9th Circuit Court of Appeals (8 summaries)
United States v. Ramos
鈥淎fter conducting de novo review, the district court 鈥榤ay accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.鈥欌 28 U.S.C. 搂636(b)(1)(C).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Umana-Escobar v. Garland
Whether a protected ground meets the required nexus standard is a legal determination that the BIA is required to review de novo under 8 C.F.R. 搂1003.1(d)(3)(ii).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Radu v. Shon
The Hague Convention directs courts to 鈥渁ct expeditiously in proceedings for the return of children.鈥 Convention Art. 11.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Yamashita v. LG Chem., Ltd.
鈥淔or a claim to arise out of a defendant鈥檚 forum contacts requires causation, while a claim can relate to those contacts, even absent causation, where, for example, 鈥榓 company . . . serves a market for a product in the forum State and the product malfunctions there.鈥欌 Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 141 S.Ct. 1017, 1026鈥27 (2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
Riley v. Volkswagen Group of America
Under BMW v. Gore, three guidelines establish 鈥渨hether punitive damage awards comply with due process: (1) the reprehensibility of defendant鈥檚 conduct; (2) the disparity between . . . harm suffered . . . [and] punitive damages; and (3) the difference between the punitive damages and . . . civil penalties . . . in comparable cases.鈥 BMW v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 575 (1996).
Area(s) of Law:- Remedies
Mobilize the Message, LLC. v. Bonta
鈥淸T]he First Amendment does not prevent restrictions directed at commerce or conduct from imposing incidental burdens on speech.鈥 Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 564 U.S. 552 (2011).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Kassas v. State Bar of Cal.
鈥淸A]n individual debtor [is not discharged] from any debt鈥攖o the extent such debt is for a fine, penalty, or forfeiture . . . and is not compensation for actual pecuniary loss.鈥 11 U.S.C. 搂523(a)(7).
Area(s) of Law:- Bankruptcy Law
U.S.A. v. Cynthia Montoya
Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(3)(B), if a defendant pleads guilty, the government 鈥渨ill recommend, or agree not to oppose, the defendant鈥檚 request, that a particular . . . sentencing range is appropriate, but the defendant has no right to withdraw the plea if the court does not follow the recommendation or request.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Oregon Supreme Court (14 summaries)
State v. Lee
A warrant application satisfies the requirement in ORS 133.545(6) when it 鈥減articularly sets forth the facts and circumstances tending to show that the objects of the search are in the places . . . to be searched.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
SAIF Corp. v. Coria
The board鈥檚 order imposing a penalty must 鈥渁rticulate a rational connection between the facts and the legal conclusions it draws from them.鈥 Jenkins v. Bd. of Parole, 335 P.3d. 828 (2014).
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
Picker v. Dep鈥檛 of Revenue
鈥淲here payment of the [disputed] tax, penalty, and interest would be an undue hardship, plaintiff may file an affidavit alleging undue hardship.鈥 ORS 305.419(3).
Area(s) of Law:- Tax Law
Scott-Schwalbach v. Rosenblum
For a certified ballot title, 鈥淭he caption must 鈥榬easonably identif[y] the subject matter鈥; 鈥渢he 鈥榶es鈥 result statement鈥 must state 鈥渢he result鈥 of measure approval; and the summary must summarize the 鈥渕easure and its major effect.鈥 ORS 250.035(2)(a), (b), and (d).
Area(s) of Law:- Ballot Titles
State v. Martin
鈥淎 parolee must have an opportunity to be heard and to show . . . if he did [violate parole conditions], that circumstances in mitigation suggest that the violation does not warrant revocation.鈥 Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 488 (1972).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
State v. H.D.E.
鈥淸A] person initiates [a] false report 鈥榠f the person falsely alleges new circumstances to which the law enforcement agency is reasonably likely to respond as a current separate crime or emergency itself.鈥欌 State v. Branch, 362 Or 351, 368 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Jimenez v. Dep鈥檛 of Revenue
ORS 305.437(2) provides, in pertinent part, 鈥(a) A taxpayer鈥檚 position is 鈥榝rivolous鈥 if there was no objectively reasonable basis for asserting that position[; and] (b) 鈥榌p]osition鈥 means any . . . argument asserted by a taxpayer without regard to any other . . . argument asserted by the taxpayer.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Tax Law
Skinner and Skinner
鈥淸W]here a money award has been modified on appeal and the only action necessary in the trial court is compliance with the mandate of the appellate court, then the interest on the award, as modified, should run from the date of the original judgment.鈥 Lakin v. Senco Products, Inc., 329 Or. 369 (1999).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
State v. Chitwood
鈥淸A] defendant asserting plain error must demonstrate that the prosecutor鈥檚 comments were so prejudicial that an instruction to disregard them would not have been sufficiently curative to assure the court . . . that the defendant received a fair trial.鈥 State v. Montez, 324 Or. 343, 357 (1996).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Shedrick
Under ORS 161.095(2), to obtain a conviction, the state must prove that the defendant 鈥渁cts with a culpable mental state with respect to each material element of the offense that necessarily requires a culpable mental state.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Benson
鈥淭o succeed on a claim of a due process violation caused by a preindictment delay, a defendant must 鈥榮how that the delay actually prejudiced the defendant, and that the government culpably caused the delay.鈥欌 State v. Stokes, 350 Or 44, 64 (2011).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Scott v. Kesselring
鈥淸T]he issue of liability for harm actually resulting from defendant鈥檚 conduct properly depends on whether that conduct unreasonably created a foreseeable risk to a protected interest of the kind of harm that befell the plaintiff.鈥 Fazzolari v. Portland School Dist. No. 1J, 303 Or. 1, 17 (1987).
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
State v. Rusen
Under ORS 138.105(9), 鈥淭he appellate court has no authority to review any part of a sentence resulting from a stipulated sentencing agreement between the state and the defendant."
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
Bates v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co.
鈥淎n action may be brought under ORS 124.100 for financial abuse . . . [w]hen a vulnerable person requests that another person transfer to the vulnerable person any money or property that the other person holds or controls and that belongs to . . . the vulnerable person . . . and the other person, without good cause, either continues to hold the money or property or fails to take reasonable steps to make the money or property readily available.鈥 ORS 124.110(1)(b).
Area(s) of Law:- Elder Law
Oregon Court of Appeals (28 summaries)
State v. McIntire
鈥淸T]here is a critical difference * * * between arguing to the trial court as factfinder that it should be persuaded to decide the case in a particular way and arguing to the court as legal decisionmaker that only one outcome is permitted as a matter of law.鈥 State v. M.D.M., 320 Or. App. 394, 396 (2022) (emphasis in original).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Blain v. Cain
鈥淚n the posture of a post-conviction proceeding . . . a petitioner must establish a denial of rights of constitutional magnitude 鈥榠n the proceedings resulting in [the] petitioner鈥檚 conviction.鈥欌 ORS 138.530(1)(a).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Bush v. City of Prineville
鈥淸U]pon appeal of a judgment in an action or suit in which one or more claims are asserted for which the prevailing party may receive an award of attorney fees, the appellate court in its discretion may designate as the prevailing party a party who obtains a substantial modification of the judgment.鈥 ORS 20.077(3)
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
Yoshida v. Watson
鈥淎 motion [for an order declaring that a money award has been satisfied] . . . must include . . . [t]he date or dates and amounts of any payments on the money award. . . . [and a]ny amount that the person believes remains to be paid.鈥 ORS 18.235(3)(c), (d).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
Cent. Or. Landwatch v. Deschutes Cnty.
Under Deschutes County Code (DCC) 22.36.010(B)(1), 鈥渁 land use permit is void two years after the date the discretionary decision becomes final if the use approved in the permit is not initiated within that time period.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
State v. Eggers
Conviction of 鈥渁 misdemeanor that has, as an element of the offense, the use . . . of physical force,鈥 qualifies the court to prohibit possession of a firearm or ammunition. ORS 166.255(3)(e).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Dep鈥檛 of Hum. Servs. v. J.E.D.V.
鈥淭he test for parental unfitness focuses on 鈥榯he detrimental effect of the parent鈥檚 conduct or condition on the child, not just the seriousness of the parent鈥檚 conduct or condition in the abstract.'鈥 State ex rel SOSCF v. Stillman, 333 Or. 135, 146 (2001).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. Williams
鈥淸T]he burden of proving jurisdictional facts in Oregon criminal cases ultimately lies with the state.鈥 State v. Hill, 277 Or. App. 751, 766 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Guzek v. Bd. of Parole
Under ORS 144.228(1)(b), 鈥淭he board is to set a release date for any person who was originally sentenced . . . as a dangerous offender when [it can] affirmatively find that 鈥榯he condition which made the prisoner dangerous is absent or in remission.鈥欌
Area(s) of Law:- Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
State v. Howard
ORS 166.075(2) provides: 鈥淎s used in this section and ORS 166.085, 鈥榓buse鈥 means to deface, damage, defile or otherwise physically mistreat in a manner likely to outrage public sensibilities.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Perkins
鈥淸A] trial court鈥檚 failure to deliver [jury] instructions . . . that the defendant acted with a culpable mental state with respect to the value of the property he took [is erroneous].鈥 State v. Shedrick, 370 Or. 255, 270 (2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Manning v. Kelly
The prohibition on vouching ensures 鈥渢hat the jury鈥檚 role in assessing witness credibility is not usurped by another witness鈥檚 opinion testimony.鈥 State v. Chandler, 380 P.3d 932, 936 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. Escobar
鈥淸E]yewitness identification evidence . . . must include, at minimum, proof under OEC 602 that the proffered eyewitness has personal knowledge of the matters to which the witness will testify, and proof under OEC 701 that any identification is both rationally based on the witness鈥檚 first-hand perceptions and helpful to the trier of fact.鈥 State v. Lawson/James, 352 Or 724 (2012).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Martin
鈥淸T]he doctrine of the law of the case is inapplicable in light of new facts or evidence bearing on the legal issue in question.鈥 State ex rel. Orbanco Real Estate Serv. v. Allen, 720 P.2d 365 (1986).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v. Hinkle
鈥淚n case of any transfer of interest, the action may be continued by or against the original party, unless the court upon motion directs the person to whom the interest is transferred to be substituted in the action or joined with the original party.鈥 ORCP 34 E.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Tow
Under ORS 162.315(2)(c), 鈥溾楻esists鈥 means the use or threatened use of violence . . . or any other means that creates a substantial risk of physical injury to any person and includes . . . behavior clearly intended to prevent being taken into custody.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
In re Weatherspoon & Stevens
鈥淭he court shall not order joint custody, unless both parents agree to the terms and conditions of the order鈥 ORS 107.169(3)
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. Meyers
"A statute is not vague simply because the state can choose to prosecute a person under different statutes with different penalties." United States v. Batchelder, 442 US 114, 123-26, (1979).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Williams v. Laney
鈥淎nother witness鈥檚 description of the complaining witness as a 鈥榲ictim鈥 conveys an opinion that the complaining witness is telling the truth.鈥 State v. Sperou, 442 P.3d. 581 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Dept. of Human Services v. A. H.
鈥淚n determining whether a parent was on notice that his or her progress would be assessed based upon particular facts, we look to the petition, the jurisdictional judgment, and documentation attached to the jurisdictional judgment providing the parent notice as to the conditions for reunification.鈥 Dept. of Human Services v. C. E., 288 Or App 649, 656-57, 406 P3d 211 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Ochoa-Perez
ORS 162.315, resisting arrest, does not require that a defendant intentionally create a substantial risk of harm.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Aponte v. State of Oregon
鈥淯nder Perez . . . the relevant question for escape-clause purposes is 鈥榳hether a claim reasonably could have been raised from counsel鈥檚 perspective; petitioner鈥檚 age and other personal characteristics have no role in the analysis.鈥欌 Perez v. Cain, 367 Or 96, 113, 473 P.3d 540, 549 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Dep't of Hum. Servs. v. M.E.M.
"On a motion to dismiss dependency jurisdiction, DHS bears the burden of proving by the preponderance of the evidence there is a present, credible threat of actual harm to the child and demonstrating 'a nexus between the allegedly risk-causing conduct and the harm to the child.'" DHS v. JM, 267 P.3d 402 (Or. Ct. App. 2015); DHS v. CJT, 308 P.3d 307 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Dep鈥檛 of Hum. Servs. v. J. H.
鈥淸W]here one is holding over after expiration of his term under claim or color of right, his official acts are those of a de facto officer, and are valid as to the public and third persons,and cannot be collaterally assailed.鈥 Hamlin v. Kassafer, 15 Or. 456 (1887).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Glickert
鈥淭he 鈥榗ritical question鈥 that distinguishes 鈥榬elaxed conversation鈥 from 鈥榗oercive questioning鈥 is 鈥 whether, given all the circumstances, a reasonable person would believe that their freedom of movement [is] being significantly restricted.鈥 State v. Reyes-Herrera, 500 P.3d 1 at 61-62 (Or. 2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Morris
鈥淎 stop is lawful if the officer had an actual subjective belief that the person stopped committed a specific crime or was about to commit a specific crime, and the officer鈥檚 subjective belief was objectively reasonable based on the totality of the circumstances at the time of the stop.鈥 State v. Maciel-Figueroa, 361 Or. 163, 165-6 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Nolen
Under OEC 404(3), 鈥渢he use of other-acts evidence 鈥榯o prove that a person has a propensity to engage in certain types of behavior and that the person acted in conformance with that propensity on a particular occasion,鈥欌 is barred.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Waterman
Under ORS 164.365(1)(a)(A), a conviction of first-degree criminal mischief requires proof, among other elements, that Defendant "[d]amage[d] ... property of another***[i]n an amount exceeding $1,000[.]"
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law