United States Supreme Court (2 summaries)
Tyler v. Hennepin County
Under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, government cannot bootstrap a delinquent tax to take more than what is owed.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Calcutt v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
“[…] If the record before the agency does not support the agency action, [or] if the agency has not considered all relevant factors, … the proper course, except in rare circumstances, is to remand to the agency for additional investigation or explanation.” 598 U.S. 623, 628.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
9th Circuit Court of Appeals (8 summaries)
Estate of Strickland v. Nevada County
“Of all the use-of-force factors, the ‘most important’ is whether the suspect posed an immediate threat to the officer or a member of the public.” Bryan v. MacPherson, 630 F.3d 805 (9th Cir. 2010).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights § 1983
Chaudhry v. Aragon
A “stigma-plus” [under Section 1983] claim requires “the public disclosure of a “stigmatizing statement by the government, the accuracy of which is contested, plus the denial of some more tangible interest such as employment. 68 F.4th at 1171
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights § 1983
Roberts v. Springfield Utility Board
Unlike speech involving matters of public concern, which is protected, “speech that deals with individual personnel disputes and grievances and that would be of no relevance to the public’s evaluation of the performance of governmental agencies is general not of public concern." Roberts v. Springfield Utility Board, 68 F.4th 470, 475 (9th Cir. 2023).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights § 1983
San Diego County Credit Union v. Citizens Equity First Credit Union
"Federal courts lack Article III jurisdiction to review questions of trademark validity unless the plaintiff faces a threat of infringement liability or otherwise suffers a justiciable injury that is fairly traceable to the trademark’s validity." San Diego County Credit Union v. Citizens Equity First Credit Union, 65 F.4th 1012 (9th Cir. 2023).
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
Schurg v. US
The federal government is immune under the discretionary exception if: (1) “[the] challenged actions involve an element of judgment or choice” and (2) “[the] judgment is of the kind that the discretionary function exception was designed to shield.” Esquivel v. United States, 21 F.4th 565, 573 (9th Cir. 2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Sovereign Immunity
Gay v. Parsons
Absolute immunity may apply when "the official is performing a duty functionally comparable to one for which officials were rendered immune at common law." Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir. 2003)
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights § 1983
US v. Salazar
Despite the government’s knowledge of relevant information, defendants must provide all relevant information when invoking the safety valve under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
US v. Taylor
The standard of a Fourth Amendment analysis is reasonableness.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Oregon Court of Appeals (12 summaries)
State v. Babcock
State v. Chitwood established that a prosecutor's comments must be "so prejudicial" that any sue sponte instruction by the court would be insufficient to safeguard a defendant's right to a fair trial.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Durant
Improper yet curable statements are not subject to plain error review as “the defendant was not denied a fair trial.” State v. Durant, 327 Or. App. 363, 365 (2023).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Humphrey
"An error is 'plain' when it is an error of law, the legal point is obvious and not reasonably in dispute, and the error is apparent on the record without our having to choose among competing inferences." State v. Humphrey, 327 Or.App. 344, 348 (2023).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Coopman v. City of Eugene
Under ORS 197.175(2)(a), “cities and counties ‘shall amend and revise’ their comprehensive plans ‘in compliance with’ the statewide planning goals.”
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Oregon Health Authority
Under ORS 33.096, “a court may summarily impose a sanction upon a person who commits a contempt of court in the immediate view and presence of the court.”
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
State v. Pierpoint
A legal error constitutes a plain error if it is “so prejudicial that an instruction to disregard [it] would not have been sufficiently curative to assure the court, in its consideration of all the circumstances, that the defendant received a fair trial.” State v. Chitwood, 370 Ore. 305, 312 (2023).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Leake
“Firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed within the meaning of [statute for unlawful possession of a firearm].” ORS 166.250(3). However, holsters that are concealed by clothing can be considered concealed weapons.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Vesa
A valid warrant must “describe with specificity the information related to the alleged criminal conduct which there is probable cause to believe will be found on the electronic device”. State v. Mansor, 363 Or. 185, 218 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Yamhill County v. Real Property
Under Article XV, section 10 of the Oregon Constitution, forfeiture of real property is criminal punishment, therefore forfeiture proceedings must be consolidated with criminal proceedings to avoid the Fifth Amendment prohibition against double jeopardy.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners of Columbia Cnty. v. Rosenblum
Under ORS § 33.710 “[there] are no justiciability limitations on the exercise of judicial power in public actions or cases involving matters of public interest.” Couey v. Atkins, 357 Or. 460 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Flack
"In cases where a defendant has raised a defense of self-defense, a jury instruction regarding 'an officer's right to use force in effectuating an arrest' inserts 'an irrelevant issue—the arresting officers' actual state of mind—into the jury's deliberations concerning [the defendant's] claim of self-defense.'" State v. Flack, 290 Ore. App. 152, 156
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Lanier
“Under Pender and Grover, we have held that a question about the unlawful possession of controlled substances is a question that, by its very nature, evidences an investigatory purpose and is therefore ‘designed’ to elicit incriminating information.” State v. Lanier, 290 Ore. App. 8, 15 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law