Willamette Law Online

(33 summaries)

Kirsten Larson

9th Circuit Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Luvdarts v. AT & T MobilityCopyright: Mobile carriers are not vicariously liable for copyright infringement occurring on their networks when the plaintiff fails to allege the carriers had a “necessary right and ability to supervise the infringing conduct,” and the carriers are not contributorily liable for copyright infringement when the carriers did not have the “requisite specific knowledge of infringement.”(03-25-2013)
Wang v. Chinese Daily NewsLabor Law: Following the United States Supreme Court's decision in [italics]Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes[/italics] , the Court of Appeals determined that Plaintiffs' class certification must be reconsidered by the district court.(03-04-2013)
Center for Biological Diversity v. SalazarEnvironmental Law: The Bureau of Land Management can allow the continuation of a mining plan, despite a hiatus in the mining operations. That continuation can occur without additional review under the National Environmental Policy Act, as long at there is not a new "major Federal action."(02-04-2013)
Wilson v. CIRTax Law: Under 26 U.S.C. § 6015, the Tax Court is permitted to review Innocent Spouse Relief cases de novo and to consider new evidence in making its determination. (01-15-2013)
United States v. Bustos-OchoaImmigration: An alien cannot challenge his initial removal order as fundamentally unfair based on the fact that the immigration judge did not advise him on relief for which he was not eligible.(12-18-2012)
Barabin v. AstenJohnson, Inc.Evidence: A litigant is entitled to a new trial when a district court fails to hold a Daubert hearing or otherwise determine the reliability of expert testimony before allowing that testimony over an objection.(11-16-2012)
Charles v. City of Los AngelesFirst Amendment: A billboard advertising a particular product and proposing a commercial transaction is commercial speech, and the fact that the billboard advertises protected expressive speech does not change its commercial-speech status.(10-15-2012)
Holmes v. Merck & Co., Inc.Tort Law: Under Section 22 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, parents of children injured by a vaccine cannot sue for design defect or failure to warn.(09-25-2012)
Marquez v. City of PhoenixCriminal Procedure: Police do not violate the Fourth Amendment by repeatedly using a taser on a suspect when the suspect has his granddaughter in a chokehold, is combative with police, and there are other victims present. Under Arizona law, there is no claim for wrongful death where police acted reasonably in the use of force, which they did here.(09-11-2012)
United States v. Pineda-DovalCriminal Law: Reckless driving that results in an fatal accident does not amount to acting with malice aforethought, if the driver did not comprehend the risk involved.(08-27-2012)
Chaudhry v. AstrueDisability Law: In a Social Security disability hearing, an ALJ is not required to obtain the disability determination from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) where the applicant is represented by counsel and the record contains evidence of the applicant's DVA disability rating.(08-10-2012)
Latif v. HolderAdministrative Law: Individuals placed on the "No-Fly List" by the Terrorist Screening Center can have their claims handled by the district court, which has jurisdiction to offer a broader range of remedies that the Court of Appeals.(07-26-2012)
Ginsberg v. Northwest, Inc.Contract Law: A claim against an airline for breach of contract of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in not preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act.(07-15-2012)
Annachamy v. HolderImmigration: The material support bar does not include a "political offense exception," nor does it include an exception for duress and involuntary action.(07-03-2012)
Briggs v. GroundsCivil Procedure: The prosecution's use of preemptory challenges to strike three African American prospective jurors was explained by race-neutral reasoning. As such, the denial of Brigg's habeas petition was properly denied by the trial court and California Court of Appeals.(06-15-2012)
Native Village of Point Hope v. SalazarEnvironmental Law: Where the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management does not act “arbitrarily or capriciously” in concluding that the description of an exploratory oil drilling plan satisfied the informational requirements of 30 C.F.R. § 550.213(d), the court will defer to the agency’s interpretation of its own regulations.(05-25-2012)
United States v. SwankSentencing: A two-level enhancement in sentencing is appropriate when the defendant is convicted of Abusive Sexual Contact under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2244(a)(5), 1153(a), and was in a care-taking, parent-like relationship with the victim.(04-16-2012)
Sharrock v. United StatesTort Law: A naval officer is not acting within the line of duty when traveling between work and a recreational activity encouraged by the Navy. As such, respondeat superior does not apply in this situation.(03-14-2012)

Oregon Supreme Court

TitleExcerptFilling Date
State v. HaugenAppellate Procedure: The Court is permitted to issue a writ of mandamus when a judge of a lower court has not followed the statutorily required procedures. Once the judge sufficiently complies with the writ, the Court may dismiss the writ.(11-21-2011)
State v. CloutierCriminal Law: Under ORS 138.050, a defendant who entered a no contest plea is unable to appeal the judgment, unless it is “unconstitutionally cruel and unusual” or “exceeds the maximum allowable by law,” with the maximum referring to the maximum amount allowable to sentence.(09-22-2011)

Oregon Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
State v. HannaCriminal Procedure: For the purposes of searching impounded vehicles, the bed of a truck under a locked tonneau cover does not constitute a trunk or an external container.(03-14-2012)
T. M. B. v. HolmCivil Stalking Protective Order: When determining a stalking protective order, there is no requisite mental state; Speech can be considered a "contact" for the purpose of a civil stalking protective order.(02-29-2012)
Willamette Oaks, LLC v. City of EugeneLand Use: The Land Use Board of Appeals did not err in determining that certain modifications to a tentative planned unit development would only result in insignificant changes and were therefore permissible. Also, the petitioner must have preserved the issue of reversing instead of remanding to argue that the case should have been remanded, if it was not plain error.(02-15-2012)
Butcher v. SAIFWorkers Compensation: Following a modification of a worker's compensation claim, the employee is entitled to total disability compensation as authorized by her doctor, regardless of whether the curative treatment was in the place of hospitalization.(01-25-2012)
State v. YocumSentencing: If the trial court determines that evidence is sufficient for determination of restitution damages, the court may make the restitution determination, even if the value of the item is not objectively verifiable.(12-29-2011)
Watson v. MeltzerTort Law: To prove legal malpractice, plaintiffs' must prove that they would have obtained a more favorable result "but for" the negligence of the attorney, regardless of whether the malpractice occurred during litigation or during a business transaction.(12-29-2011)
SAIF Corporation v. StephensWorkers Compensation: When a claim is determined to be a symptom rather than a condition, the employer is not required to admit the symptom as a new or omitted medical condition.(12-14-2011)
State v. RayburnCriminal Procedure: Police may use the totality of the circumstances to establish probable cause to arrest a passenger in a stolen car. This assessment establishes the requisite mental state of the passenger to determine whether or not they knew they were in a stolen vehicle and could be arrested.(11-09-2011)
State v. ChaseSentencing: A sentence does not violate the proportionality principle of the Oregon Constitution if the defendant would not have received the base sentence for the more serious crime based on his criminal history.(11-02-2011)
C and K Market, Inc. v. RoccasalvaProperty Law: If a landlord accepts payment on a lease, despite prior default on payment, the lease is not terminated for default, as the acceptance of payment stands opposed to the landlord's intention to terminate the lease.(10-26-2011)
Proctor v. City of PortlandTax Law: Despite the 2008 revisions to Portland’s Business License Law, real estate brokers working under principal real estate brokers are not required to pay a portion of their income as a licensing fee.(09-08-2011)
Portland Fire Fighters’ Assoc. v. City of PortlandEmployment Law: The Employment Relations Board must examine the Collective Bargaining Agreement before determining that the city is in violation of ORS 243.698 for declining to bargain over the impact employment changes might have.(08-31-2011)
State v. DurhamCriminal Law: Possession of less than one ounce of marijuana within 1000 feet of a school constitutes two separate offenses and thus is not eligible for a marijuana diversion program.(08-17-2011)