Cole Burgess

United States Supreme Court (8 summaries)

Luis v. United States

A pretrial injunction prohibiting a criminal defendant from using personal assets unrelated to the criminal offense to retain counsel is a violation of the Sixth Amendment.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Hawkins v. Community Bank

Lenders can seek repayment from a spouse of the business owner who took the loan.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

Sturgeon v. Frost

The National Park Service regulations regarding ‘non-public’ lands within Alaska are inconsistent with the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc.

Whether the Federal Circuit properly applied a rigid two-part analysis to determine enhanced damages for patent infringement?

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents

Maryland v. Kulbicki

When considering an ineffectiveness of counsel claim, counsel’s performance must be assessed against technology or information that was generally accepted at the time of counsel’s performance.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Michigan v. EPA

The EPA must consider costs and quantifiable benefits when imposing Clean Air Act regulations on power plants.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Environmental Law

Zivotofsky v. Kerry

The Constitution grants the Executive Branch alone the power to determine national policy on the status or recognition of foreign sovereigns.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins

Whether a plaintiff can sustain Article III standing by showing only a violation of a federal statute, or whether the plaintiff must also show concrete harm to sustain Article III standing?

Area(s) of Law:
  • Standing

United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted (8 summaries)

Welch v. United States

Whether the ruling in Johnson v United States applies retroactively, which held that increasing sentencing under the Armed Career Criminal Act’s residual clause violates due process; and whether the lower court erred in finding that “robbery by sudden snatching” qualifies as a violent felony under the residual clause of the Act?

Area(s) of Law:
  • Post-Conviction Relief

Beylund v. Levi

Whether, without a warrant, a State can make an individual’s refusal to take a chemical test to check for intoxicants a criminal offense?

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Geneva College v. Burwell, Zubik v. Burwell,

Whether the process to receive an accommodation under the Affordable Care Act, which allows a non-profit religious organization to not pay for mandated coverage of contraception, relieves the substantial burden under the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Little Sisters v. Burwell, Southern Nazarene University v. Burwell

Whether the process to receive an accommodation under the Affordable Care Act, which allows a non-profit religious organization to not pay for mandated coverage of contraception, relieves the substantial burden under the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Voisine v. United States

Whether a domestic violence misdemeanor conviction, with the mens rea of recklessness, can satisfy the federal law prohibiting firearm possession by those convicted of a “misdemeanor crime of domestic abuse”?

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin

Whether race can be used as a factor in a university admission process?

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Luis v. United States

Whether it is unconstitutional under the 5th and 6th Amendments to restrain a criminal defendant from using assets unrelated to the criminal offense to hire an attorney.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Wellness International Network, Limited v. Sharif

Bankruptcy courts have authority to issue final judgments on whether assets are included in a bankruptcy estate if all parties knowingly and voluntarily consent to the adjudication.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Bankruptcy Law

Oregon Supreme Court (2 summaries)

Association of Oregon Corrections Employees v. DOC

The statutory obligations of the Public Employees Benefit Board are not compatible with the State’s bargaining obligations under the Public Employees Collective Bargaining Act.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

State v. Musser

Evidence obtained from a voluntary consent search must be suppressed when the prior police conduct is unlawful.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Oregon Court of Appeals (22 summaries)

State v. J. C. N.-V.

Under 419C.349(3), a juvenile defendant may be waived into circuit court and tried as an adult when the defendant is aware of the nature, degree of participation, and consequences of the alleged criminal act.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

Sexton v. Persson

To determine whether a sentence is constitutionally proportional under Article I, section 16, of the Oregon Constitution, a court should consider the actual sentence imposed for the offense with the maximum sentence allowed for the greater-included offense.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Post-Conviction Relief

State v. Urie

Under ORS 813.011(3), a 90-day jail sentence must be imposed upon conviction of a Class C felony and a court does not have authority to reduce or suspend this sentence in any way.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

State v. Blasingame

On appeal, a court has the discretion to recognize challenges that were neither raised nor preserved at trial, but this discretion should only be exercised cautiously.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

State v. Oregon

A court should suppress evidence obtained during a traffic stop when the officer obtained this evidence by extending the scope of the stop beyond that which reasonably relates to the traffic infraction.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp. v. Vera-Chavez

Under ORS 656.268(1) and ORS 656.268(10), after a claimant has completed an authorized training program, a disability claim can only be closed when the worker is medically stationary and there is sufficient information to determine disability.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

State v. Marquez-Vela

A witness cannot testify to the credibility or truthfulness of another witness. The trier of fact must make these determinations.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Kraai v. Bur. of Fire and Police Dis. & Ret. Fund

Under the Fire and Police Disability and Retirement Fund Rule (FPDR) § 5.7.03(D), a disability claim for an aggravated injury must be submitted within 30 days of objective findings of medical evidence or an expert medical opinion indicating the worsening of the prior work injury.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Disability Law

Weldon v. Bd. of Lic. Pro. Counselors and Therapists

Under ORS 183.650(3), an agency may only modify the ALJ’s finding of fact when there is “clear and convincing evidence” that the finding was incorrect. If a party challenges this modification then the court will review the finding of fact de novo and remand to the agency if the court finds that the modification was an error.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Herrera v. C & M Victor Company

To prove a defamation per se claim, the plaintiff only needs to show that the statement was published and was per se harmful. This is distinguished from an ordinary defamation claim that requires proof of “special harm,” defined as “the loss of something having economic or pecuniary value.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

SAIF v. Tono

Under ORS 656.039(5), workers’ compensation for state-funded home care workers is not limited to state-funded activities.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

State v. Magna/Rivera

Courts may look to several factors to determine whether a defendant’s consent to a search was voluntary or a result of coercion, including: “whether physical force was used or threatened”; “whether weapons were displayed”; “whether the consent was obtained in public”; “whether the person who gives consent is the subject of an investigation”; and “whether the atmosphere surrounding the consent [was] antagonistic or oppressive[.]”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Sullivan

Under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, a warrantless home entry by police is not lawful unless there is an exigent circumstance making the entry necessary; and, for the entry to be lawful, the State must be able to make some showing of the feasibility of obtaining a warrant.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Bova v. City of Medford

The Court has no reason to reverse an award of attorney fees from invalid supplemental judgments; and, the “substantial benefit” doctrine is not applicable unless an important constitutional right applying to all citizens is asserted.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

Dept. of Human Services v. A.B.

In a juvenile case to determine a parent’s jurisdiction of children, a single positive urinalysis taken prior to the trial is not sufficient to establish a substance abuse issue when accompanied by other negative urinalysis taken at the time of the trial.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

Heller v. BNSF Railway Company

To maintain a claim under the Federal Employer’s Liability Act, the plaintiff must show that they knew or had reason to know of the injury within three-years of bringing the claim and must have sufficient facts to show that the injury was caused by work related activities.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

State v. Bell

The state can extend a defendant's probation sentence for failure to make payments conditional to the probation, regardless of the reason for the failure to pay.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Dept. of Human Services v. E. M.

Under ORS 419B.100(1)(c), to obtain exclusive jurisdiction of a child in juvenile court, a nexus between a current risk causing circumstance and risk of harm to the child must be established.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

State v. Pierce

If a judge does not have personal knowledge of the matter in controversy then the judge does not violate the “neutral and detached” requirement of Oregon and federal law when granting search warrants.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Olson

Under OEC 404(3), a court considers six factors to determine whether evidence of prior acts may be admitted to demonstrate intent in a criminal trial.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Vanecek v. Angelozzi

The petitioner has the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the trial counsel failed to provide adequate representation by exercising professional skill and judgment and that the petitioner suffered prejudice as a result.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Post-Conviction Relief

State v. Corkill

A court does not have a duty to sua sponte exclude testimony where the questioning leading to this testimony did not present "vouching" concerns.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Intellectual Property (3 summaries)

Marcel Fashions Group, Inc. v. Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc.

Under the doctrine of claim preclusion, a prior judgment of trademark infringement does not bar a subsequent claim for subsequent trademark infringement.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trademarks
  • , Infringement Actions

Marcel Fashions Group, Inc. v. Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc.

Under the doctrine of claim preclusion, a prior judgment of trademark infringement does not bar a subsequent claim for subsequent trademark infringement.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trademarks
  • , Infringement Actions

In re Cuozzo Speed Techs.

Under 35 U.S.C. §314(d), higher courts are precluded from reviewing a PTO decision to institute inter partes review. When the PTO considers claims under inter partes review, the broadest reasonable interpretation standard should be used to construe the claims.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents