9th Circuit Court of Appeals (3 summaries)
State v. Serbin
State v. Hubbell, 314 Or. App. 844 (2021) held that the crimes of possession and delivery merge because the crime of delivery cannot be committed without the crime of possession.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Pettibone et al. v. Russell
Under Bivens, a court must go through two steps. First, we ask whether the case presents 鈥渁 new Bivens context鈥濃攊.e., is it 鈥渕eaningful[ly]鈥 different from the three cases in which the Court has implied a damages action.鈥 Egbert v. Boule, 142 S. Ct. 1793, 1803 (2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
McKnight v. Uber Techs., Inc.
Under In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig., 779 F.3d 934, 951 (9th Cir. 2015), there are three factors to consider a class settlement a coupon settlement: 鈥(1) whether class members have 鈥榯o hand over more of their own money before they can take advantage of鈥 a credit, (2) whether the credit is valid only 鈥榝or select products or services,鈥 and (3) how much flexibility the credit provides, including whether it expires or is freely transferable.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
Oregon Court of Appeals (16 summaries)
DHS v. M.M.
鈥淭o establish jurisdiction, the Department of Human Services (DHS) must prove that the child鈥檚 conditions or circumstances 鈥榩resent a current threat of serious loss or injury鈥 that is nonspeculative and reasonably likely to be realized.鈥 DHS v. C.J.T., 258 Or App 57, 61-62 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Halvorson
鈥淸I]nvited error is no basis for reversal.鈥 State v. Harris, 362 Or 55, 67, (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
Williamson v. Zielinski
鈥淭he burden of proof to establish that a testator had testamentary capacity is upon the proponent of the will 鈥 [h]owever when a will is executed in due form [the proponent if the will] is entitled to the benefit of a presumption that the testator is competent.鈥 Clauder v. Morser, 204 Or 378, 386 (1955). "A contestant of a will ... bears the burden to establish the existence of 鈥榓 suspicion of undue influence,鈥 meaning that (1) a 鈥榗onfidential relationship鈥 exists between the testator and the beneficiary, 鈥榮uch that the beneficiary held a position of dominance over the testator鈥; and (2) there are 鈥榮uspicious circumstances surrounding the procurement or execution of the will.鈥 Knutsen v. Krippendorf, 124 Or App 299, 308 (1993).
Area(s) of Law:- Trusts and Estates
Botts Marsh, LLC v. City of Wheeler
Under听Gutoski v. Lane County, 155 Or App 369, a LUBA remand would be improper only 鈥渋f (1) the applicant had at least minimally adequate notice of the local government鈥檚 interpretation of its standards in time to submit responsive materials in support of its application鈥 and 鈥(2) the applicant has not shown that it could have put in more evidence with adequate notice.鈥 鈥淚f the local government鈥檚 interpretation 鈥榩lausibly accounts for the text and context鈥 of the provision, then LUBA and [the Court] must defer to that interpretation鈥 Siporen v. City of Medford, 349 Or. 247 (2010).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
State v. Stone
鈥淪econd-degree assault under ORS 163.175(1)(a) requires 鈥榌i]ntentionally or knowingly caus[ing] serious physical injury to another[.]鈥欌 鈥溾橻S]erious physical injury,鈥 鈥 is defined in ORS 161.015(8) to mean 鈥榩hysical injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious and protracted disfigurement, protracted impairment of health or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ.鈥欌
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Morales
鈥淥RS 161.095 provides 鈥 a person is not guilty of an offense unless the person acts with a culpable mental state with respect to each material element of the offense that necessarily requires a culpable mental state鈥 (internal quotations omitted).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Clowdus
鈥淔or purposes of [determining whether there is any evidence to support a defense], the 鈥榪uantum鈥 of evidence is irrelevant, State v. Brown, 306 Or 599, 603 n 3, 761 P2d1300 (1988), as is the existence of contrary evidence, State v. Costanzo, 94 Or App 516, 518 n 1, 766 P2d 415 (1988). 鈥榌T]he court鈥檚 role is not to weigh the evidence, but merely to determine if any evidence would support the defense.鈥 Costanzo, 94 Or App at 518 n 1.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Ovalle
鈥淸ORS 14.210(1)(c)] provides: 鈥楢 judge shall not act as judge if the judge is related to any party, or to the attorney for any party, or to the partner or office associate of any such attorney, by consanguinity or affinity within the third degree.鈥欌
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. Severson
鈥淯nder its 鈥榩ossession theory of UUW,鈥 the state had to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant 鈥榩ossessed the [weapon] with the intent either (1) to employ the [weapon] to inflict harm or injury or (2) to employ the [weapon] to threaten immediate harm or injury.'鈥 State v. McAuliffe, 276 Or. App. 259, 265 (2016). Also, 鈥淸a] person commits the crime of menacing if by word or conduct the person intentionally attempts to place another person in fear of imminent serious physical injury鈥 ORS 163.190(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Steltz v. Cain
鈥淸ORS 34.355 provides 鈥榙iscretionary and implicit authority鈥 for the court to appoint counsel for indigent petitioners in habeas cases. Combs v. Baldwin, 161 Or App 270, 276, 984 P2d 366 (1999).鈥 Under State v. Kacin, 237 Or. App. 66, 73, 240 P3d 1099 (2010), the Court held that the habeas court 鈥渕ust provide enough information to enable appellate court to engage in meaningful review of the court's exercise of discretion.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
State v. Champagne
The court鈥檚 balancing fell within the permissible range of the court鈥檚 discretion, particularly in light of the state鈥檚 need to cross-examine Bourg, the limitations imposed on B鈥檚 testimony, and the use of a limiting instruction. See Powers, 323 Or App at 567-68 (holding that, in light of the LeMay factors, the court acted within its discretion to admit evidence of past abuse to show sexual purpose).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Mejia v. Miller
"The existence of alternative remedial structures is reason enough not to infer a new Bivens cause of action.鈥 Egbert v. Boule, 142 S. Ct. 1793, 1804 (2022),
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights 搂 1983
Seaview Trading, LLC v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
Regarding limitations statutes that bar the collection of taxes, there must be,听鈥渕eticulous compliance by the taxpayer with all named conditions in order to secure the benefit of the limitation.鈥 Lucas v. Pilliod Lumber Co., 281 U.S. 245, 249 (1930)
Area(s) of Law:- Tax Law
State v. Aguilera
"ORS 135.703 is intended to allow civil compromise for Class C felonies that are capable of being punished as misdemeanors by operation of ORS 161.705."
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Serrano
Under State v. Mansor, 363 Or. 185 (2018), individual privacy interests prevent the state from using evidence outside the scope of the original warrant.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Kappouta v. Valiant Integrated Services, LLC.
Under DCWPA, a disinterested observer would need to reasonably conclude that the disclosure was a violation of law related to a defense contract.
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law