Willamette Law Online

(30 summaries)

Cole Burgess

United States Supreme Court

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Zivotofsky v. KerryConstitutional Law: The Constitution grants the Executive Branch alone the power to determine national policy on the status or recognition of foreign sovereigns.(06-08-2015)
Wellness International Network, Limited v. SharifBankruptcy Law: 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.(05-26-2015)

United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Luis v. United StatesConstitutional Law: 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. (06-08-2015)
Spokeo, Inc. v. RobinsStanding: 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?(04-27-2015)

Oregon Supreme Court

TitleExcerptFilling Date
State v. MusserCriminal Procedure: Evidence obtained from a voluntary consent search must be suppressed when the prior police conduct is unlawful.(08-28-2014)

Oregon Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
State v. J. C. N.-V. Juvenile Law: 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.(01-22-2015)
Sexton v. PerssonPost-Conviction Relief: 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.(12-31-2014)
State v. UrieSentencing: 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.(12-31-2014)
State v. BlasingameAppellate Procedure: 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.(12-24-2014)
State v. OregonCriminal Procedure: 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.(12-03-2014)
Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp. v. Vera-ChavezWorkers Compensation: 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.(11-19-2014)
State v. Marquez-VelaCriminal Procedure: A witness cannot testify to the credibility or truthfulness of another witness. The trier of fact must make these determinations.(11-05-2014)
Association of Oregon Corrections Employees v. DOC Employment Law: 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.(10-22-2014)
Kraai v. Bur. of Fire and Police Dis. & Ret. FundDisability Law: 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.(10-15-2014)
Weldon v. Bd. of Lic. Pro. Counselors and TherapistsAdministrative Law: 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.(10-08-2014)
Herrera v. C & M Victor CompanyTort Law: 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.” (10-01-2014)
SAIF v. TonoWorkers Compensation: Under ORS 656.039(5), workers’ compensation for state-funded home care workers is not limited to state-funded activities.(09-17-2014)
State v. Magna/RiveraCriminal Law: 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[.]”(09-10-2014)
State v. SullivanCriminal Law: 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.(08-20-2014)
Bova v. City of MedfordAttorney Fees: 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.(08-13-2014)
Dept. of Human Services v. A.B.Juvenile Law: 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.(07-23-2014)
Heller v. BNSF Railway CompanyTort Law: 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.(07-16-2014)
State v. BellCriminal Law: 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.(07-09-2014)
Dept. of Human Services v. E. M.Juvenile Law: 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.(07-02-2014)
State v. PierceCriminal Procedure: 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.(06-11-2014)
State v. OlsonEvidence: 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.(05-29-2014)
Vanecek v. AngelozziPost-Conviction Relief: 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.(05-21-2014)
State v. CorkillCriminal Law: A court does not have a duty to sua sponte exclude testimony where the questioning leading to this testimony did not present "vouching" concerns.(04-30-2014)

Intellectual Property

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Marcel Fashions Group, Inc. v. Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc.Trademarks: Under the doctrine of claim preclusion, a prior judgment of trademark infringement does not bar a subsequent claim for subsequent trademark infringement.(02-25-2015)
In re Cuozzo Speed Techs.Patents: 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.(02-04-2015)