Jackie Steeh

United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted (1 summary)

Town of Chester, New York, Petitioner v. Laroe Estates, Inc.

Intervenors must have Article III standing to pursue relief under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Standing

Oregon Supreme Court (1 summary)

Delta Logistics, Inc. v. Employment Dept. Tax Section

Work that does not constitute “employment” for the purposes of unemployment insurance taxes under ORS 657.047(1)(b) is: “transportation performed by motor vehicle for a for-hire carrier by any person that leases their equipment to a for-hire carrier and that personally operates, furnishes, and maintains the equipment and provides service thereto."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tax Law

Oregon Court of Appeals (27 summaries)

Columbia Paci c v. City of Portland

“Nondiscriminatory local laws that have only ‘incidental’ effects on interstate commerce are valid unless ‘the burden imposed on such commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits.’” Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 US 137, 142, 90 S Ct 844 (1970).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

State v. Hickman

When a suspect equivocally invokes their Article 1 Section 12 rights, law enforcement must immediately stop interrogating the suspect in order to ask clarifying questions about the suspect's potential invocation of his or her constitutional rights. State v. Schrepfer, 288 Or App 429, 436 (2017).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Jasper

Per ORCP 9, service of process is typically required to be sent to a party's attorney; if the party is not being represented by counsel, notice must be sent directly to the party.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

State v. Lopez-Minjarez

All jury instructions must be “complete and accurate without error” when submitted to the Court. Estate of Michelle Schwarz v. Philip Morris Inc., 348 Or 442, 454 (2010).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

State v. West

There are two requirements for prevailing on a request for a "less satisfactory evidence" jury instruction, a party must establish that: “other evidence was reasonably available on a fact in issue and that there is a basis for the jury to conclude that the other evidence is stronger and more satisfactory than the evidence offered.” State v. McDonnell, 313 Or 478, 500 (1992).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

City of Portland v. Diaz

“An order that is made in the action after a general judgment is entered and that affects a substantial right, including an order granting a new trial, may be appealed [as provided by ORS Chapter 19].” ORS 19.205(3)

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

State v. Benz

“An error is plain if (1) it is one ‘of law,’ (2) it is ‘apparent,’ meaning it is obvious and not reasonably in dispute, and (3) it appears ‘on the face of the record,’ meaning that the court ‘need not go outside the record or choose between competing inferences to find it, and the facts that comprise the error are irrefutable.’” State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 355, 800 P2d 259 (1990).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

City of Cave Junction v. State of Oregon

An appeal is moot when a decision “will no longer have a practical effect on the rights or obligations of a party.” State v. Walraven, 282 Or App 649, 654, 385 P3d 1178 (2016).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

Givan v. Department of Human Services

“If a personal representative is not appointed within four months after the filing of the affidavit authorized by ORS 114.515, the interest of the decedent in all of the property described in the affidavit is transferred to the person(s) shown by the affidavit to be entitled thereto, and any other claims against the property are barred.” ORS 114.555.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trusts and Estates

Willamette Water Co. v. WaterWatch of Oregon

ORS 537.230(1) provides that, “[e]xcept for a holder of a permit for municipal use, the holder of water right permit shall prosecute the construction of any work with reasonable diligence and complete the construction within a reasonable time, not to exceed five years from the date of approval.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Environmental Law

State v. Zuniga

ORS 137.103(4)(a) defines as a "victim," for the purposes of restitution awards, "[t]he person or decedent against whom the defendant committed the criminal offense, if the court determines that the person or decedent has suffered or did suffer economic damages as a result of the offense."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Botofan-Miller and Miller

To prevail on a claim for change of custody, a parent must first prove that, after the previous judgment of custody, circumstances have changed to make the custodial parent unable to care for the child properly; then, it must be established that, based on the changed circumstances and relevant evidence, the change in custody is in the best interest of the child. Boldt and Boldt, 344 Or 1, 9 (2008).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

J.M. v. Oregon Youth Authority

“The only federal court that controls over the Oregon Supreme Court on matters of federal law is the United States Supreme Court.” State v. Moyle, 299 Or 691, 707, 705 P2d 740 (1985). State supreme courts are binding authority on lower state courts when interpreting federal laws. ASARCO Inc. v. Kadish, 490 US 605, 617, 109 S Ct 2037, 104 L Ed 2d 696 (1989).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Preemption

State v. Ipsen

In determining whether an individual intended to abandon property, a court will weigh: (1) if defendant was separated from the property because of illegal police intrusion, State v. Bernabo, 224 Or App 379, 387 (2008); (2) if defendant left the property in a public area, id.; (3) if defendant intentionally hid the property, id. at 388; (4) if defendant left the property under circumstances where someone will likely inspect it upon discovery, State v. Belcher, 89 Or App 401, 404 (1988); (5) if defendant placed the property in plain view, State v. Brown, 348 Or 293, 300 (2010); and (6) if defendant gave up his right to "control the disposition of the property." id. at 304.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Ipsen

Issue preclusion is permissible in a criminal proceeding when: (1) the issue is identical to that in a prior proceeding; (2) that issue was litigated and was "essential to a final decision on the merits;" (3) the precluded party had “a full and fair opportunity to be heard;” (4) the precluded party was party to-, or "in privity with a party to the earlier proceeding;" and (5) the court will give preclusive effect to the prior proceeding. State v. Gipson, 234 Or App 316, 320-321 (2010).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Allen

The particularity requirement of ORS 133.565 (2)(c) and the Article I, Section 9 of the Oregon Constitution requires a warrant to have (1) a clearly described place to search as to allow officers to seize items with “a reasonable degree of certainty” and (2) the search warrant must “be drawn in such a way as to preclude seizures and searches not supported by probable cause.” State v. Mansor, 279 Or App 778, 792-93, 381 P3d 930 (2016), rev allowed, 360 Or 752 (2017).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

State v. Lomax

“[W]hen the state advances competing theories of liability based on a defendant’s acts as a principal and as an aider or abettor, the jury must be instructed that they must agree on each legislatively defined element necessary to find the defendant liable under one theory or the other.” State v. Phillips, 354 Or 598, 606, 317 P3d 236 (2013).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Riley

“The state must prove that the violation of [a] defendant’s rights had such a tenuous factual link to the disputed evidence that the unlawful police conduct cannot be properly viewed as the source of that evidence.” State v. Benning, 273 Or App 183, 194, 359 P3d 357 (2015).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. B.H.C.

ORS 419C.453(1) provides, “[p]ursuant to a hearing, the juvenile court may order a youth offender placed in a detention facility for a specific period of time not to exceed eight days...”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

Black v. Coos County

Under the Public Employee Collective Bargaining Act, (PECBA), public employers and employees are required to enter into collective bargaining agreements, and to resolve disputes pertaining to allegations of unfair labor practices through the Employment Relations Board, (ERB). ORS 243.650 to 243.782.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

State v. Sines

Parents retain property rights in the items, including clothing, they provide their children. Hoblyn v. Johnson, 55 P3d 1219 (Wyo, 2002). When searching items without a warrant, the state may examine without invading a person’s privacy interests if the contents in in open view or if the item “by its very nature announce[s] [its] contents.” Walter v. United States, 447 US 649, 654, 100 S Ct 2395 (1980).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Jensen v. Hilsboro Law Group, PC

A party opposing a motion for summary judgment must proffer evidence for any issue raised that they would also have the burden of persuasion for at trial. Two Two v. Fujitec America, Inc., 355 Or 319, 324 (2014).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

State v. Reich

During a traffic stop, an officer may not ask about matters unrelated to the reason of the stop “instead of expeditiously proceeding with the steps necessary to complete the stop.” State v Nims, 248 Or App 708, 713, 274 P3d 235, rev den, 352 Or 378 (2012).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Gensitskiy

Under ORS 161.067(2), “[w]hen the same conduct or criminal episode, though violating only one statutory provision involves two or more victims, there are as many separately punishable offenses as there are victims.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Schmidt v. Noonkester

Under ORS 124.110(1)(a), an action for financial elder abuse may be brought “[w]hen a person wrongfully takes or appropriates money or property of a vulnerable person."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Elder Law

State v. Hershey

A warrantless search is justified under the emergency aid doctrine when police officers have an objectively reasonable belief based on articulable facts that it is immediately necessary to render aid to a person or animal. State v. Fessenden, 258 Or App 639, 649, 310 P3d 1163 (2013), aff’d on other grounds sub nom State v. Fessenden/ Dicke, 355 Or 759, 333 P3d 278 (2014).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Davis

Under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, when a stop is initially lawful, “it may endure only for the time it takes an officer to complete an investigation that is reasonably related to the basis for the stop.” State v. Sherman, 274 Or. App. 764, 773 (2015).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure