United States Supreme Court (1 summary)
Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts v. Goldsmith
If an original work and a secondary use share the same or highly similar purposes, and the secondary use is of a commercial nature, the first factor is likely to weigh against fair use, absent some other justification for copying.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted (4 summaries)
303 Creative LLC v. Elenis
It is a violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution for a state to compel speech with which the speaker does not agree.
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College
Under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, schools are prohibited from using race-based affirmative action in admissions decisions.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Allen v. Milligan
The Gingles framework itself imposes meaningful constraints on proportionality. Forcing proportional representation is unlawful and inconsistent with this Court’s approach to implementing §2.
Area(s) of Law:- Election Law
Halkbank v. United States
Whether U.S. district courts may exercise subject matter jurisdiction over criminal prosecutions against foreign sovereigns and their instrumentalities under 18 U.S.C. § 3231 and in light of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1330, 1441(d), 1602-1611.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
9th Circuit Court of Appeals (13 summaries)
United States v. Boam
(1) The “plain meaning” of the term “use” in the context of sec. 2251(a) means “to put into action or service,” “to avail oneself of,” or to “employ.” United States v. Laursen, 847 F.3d 1026, 1033 (9th Cir. 2017). (2) Three of the Dost factors were used to determine whether the videos were sexually explicit conduct: "whether the focal point of the visual depiction is on the child’s genitalia or pubic area; whether the child is fully or partially clothed, or nude; and whether the visual depiction is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer." United States v. Dost, 636 F. Supp. 828, 832 (S.D. Cal. 1986).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Petrick
Absent exceptional circumstances, failure to raise arguments before an agency, such as in comments during a public-comment process, usually waives a litigant’s rights to make those arguments in court. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. EPA, 217 F.3d 1246, 1249 (9th Cir. 2000). Under HFRA, the wildland-urban interface is “an area within or adjacent to an at-risk community that is identified . . . in a community wildfire protection plan.” 16 U.S.C. § 6511(16)(A).
Area(s) of Law:- Environmental Law
Federal Trade Commission v. Hewitt
Rule 60(b)(4) applies “only in the instance where a judgment is premised either [1] on a certain type of jurisdictional error or [2] on a violation of due process that deprives a party of notice of the opportunity to be heard.” United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260, 271 (2010). “[I]t is hardly extraordinary” if a decision rests on a “then-prevailing interpretation” of the law and the Supreme Court later “arrive[s] at a different interpretation”—and such a change “is all the less extraordinary” where a party has displayed a “lack of diligence” in the original proceedings. Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 536-37 (2005).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Skagit Indian Tribe v. Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe
A court must interpret Final Decision I “so as to give effect to the intention of the issuing court.” Muckleshoot Tribe v. Lummi Indian Tribe, 141 F.3d 1355, 1359 (9th Cir. 1998) (citing Narramore v. United States, 852 F.2d 485, 490 (9th Cir. 1988)).
Area(s) of Law:- Tribal Law
Galanti v. Nevada Dep't of Corrections
Heck does not preclude an ex-prisoner’s § 1983 claim challenging denial of good-time credits because he could no longer bring that claim in a habeas petition Nonnette v. Small, 316 F.3d 872, 875-76 (9th Cir. 2002).
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
Silk v. Bond
The probate exception is limited to cases in which the federal courts would be called on to “(1) probate or annul a will, (2) administer a decedent’s estate, or (3) assume in rem jurisdiction over property that is in the custody of the probate court.” Goncalves v. Rady Children’s Hosp. San Diego, 865 F.3d 1237, 1252 (9th Cir. 2017) (internal citations omitted).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Khalulyan v. Garland
An alien who is convicted of an offense that “involves fraud or deceit in which the loss to the victim or victims exceeds $10,000” may be removed from the United States. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(43)(M)(i), 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
State of Alaska Dep't of Fish and Game v. Federal Subsistence Board
There is an exception to the mootness doctrine and that exception is met when (1) the duration of the challenged action is too short to allow full litigation before it ceases or expires, and (2) there is a reasonable expectation that the plaintiffs will be subjected to the challenged action again. Karuk Tribe of Cal. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 681 F.3d 1006, 1018 (9th Cir. 2012).
Area(s) of Law:- Wildlife Law
Oberstein v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.
An enforceable agreement may be found where “(1) the website provides reasonably conspicuous notice of the terms to which the consumer will be bound; and (2) the consumer takes some action, such as clicking a button or checking a box, that unambiguously manifests his or her assent to those terms” Berman v. Freedom Fin. Network, LCC, 30 F.4th 849, 855 (9th Cir. 2022)
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
San Diego County Credit Union v. Citizens Equity First Credit Union
A plaintiff has standing to seek declaratory relief of non-infringement if he demonstrates a real and reasonable apprehension that he will be subject to liability if he continues with his course of conduct. Societe de Conditionnement en Aluminium v. Hunter Eng’g Co., 655 F.2d 938, 944-54 (9th Cir. 1981); Chesebrough-Pond’s Inc. v. Faberege Inc., 666 F.2d 396 (9th Cir. 1982).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Antonio v. Garland
To satisfy the nexus requirement the defendant must show that he/she was persecuted “on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A); Fon v. Garland, 34 F.4th 810, 813 (9th Cir. 2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Wit v. United Behavioral Health
The Rules Enabling Act forbids interpreting Rules 23 to ‘abridge enlarge or modify and substantive right.
Area(s) of Law:- ERISA
Shulman v. Kaplan
RICO’s standing provision states that “any person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation” may bring a RICO claim in federal court to recover damages. 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c). The Controlled Substances Act provides that all "substances which have been manufactured, distributed, dispensed, or acquired in violation of [the CSA]" "shall be subject to forfeiture to the United States and no property right shall exist in them." 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Standing
Oregon Supreme Court (2 summaries)
IBEW Local 89 v. Wallan
ORS 183.480(1) allows “any person adversely affected or aggrieved by an order” to seek judicial review if they can show one or more of the following: (1) the petitioner has “suffered an injury to a substantial interest resulting directly from the challenged governmental action”; (2) the petitioner “seeks to further an interest that the legislature expressly wished to have considered”; or (3) the petitioner has “such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure concrete adverseness to the proceeding.” People for Ethical Treatment v. Inst. Animal Care, 312 Or 95, 101-02 (1991).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Rinne v. Psychiatric Security Review Board
“Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.” ORS 183.482(8)(c). Substantial reason exists where the agency has articulated a rational connection between the facts and the legal conclusion that the agency draws from them. Dorn v. Teacher Standards and Practices Comm., 316 Or App 241, 243 (2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
Oregon Court of Appeals (10 summaries)
M.C. v. Quest Global, Inc.
For Oregon to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a defendant, there must be “minimum contacts’’ between the defendant and Oregon. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 US 286, 291-92, 100 S Ct 559, 62 L ED 2d 490 (1980).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Woods v. Hendricks
“Except as provided in ORS 137.635, 137.700, 137.707, 163.105, 163.107 and 163.115, each adult in custody sentenced to the custody of the Department of Corrections for felonies is eligible for a reduction in the term of incarceration for: (a) appropriate institutional behavior, as defined by rule of the Department of Corrections; and (b) participation in the adult basic skills development program described in ORS 421.084.” ORS 421.121.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Forbes
Special conditions of probation must be “reasonably related to the crime of conviction or the needs of the probationer for the protection of the public or reformation of the probationer[.]” ORS 137.540(2). “We will not hold that a probation condition is invalid simply because we can posit an alternative ‘more narrowly tailored’ condition.” State v. Maack, 270 Or App 400, 411 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Rose
An out-of-jurisdiction offense is a “statutory counterpart” of Oregon DUII only if the elements of the defendant’s prior convictions are the close equivalent, or “match,” the elements of the Oregon offense. State v. Nelson, 318 Or App 230, 231 (2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Esquire Investments, Inc. v. Summers
“Preservation rules are pragmatic as well as prudential. What is required of a party to adequately present a contention to the trial court can vary depending on the nature of the claim or argument; the touchstone in that regard, ultimately, is procedural fairness to the parties and to the trial court.” Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209, 220 (2008).
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
Duckworth v. Duckworth
“Oregon circuit courts have subject matter jurisdiction to decide title disputes.” While circuit courts “are free to resolve title disputes in FED actions,” they “are not necessarily required to.” See Bunch v. Lowry, 313 Or App 398, 399 n 1 (2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
ADL v. Lane
“To properly exercise discretion, a court must inquire into the nature of and reasons for a party’s continuance request and evaluate its merits." State v. Keerins, 145 Or App 491, 494, 932 P2d 65 (1996).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Cantu v. Progressive Classic Ins. Co.
“Insurance policy provisions in the written contract that are less favorable in any respect to the insured or the beneficiary are unenforceable. A policy may exclude or soften an authorized term that disfavors insureds or add a term that is neutral or favors insureds without violating the statute.” ORS 742.504
Area(s) of Law:- Insurance Law
State v. Perez
A trial court has discretion to order physical restraint of a defendant if there is sufficient evidence of a substantial risk of dangerous or disruptive behavior including the risk of assaultive conduct toward other persons and the risk of an attempted escape from custody. State v. Washington, 355 Or 612, 628, 330 P.3d 596 (2014).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Meighan
In order for sexual assault diagnosis to be admissible, it must tell the jury something that it could not determine as well on its own by showing that the physical evidence meaningfully corroborates the diagnosis, the expert “significantly relied on the physical evidence in making the diagnosis, and the diagnosis involves a complex factual determination that a lay person cannot make as well as an expert. State v. Beauvais, 357 Or 524, 354 P.3d 680 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law