United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted (1 summary)
Arnold v. Kotek
Mandamus is an “‘extraordinary remedial process which is awarded not as a matter of right, but in the exercise of sound judicial discretion.’” See State ex rel Fidanque v. Paulus, 297 Or 711, 717, 688 P2d 1303 (1984).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
9th Circuit Court of Appeals (2 summaries)
Forrest v. Spizzirri
Section three of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) states that “upon determination by a court that an issue or issues are referable to arbitration, the court, on application of a party, ‘shall’ stay the trial of the action pending arbitration (provided the applicant is not in default). 9 U.S.C. § 3.”
Area(s) of Law:- Arbitration
Armstrong v. Michaels Stores, Inc.
The party asserting waiver of arbitration must demonstrate: (1) knowledge of an existing right to compel arbitration; and (2) intentional acts inconsistent with that existing right, and the burden for establishing waiver is no longer heavy.
Area(s) of Law:- Arbitration
Oregon Supreme Court (1 summary)
Adelsperger v. Elkside Dev. LLC
“ORS 63.165 immunizes members and managers of an LLC from vicarious liability for the debts, obligations, and liabilities of that LLC. LLC members and managers, however, remain personally liable for their acts and omissions to the extent those acts or omissions would be actionable against the member or manager if that person were acting in individual capacity.” Cortez v. Nacco Materials Handling Group, 356 Or. 254, 280, 337 P3d 111 (2014).
Area(s) of Law:- Corporations
Oregon Court of Appeals (18 summaries)
State v. Johnson
Stalking occurs if a person “knowingly alarms or coerces another person or a member of that person’s immediate family or household by engaging in repeated and unwanted contact with the other person; [i]t is objectively reasonable for a person in the victim’s situation to have been alarmed or coerced by the contact; and [t]he repeated and unwanted contact causes the victim reasonable apprehension regarding the personal safety of the victim or a member of the victim’s immediate family or household.” ORS 163.732(1)(a)-(c). Under State v. Rangel, 328 Or 294, 303 (1999), a qualifying threat must “instill[] in the addressee a fear of imminent and serious personal violence from the speaker.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Rockafellor
The Confrontation Clause is “primarily concerned with ensuring the reliability of evidence offered by witnesses, and ensuring that a defendant and jury have adequate access to witnesses … [n]o element of the right to confrontation promises the defendant that his entire face will be literally seen.” Furthermore, “[w]hen an inherently prejudicial security measure is at issue, a trial court must make a determination that such restraints are justified by a state interest specific to that particular trial.” Deck v. Missouri, 544 US 622, 629 (2005); State v. Guzek, 358 Or 251, 263 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
State v. Brosy
Under ORS 163.185(8), a person is guilty of second-degree assault if they “knowingly cause physical injury to another by means of a dangerous weapon." “A ‘dangerous weapon is any weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance which under the circumstances in which it is used, attempted to be used or threatened to be used, is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury.’ ORS 163.185(1)
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Cleaver
ORS 163.467 states that a “person commits the crime of private indecency if the person exposes the genitals of the person with the intent of arousing the sexual desire of the person or another person and, inter alia, the person is in a place where another person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Ezell
OEC 404(4) states that “in criminal actions, evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts by the defendant is admissible if relevant except as otherwise provided by … [inter alia, OEC 403] (evidence is inadmissible if the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice).”
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Dep't of Hum. Servs. v. T.B.
ORS 419B.385 states that “[t]he court may order the parent or guardian [subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court] to assist the court in any reasonable manner in providing appropriate education or counseling of the ward.” (Emphasis added.)
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Solis
“[A] trial court’s overruling of an objection to improper prosecutorial argument is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” State v. Mayo, 303 Or. App. 525, 530, 465 P3d 267 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. D.B.O.
ORS 419C.478(1) states that an order placing a juvenile in the legal custody of the Oregon Youth Authority “shall include written findings describing why it is in the best interests of the adjudicated youth to be placed with the youth authority or department.” Also, "[a] juvenile court’s failure to include findings is legal error." State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. C.N.W., 212 Or App 551, 552, 159 P3d 333 (2007).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Wecker v. Salem Clinic, P.C.
In reviewing summary judgment, the court will “‘review a trial court’s grant of summary judgment for errors of law and will affirm if there are no genuine dispute about any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Thompson v. Portland Adventist Medical Center, 309 Or. App. 118, 121 (2021). "'No genuine issue of material fact exists if no objectively reasonable juror could return a verdict for the adverse party." ORCP 47 C.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Aaron v. Kelly
To establish that trial counsel rendered inadequate assistance under Article I, section 11 of the Oregon Constitution, one must prove that 1) counsel “‘failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment,’” and 2) that Defendant “‘suffered prejudice as a result of counsel’s inadequacy.’” Johnson v. Premo, 360 Or 688, 699, 399 P3d 431 (2017). Similarly, under a Sixth Amendment argument, one must to prove that 1) “‘trial counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness,’” and 2) but for counsel’s errors, there was a reasonable probability that the result would have been different. Strickland v. Washington, 466 US 668, 694, 104 S Ct 2052, 80 L Ed 2d 674 (1984)
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Wimmer
"A person commits the crime of private indecency if they expose the genitals of the person with the intent of arousing the sexual desire of the person or another person and: (a) the person is in a place where another person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.” ORS 163.467(1)(a). A place where another has a reasonable expectation of privacy “includes, but is not limited to, residences, yards of residences, working areas, and offices.” ORS 163.467(4).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Dep't of Human Services v. L.B.
“Active efforts” are those that are “affirmative, active, thorough, timely, and intended to maintain or reunite an Indian child with the Indian child's family,” and require a higher standard than reasonable efforts. ORS 419B.645(1),(3).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Champion v. Employment Dep't
A board’s order will be remanded if the “order is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. 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).
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Martin v. Dept. of Human Services
A circuit court’s role in reviewing a founded disposition under ORS 183.484(5) is to determine “whether substantial evidence in the record ‘viewed as a whole’ supports the agency’s determinations and that the standard is based on whether that record ‘would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.’” Querbach v. Dept. of Human Services, 369 Or 786, 789-90 (2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Hoover v. Industrial Scrap Corp.
In determining attorney fees, a court should review the factors in ORS 20.075(1) and (2) which includes conduct of parties during the transaction and reasonableness of claims and defenses asserted by parties.
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
State v. Halvorson
“Economic damages” do not include attorney fees that a victim chooses to incur in order to obtain restitution in a criminal matter. Fox II, 370 Or 456, 469-70 (2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
City of Springfield v. Kellim
“[T]he government may impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place, or manner of protected speech, provided the restrictions are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, that they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and that they leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information.” Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 US 781, 791 (1989).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law