United States Supreme Court (3 summaries)
Health & Hosp. Corp. v. Talevski
A statute creates a 搂1983-enforceable right when the statute 鈥渦nambiguously confer[s] individual federal rights. Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 535 U.S. 273, 280 (2002).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights 搂 1983
Carson v. Makin
Programs that prohibit private beneficiaries from using public funds at religious entities violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Shoop v. Twyford
"A transportation order that allows a prisoner to search for new evidence is not 'necessary or appropriate in aid of' a federal court鈥檚 adjudication of a habeas corpus action, 28 U.S.C. 搂1651(a), when the prisoner has not shown that the desired evidence would be admissible in connection with a particular claim for relief."
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted (2 summaries)
Garland v. Gonzalez
District Courts do not have jurisdiction to grant class-wide injunctive relief under the Immigration and Nationality Act. 8 U.S.C. 搂1252(f)(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Brown v. Davenport
A petitioner must satisfy the burdens for both the Brecht and the AEDPA tests in order to qualify for habeas relief.
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
9th Circuit Court of Appeals (11 summaries)
Ayanian v. Garland
A motion to reopen will be granted when a petitioner produces new, material evidence that the conditions of their country of origin have changed that sufficiently establishes 鈥減rima facie eligibility for the relief sought.鈥 Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Forbes Media LLC v. U.S.
Records may be unsealed when they have historically been made available to the public, when public access is beneficial to the procedure, and when unsealing the records is not outweighed by a compelling governmental interest. In re Copley Press, Inc., 518 F.3d 1022, 1026 (9th Cir. 2008).
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
Grier v. Finjan Holdings, Inc.
Proof of scienter is not required to prove Section 14(e) claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 搂 78n(e). Varjabedian v. Emulex Corp., 888 F.3d 399, 407 (9th Cir. 2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Corporations
Singh v. Garland
Under Flores Molina, an asylum applicant has faced past persecution when they have repeatedly fled their homes after receiving 鈥渋mmediate threat[s] of severe physical violence or death.鈥 Flores Molina v. Garland, 37 F.4th 626, 634 (9th Cir. 2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Reichert v. Rapid Investments, Inc.
In Washington, a contract is formed when both parties accept services after they have a 鈥渞easonable opportunity to reject [the] offered services.鈥 Jones v. Brisbin, 247 P.2d 891, 894 (Wash. 1952).
Area(s) of Law:- Arbitration
Mejia v. Miller
Under Bivens, 鈥渁n implied damages remedy鈥 when federal officers perform an unreasonable search and seizure. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Egbert, limits the availability of a Bivens cause of action in "new contexts" if there is,听鈥淸A]ny rational reason ... to think that Congress is better suited to weigh the costs and benefits鈥 is enough to preclude extending Bivens."听Egbert v. Boule, 142 S. Ct. 1793, 1805 (2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Qualified Immunity
Eaton v. Blewett
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, prisoners must exhaust 鈥渟uch administrative remedies as are available鈥 before bringing a claim to federal court. 42 U.S.C. 搂 1997e(a). However, if a claim is not barred if a remedy is effectively unavailable. McBride v. Lopez, 807 F.3d 982, 986 (9th Cir. 2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
U.S. v. Rosenow
The Fourth Amendment encompasses a private party鈥檚 search if the private party is acting 鈥渁s an agent of the Government or with the participation of knowledge of any governmental official.鈥 United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113 (1984).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Johnson v. City of Grants Pass
鈥淭he Eighth Amendment prohibits the imposition of criminal penalties for sitting, sleeping, or lying outside on public property for homeless individuals who cannot obtain shelter.鈥 Martin v. City of Boise, 902 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Ochoa v. Public Consulting Group, Inc.
State action exists when the Plaintiff shows that her rights were deprived 鈥渂y a rule of conduct imposed by the state or by a person for whom the State is responsible.鈥 Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 937 (1982).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights 搂 1983
Wright v. SEIU Local 503
In order to establish a claim under 42 U.S.C. 搂 1983, a plaintiff must demonstrate that a defendant 鈥渄eprived [the plaintiff] of a right secured by the Constitution鈥 and 鈥渁cted under color of state law.鈥 Collins v. Womancare, 878 F.2d 1145, 1147 (9th Cir. 1989 (citation omitted).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights 搂 1983
Oregon Supreme Court (31 summaries)
State v. A.R.H.
Under ORS 163A.030, 鈥淸t]he person who is the subject of the hearing has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the person is rehabilitated and does not pose a threat to the safety of the public.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Living Essentials, LLC.
Under ORS 646.608(1)(b) and (1)(e), a business practice is unlawful if it 鈥淸c]auses likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding as to the source, . . . approval, or certification of . . . goods鈥 or it 鈥淸r]epresents that . . . goods . . . have . . . approval, characteristics, . . . uses, benefits, quantities or qualities that the . . . goods . . . do not have.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Business Law
State v. Mott
In deciding whether to grant a post-opinion motion to dismiss, the Court of Appeals should weigh a number of factors including whether the motion is unopposed, whether the dismissal would allow a party to avoid legal consequences, and if there are compelling practical consequences the appealing party wishes to avoid. State v. Lasheski, 312 Or App 714, 721-22 P3d 1118 (2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
Wilhelms v. Rosenblum
ORS 250.035(2)(a) requires ballot-title captions to 鈥渞easonably identify[y] the subject matter of the state measure. ORS 250.035(2)(b) requires that yes statements be 鈥渟imple and understandable statement[s] . . . that describe[] the result if the state measure is approved.鈥 ORS 250.035(2)(d) requires that the summaries 鈥渟ummarize[e] the state measure and its major effect.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Ballot Titles
Lawrence v. Oregon State Fair Council
Under State v. Hitz, a party must not be 鈥渁mbushed, or misled or denied an opportunity鈥 to respond to an opposing party鈥檚 or court鈥檚 statements. State v. Hitz, 307 Or 183, 189, 766 P2d 373 (1988).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
In re DuBoff
Under RPC 1.8(a), a lawyer who enters into a business transaction with a client must obtain the client鈥檚 informed consent by providing 鈥渋n a writing signed by the client, [] the essential terms of the transaction鈥︹
Area(s) of Law:- Professional Responsibility
State v. Craigen
鈥淥nce an attorney is appointed or retained, there can be no interrogation of a defendant concerning the events surrounding the crime charged unless the attorney representing the defendant on that charge is notified and afforded a reasonable opportunity to attend.鈥 State v. Sparklin, 296 Or 85, 93, 672 P2d 1182 (1983).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Huggett v. Kelly
Under Watkins v. Ackley, 370 Or. 604, 523 P.3d 86 (2022), petitioners are eligible for post-conviction relief when their cases were decided by nonunanimous jury verdicts, unless the State raises a procedural defense.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Jones v. Brown
Under Watkins v. Ackley, 370 Or. 604, 523 P.3d 86 (2022), the Court held that Ramos applied to all decisions decided by nonunanimous juries, even if the decisions were finalized before Ramos.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Watkins v. Ackley
Under ORS 138.530(1)(a), post-conviction relief based on the denial of constitutional rights is appropriate when the rights at issue are 鈥渃onsequential in the criminal [] proceeding鈥 and 鈥渙ffensive to our judicial sense of fairness.鈥 Brooks v. Gladden, 226 Or 191, 204 (1961) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
State v Delaney
Under ORS 132.560(3), a court may sever claims from joinder when 鈥渢he state or defendant is substantially prejudiced by a joinder of offenses . . .鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Colgrove
ORS 138.105(5) states 鈥淸t]he appellate court has no authority to review the validity of the defendant鈥檚 plea of guilty or no contest, or a conviction based on the defendant鈥檚 plea of guilty or no contest.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
State v. Fox
Under the American Rule, crime victims who have filed civil lawsuits are able to recover economic damages but they are precluded from recovering attorney fees.
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
I. H. v. Ammi
Under OEC 507-1, correspondence between a certified advocate and victim is privileged unless the victim has brought an action against the certified advocate or the program that the certified advocate works through.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Ralston
When making a post-trial claim of prejudice, the defendant must show 鈥渁 more concrete likelihood鈥 that there was 鈥渁ctual prejudice鈥 that affected the preparation for the defense. State v. Mende, 304 OR 18, 22-23 (1987).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Murdoch v. Dep鈥檛 of Motor Vehicles Servs. Div.
Under ORS 813.130 (2017), officers are required to inform drivers of the enumerated rights and consequences of refusing a breathalyzer and shall present the information 鈥渟ubstantially in the form prepared by the Department of Transportation.鈥 Additional explanation of legal consequences is not prohibited.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Burris
ORS 166.250(1) states 鈥渆xcept as otherwise provided under ORS . . . 166.270 . . . a person commits the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm if the person knowingly: . . . (C) [h]as been convicted of a felony[.]鈥 ORS 166.270(4) provides exceptions to being a felon in possession of a firearm if the person has only been convicted of one felony and they finished their sentence more than fifteen years ago.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Thompson
The exigency exception to warrantless seizures requires that the police have probable cause and that an exigent circumstance, one that requires prompt action, exists. State v. McCarthy, 369 Or. 129, 142 (2021). Police cannot extend the exigent circumstance by not promptly seeking a warrant. State v. Fondren, 285 Or 361, 366-67 (1979).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Sills v. State
The fugitive dismissal rule grants appellate courts the authority to dismiss an appeal made by a defendant who fled the court鈥檚 jurisdiction. State v. Moss, 352 OR 46, 50-51 (2012).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
E.J.T. v. Jefferson County
The Vulnerable Person Act allows for a suit against a public body. Additionally, the child-abuse-reporting statutes do not create a liability for a public body.
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
State v. Hershey
Article I, section 17 of the Oregon Constitution guarantees the right to a jury trial in civil cases that historically used jury trials before the Oregon Constitution was enacted and 鈥渃ases 鈥榦f like nature.鈥欌 Horton v. Or. Health & Sci. Univ., 376 P3d 998 (Or. 2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Carlisle
A person commits third degree sexual abuse when 鈥(a) [t]he person subjects another person to sexual contact and: (A) [t]he victim does not consent to the sexual contact[.]鈥 ORS 163.415(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Gist v. ZoAn Management, Inc.
Under ORS 652.360(1), employers cannot create 鈥渟pecial contract[s] or any other means鈥 to circumvent statutes related to paying wages.
Area(s) of Law:- Arbitration
Lowell v. Wright
The First Amendment public comment defense applies when the speech involves a public concern and can be examined using a true-false analysis. Neumann v. Liles, 358 Or 706, 714 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
Marietta Mem'l Hosp. Emp. Health Benefit Plan v. DaVita Inc.
When health care plan terms are applied uniformly to all plan participants, the plan does not violate the Medicare Secondary Payer statute because it does not 鈥渄ifferentiate in the benefits it provides鈥 or takes into account Medicare eligibility.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Querbach v. Dept. of Human Services
鈥 鈥楻easonable cause鈥 is a subjectively and objectively reasonable belief, given all of the circumstances and based on specific and articulable facts.鈥 OAR 413-015-0115(58).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Abraham v. Corizon Health, Inc.
Pursuant to ORS 659A.400(2), 鈥減ublic accommodation does not include . . . a local correction facility . . . [or] an institution, bona fide club or place of accommodation that is in its nature distinctly private.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
Robinette v. SAIF
ORS 656.214 defines 鈥渋mpairment鈥 as 鈥渢he loss of use or function of a body part or system due to the compensable industrial injury.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
City of Portland v. Bartlett
Under ORS 192.390, public records shall be made available after twenty-five years 鈥渘otwithstanding ORS 192.355.鈥 ORS 192.355(9)(a) creates an exemption for the disclosure of privileged documents.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Harris
The Wiretap Act requires a 鈥減rincipal prosecuting attorney鈥 to authorize wiretaps and it prohibits courts from admitting evidence collected from a wiretap in violation of the act. 18 USC 搂搂 2515 - 2516.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Jackson
The Court reasoned that the legislature intended ORS 19.420(3) to apply when the lost record is 鈥減ractically necessary鈥 for commencing an appeal, presenting the issues to the appellate court, or for the court to resolve the issues on appeal. The Court found that the issue required the court to review the 鈥渢otality of the circumstances鈥 and therefore held that Exhibit 15 was practically necessary to do so.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Oregon Court of Appeals (18 summaries)
DeHart v. Tofte
Under ORS 31.150, a defendant can succeed on an anti-SLAPP motion to strike after demonstrating that the defendant鈥檚 actions were in furtherance of free speech that related to a matter of public interest and that the plaintiffs had not provided evidence to support a prima facie case for their claim.
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
State v. Skotland
At trial, the state cannot comment on a defendant鈥檚 failure to produce evidence when the evidence is 鈥渞elated to the defendant鈥檚 lack of knowledge.鈥 (internal quotations omitted) State v. Mayo, 303 Or App 525, 534, 465 P3d 267 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc v. OHA
Under 42 USC section 1396r-8(d)(5), a state can 鈥渞equire, as a condition of coverage or payment for a covered outpatient drug . . . the approval of the drug before its dispensing for any medically accepted indication[.]鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
State v. Priester
鈥淎 criminal defendant has the right to have their sentence announced in open court.鈥 ORS 137.030(1). A probation condition is unconstitutionally vague under the Due Process Clause if people with common intelligence would 鈥渘ecessarily guess at its meaning鈥 or if it would 鈥渁llow[] those who enforce it to do so in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner.鈥 State v. Farris, 312 Or App 618, 624, (2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. M. D. D.
ORS 174.120(1) states that the statutory time clock 鈥渆xclude[es] the first day and include[es] the last day, unless the first day falls upon any legal holiday or on Saturday, in which case the last day is also excluded.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
Allison v. Dolich
Under ORS 659A.030(1), unlawful employment practices occur when 鈥渁ny person, whether an employer or an employee, [] aid[s], abet[s], incite[s], compel[s], or coerce[s] the doing of any [forbidden acts].鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Department of Human Services v. H.K.
When family reunification is the desired outcome for a permanency hearing, DHS must show it 鈥渉as made reasonable efforts for the ward to safely return home.鈥 ORS 419B.476(2)(a). It was not sufficient that DHS only facilitated one in-person family therapy session with the mother.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Klamath Irrigation District v. Oregon Water Resources Dept.
Under ORCP 29 B, if, after weighing whether the absent party would be subject to a prejudicial judgment, the extent a prejudicial judgment can be avoided, whether a judgment would be adequate, and whether the Plaintiff has another adequate remedy available, a judgment cannot be made 鈥渋n equity and good conscience,鈥 the party would be indispensable.
Area(s) of Law:- Water Rights
State v. Williams
For testimony to be admissible, 鈥淸i]t must be relevant OEC 401; it must possess sufficient indicia of scientific validity and be helpful to the jury, OEC 702; and its prejudicial effect must not outweigh its probative value, OEC 403.鈥 State v. Southard, 218 P.3d 104 (Or. 2009).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Hershey
Article I, section 17 of the Oregon Constitution guarantees the right to a jury trial in civil cases that historically used jury trials before the Oregon Constitution was enacted and 鈥渃ases 鈥榦f like nature.鈥欌 Horton v. Or. Health & Sci. Univ., 376 P3d 998 (Or. 2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Wildlife Law
Marteeny v. Brown
Under ORS 144.650, 鈥淸w]hen an application for a pardon, commutation, or remission is made to the Governor, a copy of the application . . . shall be served upon: (a) [t]he district attorney . . . [and] the district attorney . . . shall (a) [n]otify the victim of the crime.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. Delaurent
District attorneys are not law enforcement officers for the purpose of the wiretapping statute, ORS 165.540.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Bostwick
Under ORS 162.355, a person falsely simulates the legal process when they intentionally transmit "fake, imitation, counterfeit, or pretend document that appears to be, in both form and substance, a genuine legal document."
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Davis
To determine whether to admit evidence of uncharged acts of sexual misconduct in trials for sex crimes, the court must use the LeMay factors test, which considers: 鈥(1) the similarity of the uncharged misconduct; (2) the temporal proximity of the uncharged acts to the charged acts; (3) the frequency of the prior acts; (4) the existence or nonexistence of intervening circumstances; and (5) the need for the evidence in addition to the testimony.鈥 State v. Terry, 309 Or App 459, 465 (2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Aranda
Under OEC 609(1), 鈥淸f]or the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted鈥︹
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
State v. Lee
鈥淸N]o warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath, or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized.鈥 Ore. Const. Art. I, 搂 9.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
NW Metals, Inc. v. DMV
A dismantler may face penalties if they 鈥淸a]cquire[] a motor vehicle or major component part without obtaining a certificate of sale.鈥 ORS 822.137(2)(a).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
State v. Lipka
To determine whether a warrantless search is lawful, it must be 鈥渞easonable to believe that evidence reasonably related to the crime of arrest could be concealed in the location being searched.鈥 State v. Hernandez, 299 Ore. App. 544, 550-51 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure