Nathan Holden

United States Supreme Court (18 summaries)

Grady v. North Carolina

The Supreme Court will not examine the issue of whether North Carolina's satellite based monitoring is an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment when the State's appellate courts did not first examine the reasonableness of the search.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

OMNICARE, INC. v. LABORERS DIST. COUNCIL CONSTR. INDUSTRY PENSION FUND

A statement in connection with a public stock offering is not an untrue statement of fact strictly because it is incorrect, but rather it also needs to be misleading.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

Alabama Department of Revenue v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

Alabama’s sales and use tax exemption for diesel fuel purchases by motor carriers and water carriers, but not rail carriers, does not violate the Railroad Revitalization and Reform Act, 49 USC 11501 et. seq. because Alabama does not treat similarly situated taxpayers differently and provides sufficient justification for their different tax treatment of water carriers.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tax Law

Kansas v. Nebraska

The recommendations of the Special Master appointed pursuant to the 2007 settlement of Kansas v. Nebraska should be followed to account for water allocation from the Republican River Basin under the Republican River Compact.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Water Rights

Hana Financial, Inc, v. Hana Bank, et. al.

Trademark priority should be considered a factual question to be determined by a jury.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trademarks

Heien v North Carolina

A stop initiated by an Officer's reasonable mistake of law is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

United States v. State of California

The fifth supplemental decree of United States v. California pursuant to the Submerged Lands Act is granted.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Carroll v. Carman

Government officials retain qualified immunity unless “existing precedent [ . . . ] placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Qualified Immunity

Williams v. Johnson

The appropriate standard of review when a state court overlooks a federal claim is the standard set forth in 28 § U.S.C. 2254(d).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Lane v. Franks

Truthful subpoenaed testimony by public employees is protected speech under the First Amendment and government officials are entitled to qualified immunity for violating statutory or constitutional rights that are not clearly established.

Area(s) of Law:
  • First Amendment

Abramski v. United States

Misrepresentations on Question 11.a on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives form 4473 for gun ownership are material to violating §922(a)(6), lawful sale of a gun.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Scialabba v. Cuellar de Osorio, et. al.

The Board of Immigration Appeals interpretation of the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA), which limits the automatic conversion of visa priority dates of visa petition derivative beneficiaries upon aging out, is reasonable as the Board is entitled to Chevron deference.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Navarette v. California

An anonymous call can provide officers with reasonable suspicion to make an investigatory stop of a person driving under the influence when the caller has a sufficient eyewitness basis of knowledge.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

United States v. James Alvin Castleman

A conviction for misdemeanor domestic assault by intentionally or knowingly causing bodily injury to a parent of his/her child qualifies as a conviction for a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v. United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

When there is a valid forum selection clause, a district court should alter its analysis of a 28 U.S.C. §1404(a) motion to consider if the party defying the forum selection clause can show extraordinary circumstances unrelated to convenience; the court should not consider the parties private interest; and the transfer of venue will not carry the original venue’s choice-of-law.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Ryan v. Schad

Staying the issuance of the Ninth Circuit’s mandate based on its reconsidering a motion it had already denied, conflicts with Bell v. Thompson. The Ninth Circuit erred by applying Martinez rather than Pinholster.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc., Et. Al.

Reverse payment agreements, while not per se illegal, are subject to a "rule of reason" in determining their anti-competitive effect in an anti-trust action.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents

Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter

So long as an arbitrator makes a good faith attempt to interpret a contract, the arbitrator’s determination survives judicial review.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Arbitration

United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted (12 summaries)

OBB Personenverkehr AG v. Sachs

(1) Whether common law agency, the definitions in Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 USC 1602 (FSIA), or the factors set out in First National City Bank v. Banco Para el Comercio Exterior de Cuba should determine when an entity is an “agent” of a foreign state under the commercial-activity exception of FSIA; and (2) whether under the commercial-activity exception of the FSIA, a tort claim in connection with travel outside of the United States arises from allegedly tortuous conduct which occurred outside of the United States; or the from preceding sale of the ticket within the United States.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sovereign Immunity

Obgerfell, et al. v. Hodges, et al.

Whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex, and whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to recognize a same sex marriage when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Tibble v. Edison International

Whether the statute of limitations immunizes ERISA plan fiduciaries from retaining imprudent investments when the investments were first included in the plan more than six years ago, and whether Firestone deference applies in fiduciary breach actions when a fiduciary violates the terms of a governing plan document.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Mach Mining, LLC v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Whether, and to what extent, a court may enforce the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's mandatory duty to conciliate discrimination claims before filing suit.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

Hana Financial, Inc. v. Hana Bank, et

Whether trademark priority under the tacking doctrine should be considered a matter of fact or a matter of law.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trademarks

Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund

Whether a claim under §11 of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. §77k, must allege that a statement was subjectively or objectively false.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc.

Whether a company “publicly performs” a copyrighted television program when it retransmits a broadcast of that program to paid subscribers over the Internet.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Copyright

Harris v. Quinn

(1) Whether a collective bargaining agreement, which requires home-care personal assistants to pay a fee to union representatives, violates the First Amendment; and (2) whether the lower court erred in holding that the claims of providers in the Home Based Support Services Program are not ripe for judicial review.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Cline v. Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice

Whether the Oklahoma Supreme Court erred in holding that Oklahoma House Bill 1970 is facially unconstitutional under Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Lozano v. Alvarez

Whether the one-year filing period of the Hague Convention and the International Child Abduction Remedies Act, 42 U.S.C. § 11603 (2005) begins from the date of wrongful removal or tolled until the petitioning parent discovers the abducted child's whereabouts.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Medtronic Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corp., et al.

Whether the patentee bears the burden of proof in patent infringement case when the patentee is foreclosed from an infringement claim by a license agreement.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents

Burrage v. United States

(1) Whether the crime of distribution of drugs causing death under 21 U.S.C. §841 is a strict liability crime; and (2) whether jury instructions which allow a conviction by distribution of heroin which "contributed to" death, but was not the sole cause.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Oregon Supreme Court (11 summaries)

Towe v. Sacagawea

When multiple factual conclusions could be reached from the record, comparing negligence among multiple actors is a jury question, and summary judgement should be denied.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

Eclectic Investment, LLC v. Patterson et al.

the Astoria rule of common-law indemnity is a factor determined in the totality of the circumstances, and common-law indemnity is not consistent with severally distributed liability.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

State v. Dickerson

Wildlife is property of the State because the State’s interest in wildlife is both a legal interest derived from common law, and is codified in Oregon Code 39-201(1930).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Property Law

State v. Hickman

The Oregon Supreme Court's earlier opinion in State v. Hickman is modified to correct a factual error, and the previous decision is affirmed.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

Kennedy v. Wheeler

The law does not require a jury to award any specific amount of economic or noneconomic damages as a prerequisite to entry of a valid judgment for a plaintiff when the same nine out of twelve jurors do not agree on the specific amounts of economic and noneconomic damages awarded.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Doyle v. City of Medford

ORS 243.303(2) creates a duty that local governments make the health insurance available to current employees also available to retired employees. A declaratory judgement, rather than a private right of action, should enforce this duty.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

State v. Lorenzo

Evidence obtained with consent to search is valid despite prior unlawful police conduct when defendant’s consent is not the result of police exploitation of their unlawful conduct.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Fessenden/Dicke

The seizure of a malnourished horse in plain view without a warrant was valid under both the exigent circumstances, and emergency aid exceptions to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and Article I § 9 of the Oregon Constitution.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. McClure

The text, context, and legislative history of the resisting arrest statute requires that ORS 133.005(1) be interpreted to encompass arrest for a probation violation.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Everett

Delivering information that would have caused a murder to occur is sufficient to support a solicitation charge.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Montez v. Czernaik

A petition for reconsideration is allowed to correct an error of misidentified witnesses in a previous opinion.

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

Oregon Court of Appeals (46 summaries)

Harkness v. Platten

In determining the likelihood of success in the case underlying a malpractice case: a principal (Mortgage Brokerage) is not vicariously liable for the acts of their agent for acting with apparent authority by giving financial advice and brokering hard-money loans because the principal did not take an affirmative step giving that agent the appearance of such authority solely by giving the title of "loan officer" to the agent.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

State v. Del Real-Gavez

When the State’s argument depended on witness credibility, the jury should hear evidence of “motive to fabricate a disclosure against defendant,” by that witness.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Schiller-Munneman

Under State v. Davis, defendant’s right to silence is not implicated when defendant is not in custody or under compelling circumstances, and a non-response is not a statement or non-verbal conduct and therefore is not hearsay.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Bassett

A sentence of bench probation which restricts a defendant's right to travel anywhere a person night be engaged in hunting is impermissibly overbroad.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

State v. Tilly

To establish the forcible compulsion element of first-degree sexual abuse, the State must prove the nexus between the forcible compulsion and the predicate sexual act.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Wels v. Hippe

To establish a prescriptive easement a party must show adverse use of land, meaning that the use of the property is not subordinate to the owner, is or may be wrongful, and is open and notorious.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Property Law

State v. Johnson

The Court of Appeals lacks jurisdiction when a defendant plead guilty, and the trial court's sentence does not exceed the maximum sentence allowable by law.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

Hagberg v. Coursey

To prove ineffective assistance of counsel, a criminal defendant must show that counsel failed to bring an argument based on law that existed at the time of trial, and it is not sufficient to show that the argument would later be deemed meritorious.

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

A.M.M. v. Hoeffer

A Petitioner to meet the burden of proof for a permanent stalking protective order (SPO), petitioner must tie their fear and alarm to an apprehension regarding personal safety.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Stalking Protective Order

Johnson v. Jones

The intent requirement to incur liability for a battery claim is met when a defendant transmits a sexually transmitted infection which they are aware of, but do not disclose their diagnosis to their sexual partner.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

Washington v. Board of Parole

Under the parole matrix system, the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision has statutory authority to determine whether those prison terms would be served consecutively or concurrently, and may revisit or recalculate earlier opinions.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

State v. Baucum

OEC 702, and State v. O’Key require that scientific evidence presented by an expert be generally accepted, peer reviewed, with an acceptable error rate and variability, and retrograde extrapolation satisfies all of these requirements.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. T.C.

For a court to grant conditional release from an involuntary-commitment order, that the committed person must prove that the conditional release would be in their best interest, and that they would be adequately supervised by an able caretaker.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Commitment

State v. Ross Bros. & Co., Inc.

When a party does not file an amended answer to an amended complaint, and fails to raise substantive legal arguments at trial, then they have not preserved those substantive legal arguments for appeal.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

State v. Baiz

When a car is parked, immobile, and unoccupied at the time of a police encounter, then the car is not “mobile”, as required by the automobile exception to the warrant requirement for a police search.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State, acting by and through the Oregon Health Authority v. Cue

The time limitations to bring a claim under ORS 115.005 are waived when the representative of an estate fails to satisfy the notice condition of ORS 115.005(3)(b).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

State v. Rodriguez-Rodriguez

An indictment can be sustained even if an essential element or fact was communicated only by implication or context.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Wendt

When a defendant has not suffered prejudice, and delays in trial are the result of good faith, or factors outside of the parties' control, then a defendant's state and federal constitutional right to speedy trial is not violated.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Sunset Presbyterian Church v. Anderson Construction Co.

ORS 30.140 only requires a subcontractor to defend a general contractor to the extent that plaintiff's allegations implicate the subcontractor's work; and similarly plaintiff's petition for attorney’s fees must divide attorney’s fees between allegations or claims.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Yeatts v. Polygon Northwest Company

For a general contractor to be liable for the negligence of a subcontractor under Oregon's Employer Liability law, they must be engaged in a "common enterprise".

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

State v. Kreiss

The 2005 amendments to ORS 137.106 awards "economic damages" as set out in ORS 31.170(2)(a), meaning “objectively verifiable monetary loss”, and not just those that would have been awarded in a civil action.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Remedies

US Bank NA v. Eckert

The Oregon Trust Deed Act, ORS 86.803 contemplates post-sale challenges to trustees’ sale in forcible entry and wrongful detainer actions, and Oregon Courts have recognized the validity of post-sale challenges.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Property Law

Walton v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision

Judicial review of a "murder review" conducted by the Board of Parole and Post Prison Supervision is moot when the judicial review would have no practical effect on an inmate's release date.

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

S.L.L. v. MacDonald

While a conditional threat alone is not sufficient to satisfy the immediacy element for granting a stalking protective order (SPO), the context of the threat and other evidence can sufficiently establish an immediate threat for a court to grant an SPO.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Stalking Protective Order

Clark v. Oregon

A petitioner for post-conviction relief must prove prejudice either under Cuyler v. Sullivan, or Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct 1.7(a)(2) to prove ineffective assistance of counsel.

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

State v. Blaylock

Evidence of prior bad acts is admissible to prove lack of mistake when a defendant claims self defense under OEC 404(3).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Ouma v. Skipton

Medical expert testimony is not necessary to establish causation for a broken tooth, because it is a simple injury which layperson is competent to testify to establish causation.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

State v. Bonilla

A third party’s actual authority to consent to search a residence does not extend to a search personal property, like a passenger’s rights against search of their personal belongings when a driver consents to a search of the vehicle.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Davis v. State

ORS 12.220 applies to claims against the state notwithstanding the preemptive language of ORS 30.275(9), and the savings statute applies when some claims were dismissed with and without prejudice.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

State v. Lusk

The Court of Appeals should exercise their discretion to correct plain error left unpreserved at trial when a defendant is convicted of a crime that the State did not sufficiently prove, and correcting the error would not undermine procedural fairness policy of the preservation rule.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

State v. Ramos

Expenses arising out of the insurance company’s investigation of a fraudulent claim are pecuniary damages and recoverable in restitution under ORS 137.106, which allows restitution in criminal cases.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Remedies

Ventana Partners, LLC v. LaNoue Development, LLC

Whether an underlying claim has been settled before a party tenders their defense to a title insurer is a genuine issue of material fact.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Property Law

State v. Bafus

Whether it is a reversible “error of law apparent on the written record,” ORAP 5.45(1), when a trial court held a bench trial and convicted defendant without first obtaining a written waiver of her right to a jury trial.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v.Zibulsky

Named account holders of joint bank accounts are not culpable for identity theft under ORS 185.800 for using accounts within their legal rights as joint bank account holders.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Waterhouse

Evidence that a stolen item has some market is sufficient to prove the value element of theft in the third-degree, even if that value is speculative.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Westfall v. Oregon Department of Corrections

Arguments not presented to the trial court in the first instance cannot be raised on appeal.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

Lay v. Raymond

When a party has the right to partition, then the court must follow the statutory procedure for partition under ORS 105.205 and ORS 105.255.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Property Law

State v. Aung

If two officers or more are at the scene of a lawful stop, then while one officer is writing a citation or conducting a records check, another officer may investigate matters unrelated to the initial stop without unlawfully extending the stop.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Ramirez

Review of a trial court’s refusal to give a requested jury instruction for errors of law are reviewed in light of facts most favorable to defendant.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

Nationwide Ins. Co. of America v. Tri-County Metro. Trans. District (TRIMET)

An insurer who makes an outright payment to its insured is subrogated to the insured’s claim, and a subrogated insurer becomes the real party in interest under ORCP 21(A)6.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Insurance Law

State v. Dierks

Mere identification made in the course of a lawful police-citizen encounter does not in and of itself constitute a seizure.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

SAIF Corporation v. Camarena

A physician does not need to explicitly state that a course of treatment is curative in order for that treatment to be compensable as long as a reasonable person can determine the curative purpose, and the treatment is supported by substantial evidence.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

Easton v. SAIF

Workers' Compensation Board compensability determinations for proposed diagnostic procedures should refer to Claimant’s compensable injury.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

State v. Blevins

Under former ORS 135.747, a delay of 21 months for a trial, 11 of which were unjustified, is unreasonable.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

City of Eugene v. Comcast of Oregon II, Inc.

Registration fees on revenue for internet service providers are barred under the Internet Tax Freedom Act (ITFA); but licensing fees are not a tax under the ITFA.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tax Law

DHS v. T.L.

The Court of Appeals will not address arguments not preserved for appeal in the lower court.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure