the ORS 656.256 shows that the only plausible reading of the phrase 鈥渘otice as required by this section鈥 under subsection (4) is that such notice refers to the 鈥渘otice of an accident鈥 described in the preceding subsections (1), (2), and (3). 316 Or App 51 (2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
King v. Gallagher Bassett Ins. Services
The medical causation component of claimant鈥檚 mental disorder claim presents a complex medical question that must be resolved on the basis of expert medical evidence. See Uris v. Comp. Dep鈥檛, 247 Or 420, 426, 430 P2d 861 (l967).
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
Chaimov v. Dept. of Admin. Services
The lawyer-client privilege, articulated in OEC 503, applies to public entities. Including communications between the Department of Administrative Services and the Office of the Legislative Counsel.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Dept. of Human Services v. D.E.A.
A juvenile court may change a child鈥檚 permanency plan away from reunification only if DHS proves, among other things, that DHS made 鈥渁ctive efforts鈥 to make it possible for the child to be reunited with the parent and, notwithstanding those efforts, the parent鈥檚 progress was insufficient to make reunification possible. Dept. of Human Services v. D. L. H., 251 Or App 787, 798, 284 P3d 1233, adh鈥檇 to as modified on recons, 253 Or App 600, 292 P3d 565 (2012), rev den, 353 Or 445 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Diens v. Bonome
鈥淯nder the discovery rule, the statute of limitations began to run on petitioner's claim when petitioner knew 'or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known facts which would make a reasonable person aware of a substantial possibility that each of the three elements of a claim (harm, causation, and tortious conduct) exist[ed].' McLean, 189 Ore. App. at 424-25.
Area(s) of Law:- Trusts and Estates
Laack v. Botello
In accordance with Phan, the striking of pleadings and the dismissal of claims as a sanction is not within the court鈥檚 authority under ORS 1.010 and must be statutorily authorized. 185 OR App at 633.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Nelson v. Liberty Ins. Corp
For purposes of estoppel by silence, 鈥渢he duty to speak does not arise until the party against whom estoppel is urged knows or should know that the failure to speak will likely mislead the other party to act to his or her detriment.鈥 Pfaendler, 195 Or App at 570.
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
NW Metals, Inc. v. Driver & Motor Vehicle Servs. Div.
A single legal entity cannot take physical possession of a vehicle from itself, nor can it take possession of a vehicle's ownership record from itself. See OAR 735-152-0000(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Business Law
State v. Kiesau
鈥淭he rule against prosecutorial vouching鈥攊.e., prosecutors giving their personal opinions on the credibility of witnesses鈥攊s rooted in the principle 鈥渢hat counsel鈥檚 credibility opinions are not evidence and are sometimes based on facts not in evidence鈥攖hus, they tend to distract the jury from its duty to base its verdict on the evidence at trial.鈥 State v. Sperou, 365 Or 121, 129, 442 P3d 581 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Borough v. Caldwell
鈥淸A] plaintiff who has won or lost a declaratory judgment action 鈥榤ay * * * bring a subsequent action for other relief, subject to the constraint of the determinations made in the declaratory action,鈥 because 鈥榓 declaratory action determines only what it actually decides and does not have a claim preclusive effect on other contentions that might have been advanced.鈥欌 Restatement (Second) of Judgments 搂33 comment c (鈥淓ffects as to matters not declared鈥); see also Andrew Robinson Int鈥檒, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 547 F3d 48, 56 (1st Cir 2008).
Area(s) of Law:- Trusts and Estates
Mendoza v. Xtreme Truck Sales, LLC
If a plaintiff rejects a defendant鈥檚 offer of judgment and then 鈥渇ails to obtain a judgment more favorable than the offer,鈥 the defendant, and not the plaintiff, is entitled to costs and fees. See generally Mathis v. St. Helens Auto Center, Inc., 367 Or 437, 448-50, 478 P3d 946 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Riverbend Landfill Co. v. Yamhill County
A LUBA order is unlawful in substance 鈥渋f it represent[s] a mistaken interpretation of the applicable law.鈥 Mountain West Investment Corp. v. City of Silverton,175 Or App 556, 559, 30 P3d 420 (2001).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Dept. of Human Services v. D. F. R. M.
Under ORS 419B.368, the party seeking to terminate parental rights must show, by way of clear and convincing evidence, that the termination of parental rights is in the best interest of the child.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Butler
When a defendant repeatedly creates new profiles shortly after being blocked by a victim, and the content of the messages posted by those profiles could lead to the inference that it was more likely than not that defendant was attempting to contact the victim, the conduct likely amounts to contact for purposes of conditions of no-contact. See State v. Crombie, 267 Or App 705, 711, 341 P3d 841 (2014).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. C.L.
To permit commitment on the basis of dangerousness to others, the state must establish "that actual future violence is highly likely." State v. M. A., 276 Or App at 629. 鈥淧ast acts, including verbal acts, can justify a finding of dangerousness, if they 鈥榝orm a foundation for predicting future dangerousness.鈥欌 M. R., 225 Or App at 574.
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
State v. J.D.J
In order to demonstrate that an individual in incapable of caring for their own wellbeing, the State must "prove that the person 'is unable to provide for his or her basic personal needs in a way that leaves the person at nonspeculative risk of serious physical harm鈥攎eaning that the person's safe survival will be compromised鈥攊n the near future.'" State v. R. L. M., 309 Or App 545, 548-49(2021) (quoting State v. M. A. E., 299 Or App 231, 240 (2019)).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
State v. Martin
If cross examination does not increase the reliability of a statement admitted pursuant to a firmly rooted hearsay exception, then, by definition, allowing confrontation would not provide defendant a meaningful opportunity to test the veracity of the evidence for purposes of due process. See Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 484.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Peterson Mach. Co. v. May
"Equity has no power to compel a man who changes employers to wipe clean the slate of his memory." Peerless Pattern Co. v. Pictorial Rev. Co., 147 AD 715, 717, 132 NYS 37 (NY App Div 1911).
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Patton v. Cox
"We must affirm despite trial court error if there is little likelihood that the error affected the verdict." State v. Parkerson, 310 Ore. App. 271, 278, 484 P3d 356 (2021). "To make that determination, the court considers the instructions as a whole and in the context of the evidence and record at trial, including the parties' theories of the case with respect to the various charges and defenses at issue." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
State v. Brown
鈥淧reservation rules are 'pragmatic as well as prudential,' and they are intended to promote the administration of justice, not subvert it.鈥 Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209, 220, 191 P3d 637 (2008).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Tokarski v. Wildfang
When a director acted in a way that was clearly prohibited by the governing documents, or failed to take an action that was clearly required by the governing documents, a factfinder could find that the director acted with reckless disregard to the corporation's best interest, as that interest has been defined by the corporation's governing documents, and, thus, with reckless disregard to the attendant breach of fiduciary duty. WSB Investments, LLC v. Pronghorn Devel. Co., LLC, 269 Or App 342, 362 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
Dept. of Human Services v. C. W.
To change a permanency plan from reunification to anything else, under ORS 419B.476, DHS must prove by a preponderance of the evidence both: (1) that DHS made "reasonable efforts" to reunify the child with mother; and (2) that, notwithstanding those efforts, mother's progress was not sufficient to allow reunification. Dept. of Human Services v. V. A. R., 301 Ore. App. 565, 567, 456 P3d 681 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Pistol Resources, LLC v. McNeely
The material terms of an easement agreement are explicitly "to obtain the right to use the existing roads and to construct and use roads across lands of the other for forest management purposes and for the purpose of transporting logs and other forest products, agricultural products and minerals" and desired to "grant, one to the other, such rights." Sander v. Nicholson, 306 Ore. App. 167, 174, 473 P3d 1113, rev den, 367 Ore. 290, 476 P.3d 1255 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
State v. Alvarado
Under the Mayfield test, evidence must be logically relevant and have a probative value substantial enough to outweigh any attendant danger of unfair prejudice. Mayfield, 302 Ore. at 645.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Anotta
Pursuant to ORS 137.010, it is error for the court to impose that fee outside the defendant's presence because doing so prevents the defendant from arguing for such a suspension. State v. Baccaro, 300 Or. App. 131, 137 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Gayman
Operators of motor assisted scooters are not generally subject to the provisions of the vehicle code that apply to motor vehicles and their operators because motor assisted scooters are not physically capable of operating in the same manner as a motor vehicle, and the vehicle code reflects that distinction.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Much v. Doe
鈥淎n application for an order is a motion. Every motion, unless made during trial, shall be in writing, shall state with particularity the grounds therefor, and shall set forth the relief or order sought.鈥 ORCP 14.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Tharp
鈥淸A]n inference cannot be "supported by mere speculation" but "must be reasonable, based on the record.鈥 See Aguirre-Rodriguez II, 367 Or. at 623
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Anderson v. Sullivan
Although a court may deny fees on fees in connection with unsuccessful aspects of a fee request, it is legally incorrect to say that a party "cannot" recover any fees on fees unless all of the requested fees were awarded.
Area(s) of Law:- Landlord Tenant
State v. Berglund
A "court's sentencing authority exists solely by virtue of a statutory grant of power and therefore cannot be exercised in any manner not specifically authorized." State v. Coventry, 290 Or App. 463, 464 (2018). However, a claim is not precluded by this rule when a proceeding for violating a condition of probation is initiated 鈥渄uring the probation period.鈥 State v. Ludwig, 218 Or 483, 492 (1959).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Hernandez v. Catholic Health Initiatives
Anyone qualifying as a "person" under ORS 659A.001(9) may be an aider or abettor of an unlawful employment practice in a way that subjects them to liability under ORS 659A.030(1)(g).
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
State v. Escudero
Absent an independent constitutional justification, a drug-detecting dog generally cannot, consistent with Article I, section 9, sniff a car for drugs during a traffic stop. State v. Soto-Navarro, 309 Or. App. 218, 223 (2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
State v. Shevyakov
Asking for consent to search, including requesting that a suspect perform FSTs, constitutes impermissible interrogation unless the law precludes the use of the person鈥檚 refusal against that person at trial.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Gladd v. Lucarelli
A FAPA restraining order is available upon a showing that (1) the Petitioner has been the victim of abuse committed by the Respondent within the 180 days preceding the filing of the petition, (2) there is an imminent danger of further abuse to the Petitioner, and (3) the Respondent represents a credible threat to the physical safety of the Petitioner or the Petitioner鈥檚 child. ORS 107.718(1)
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Etzel
Scientific knowledge cannot assist the trier of fact if it is not 'scientifically valid.'听State v. O'Key, 321 Ore. 285, 293, 899 P2d 663 (1995).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Jenkins v. Cain
鈥淔or claims of ineffective counsel based on failure to investigate, establishing the performance prong is a fact specific endeavor, which must consider the 鈥榗ontext of the legal proceeding at issue.鈥欌 Snyder v. Amsberry, 306 Or. App. 439, 449-450 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State ex rel. Kotek v. Fagan
"A writ of mandamus may be issued to any inferior court, corporation, board, officer or person, to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins, as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station[.]鈥澨齇RS 34.110.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Department of Human Services v. K.S.S.
To change a permanency plan from reunification to adoption, 鈥渢he proponent of the change must prove that, despite DHS鈥檚 reasonable efforts to reunify the parent with his or her child, the parent has not made sufficient progress for the ward to safely return home.鈥 Dept. of Human Services v. C. E., 288 Or App 649, 656, 406 P3d 211 (2017) (internal quotation听 marks听 omitted); ORS 419B.476(2)(a).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State V. Bock 310 Or App 329 (2021)
The plain view doctrine does not apply to digital searches because 鈥渆lectronic devices contain 鈥榰nprecedented鈥 amounts of personal information, and, unlike physical searches, searches of electronic devices require examination of at least some information that is beyond the scope of the warrant.鈥 State v. Mansor, 363 Or 185, 208, 220, 421 P3d 323 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure