9th Circuit Court of Appeals (9 summaries)
Cal. Rest. Ass’n v. City of Berkeley
“EPCA’s preemption clause establishes that, once a federal energy conservation standard becomes effective for a covered product, ‘no State regulation concerning the energy efficiency, energy use, or water use of such covered product shall be effective with respect to such product[.]’ 42 U.S.C. § 6297(c).”
Area(s) of Law:- Preemption
York County v. HP, Inc
“[A] defendant establishes that a complaint is time-barred under §1658(b)(1) if it conclusively shows that either (1) the plaintiff could have pleaded an adequate complaint based on facts discovered prior to the critical date and failed to do so, or (2) the complaint does not include any facts necessary to plead an adequate complaint that were discovered following the critical date.”
Area(s) of Law:- Business Law
City of Los Angeles v. FAA
“NEPA requires that a federal agency consider every significant aspect of the environmental impact of a proposed action … [and] inform the public that it has indeed considered environmental concerns in its decision-making process.” Earth Island Inst. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 351 F.3d 1291, 1300 (9th Cir. 2003).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Buero v. Amazon.com Services, Inc.
According to the Oregon Supreme Court, “Oregon law aligns with federal law regarding what activities are compensable. Therefore, under Oregon law, as under federal law, time that employees spend on the employer’s premises waiting for and undergoing mandatory security screenings before or after their work shifts is compensable only if the screenings are either (1) an integral and indispensable part of the employees’ principal activities or (2) compensable as a matter of contract, custom, or practice.”
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Wide Voice, LLC v. FCC
“Under § 706, [the court] must determine whether the agency’s decision was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
No On E v. David Chiu
“The district court applied exacting scrutiny, which requires a ‘substantial relation’ between the disclosure requirement and a ‘sufficiently important’ governmental interest.” Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310, 366–67 (2010).
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
US v. Farias-Contreras
“[W]hen a plea rests in any significant degree on a promise or agreement of the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the inducement or consideration, such promise must be fulfilled.” Santobello v. New York , 404 U.S. 257, 262 (1971).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Clarkson v. Alaska Airlines, Inc.
“USERRA § 4316(b)(1) requires employers to provide employees who take military leave with the same non-seniority rights and benefits as their colleagues who take comparable non-military leaves.”
Area(s) of Law:- Labor Law
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Haaland
“An agency action is ‘final’ only if it both (1) ‘mark[s] the consummation of the agency’s decision-making process—it must not be of a merely tentative or interlocutory nature,’ and (2) is ‘one by which rights or obligations have been determined, or from which legal consequences will flow.’ Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 177–78 (1997).”
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Oregon Court of Appeals (11 summaries)
State v. H.D.
A court may order a conditional release of a person with mental illness only if the release is requested by the legal guardian, relative or friend of the person who requested to be allowed to care for the person “during the period of commitment in a place satisfactory to the judge,” and who has the ability and adequate financial resources to care for the person. ORS 426.125(1)(a)-(c).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
Peeler v. Reyes
Under federal law, “absent misrepresentation or other impermissible conduct by state agents … a voluntary plea of guilty intelligently made in the light of then applicable law does not become vulnerable because later judicial decisions indicate that the plea rested on a faulty premise.” Brady v. United States, 397 US 742, 756-57 (1970).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. Miller
“Vouching refers to the expression of one’s personal opinion about the credibility of a witness.” State v. Chandler, 360 Or 323, 330-31 (2016) (internal quotations omitted). “Credibility determinations are the exclusive province of the jury, so witnesses are categorically prohibited from expressing a view on whether another witness is telling the truth.” State v. Middleton, 294 Or 427, 438 (1983) (internal quotations omitted).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Wolfston v. Eastside Bend, LLC.
ORS 36.705(1)(a) states: “the court shall vacate an award made in the arbitration proceeding if … [t]he award was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means.”
Area(s) of Law:- Arbitration
Person v. Board of Parole
“[T]o grant parole consideration under ORS 144.228 (1987), the board must find that the person’s severe personality disorder indicating a propensity toward continuing dangerous criminal activity is absent or in remission.”
Area(s) of Law:- Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
State v. Wesley
“After [State v. Hubbell, 314 Or App 844, 870-871, (2021)], where a person has taken a substantial step toward delivery of a controlled substance, but has not yet attempted the transfer itself, the person will have committed the inchoate crime of attempted delivery of a controlled substance, rather than delivery.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Gramada v. SAIF Corp.
“A finding of impairment requires (1) that there is a loss of use or function of the body part or system, and (2) that the loss is due to the compensable injury.” Robinette v. SAIF, 369 Or 767, 781-82 (2022) (citing ORS 656.214). “Each loss of use or function is to be considered separately, and a loss is ‘due to the compensable injury’ when the accepted condition is found to be a material cause of the loss.” Johnson v. SAIF, 369 Or 707, 603 (2022); Robinette, 369 Or at 784.
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
State v. Brown
Under State v. Garrett, 300 Or App 671 (2019), to determine if offenses are of the same or similar character, the Court will consider “factors such as the temporal proximity of the acts, similarities in the elements of the offenses, whether there will be similar evidence or evidentiary overlap, and whether the charges involve the same or similar victims, locations, intent, modus operandi, or acts.” Under State v. Dewhitt, 276 Or App 373 (2016), “offenses are ‘connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan’ when they are ‘logically related, and there is a large area of overlapping proof between them.’”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Vannoy
“Under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, ‘a seizure occurs when (1) a police officer intentionally and significantly interferes with an individual’s liberty or freedom of movement; or (2) a reasonable person, under the totality of the circumstances, would believe that his or her liberty or freedom of movement has been significantly restricted.” State v. Arreola-Botello, 365 Or 695, 701 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Hathaway v. B & J Property Investments, Inc.
“ORS 12.125 states that ‘[a]n action arising under a rental agreement or [ORTLA] shall be commenced within one year.’” ORS 12.010 states that statute of limitations for actions brought under ORS chapter 12 are tolled “after the cause of action shall have accrued.” Under Rice v. Rabb, 354 Or 721 (2014), “[a] claim ‘accrue[s]’ under ORS 12.010 when the “plaintiff obtained knowledge, or reasonably should have obtained knowledge’ of the claim.”
Area(s) of Law:- Landlord Tenant
Davis & Galm, LLC v. Neve
“[U]nder Oregon law, ‘the plaintiff’s concrete stake in the outcome must continue throughout the pendency of the case.’ [Couey v. Atkins, 357 Or 460, 469 (2006)]. If plaintiffs’ concrete stake in the outcome evaporates after initiation of the action, the case becomes moot and must be dismissed for want of justiciability. Id.”
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure