9th Circuit Court of Appeals

2014

January 29 summaries

United States v. Dharni

It is not a violation of a petitioner's Sixth Amendment rights to ask spectators and petitioner's family members to leave the courtroom during voir dire to allow seating for a jury pool.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Inhale, Inc. v. Starbuzz Tobacco, Inc.

Under “useful articles” doctrine of copyright law, the manufacturer of a hookah is not entitled to copyright protection where sculptural elements of design cannot exist independently, or be separately identified, from utilitarian aspects of design.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Copyright

Shapiro v. Henson

A trustee may file a § 542(a) motion for turnover whether or not an entity has possession at the time the motion is filed.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Bankruptcy Law

Smith v. U.S. Customs & Border Protection

When petitioner has been removed under the expedited removal statute, §1252(e)(2) does not apply, and when the petitioner is not in custody at the time of filing for a writ of habeas corpus, the district court does not have jurisdiction.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

ASI v. IBT

Section 152 First of the Railway Labor Act, requiring transportation industry employees to “engage in the Act’s labor dispute resolution procedures before ceasing to perform their work,” applies to all transportation industry employees and is not a violation of the free speech rights afforded by the First Amendment.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Martin 1999 Irrevocable Trust v. United States

Economic losses generated by transactions that flow through partnerships permit the IRS to apply Final Partnership Administrative Adjustments (FPAA) relating to one partnership to all partnerships whose transactions are directly related to the initial FPAA.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tax Law

Cano v. Taylor

Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, as long as the federal claims to be added to the initial complaint were administratively exhausted and arose prior to the initial complaint’s filing, they may be added to the complaint by amendment.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Drakes Bay Oyster Co. v. Jewell

Although a federal court lacks jurisdiction to review a decision fully committed to an agency's discretion, it has jurisdictional authority to review the decision for violations of constitutional, statutory, regulatory, or other legal mandates or restrictions.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Environmental Law

United States v. Davis

Section 1B1.10(b) of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual does not violate the separation of powers doctrine or exceed the Commission's authority.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

Estate of Barabin v. AstenJohnson

A reviewing court has the authority to make findings under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc. based the district court’s record, which overrules Mukhtar v. California State University to the extent that Daubert findings always are made by the district court.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Gonzales v. CDC

When a state habeas hearing provides a “full and fair hearing” for the issue to be heard and determined under federal standards, the district court must apply issue preclusion to a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 habeas action.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Grenning v. Miller-Stout

In a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action brought by a prisoner on the basis of continuous illumination of his or her cell, summary judgment is not appropriate where material issues of fact exist regarding the actual brightness of the constant illumination in the cell, the effects thereof, and whether the prison officials were deliberately indifferent to those effects.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Rights § 1983

WTFC v. SEC

Petitioners who have violated Section 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act of 1933 cannot claim the brokers’ exemption under Section 4(4) of the Act when they fail to meet their duty of reasonable inquiry.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Corporations

Obsidian Finance Group v. Cox

In defamation suits, the matter at issue must be of public concern and a plaintiff must show that the defendant acted negligently in publishing an assertion of fact, regardless of whether the writer is a member of the institutional media.

Area(s) of Law:
  • First Amendment

Big Lagoon Rancheria v. State of California

A tribe may compel a State to enter into negotiation under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act if it is a federally recognized tribe with jurisdiction over “Indian lands.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Indian Law

In re: Late Fee & Over-Limit Fee Litigation

Substantive due process jurisprudence placing limitations on punitive damages does not apply to contractual penalties such as credit card late payment or overlimit fees.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Consumer Credit

Negrete-Ramirez v. Holder

The bar for seeking a waiver for inadmissibility under Immigration and Nationality Act § 212(h) “does not apply to persons who adjusted to lawful permanent resident status after having entered into the United States by inspection.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Abbott Laboratories

“Equal protection prohibits peremptory strikes based on sexual orientation.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Native Village of Point Hope v. Jewell

When preparing a Final Environmental Impact statement, although it is recognized that different levels of information will be required at each stage of the development process, one cannot base their conclusions on arbitrary or ill-founded estimates that do not represent the most plausible outcome.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Environmental Law

Aguilar-Turcios v. Holder

A conviction under the Uniform Code of Military Justice Article 92 for violating a Department of Defense Directive by using an official government computer to view pornography does not constitute an aggravated felony.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Gutierrez v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.

For purposes of determining Social Security Supplemental Benefits, it is not error for an Administrative Law Judge to define “region” as the State of California, nor is it error to find 2,500 jobs in that region to be a “significant” number of jobs.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Dickens v. Ryan

When otherwise procedurally defaulted from raising a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner may otherwise succeed if he can show cause and prejudice by establishing that the claim is substantial, in the initial PCR hearing they were either not represented or had ineffective assistance of counsel, a state PCR hearing was their initial review proceeding, and state law required them to bring the claim in their initial review.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

United States v. Shill

18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), using the internet to entice a minor, is not unconstitutionally vague, nor does a ten-year minimum sentence imposed on violators infringe upon the violator's Eighth Amendment rights.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Chavez-Reyes v. Holder

In removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(C)(i), a court may consider a voluntary guilty plea in determining whether the police had "'reason to believe' that Petitioner engaged or assisted in illicit trafficking of drugs" when the conviction is overturned for "a reason unrelated to the voluntariness of the guilty plea."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

MediVas, LLC v. Marubeni Corp.

There is a rebuttable presumption that an order compelling arbitration but that does not explicitly dismiss the underlying claims stays the action as to those claims pending the completion of the arbitration and is an unappealable interlocutory order.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

Griffin v. Gomez

A court will be found to abuse its discretion when issuing orders if it does not take subsequent, related developments into account or fails to apply appropriate authority.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Experience Hendrix v. Hendrixlicensing.com

The Washington Publicity Rights Act can grant post-mortem publicity rights even when the person was not domiciled in Washington at the time of death, provided that the action sued on is premised with sufficient relation to the state of Washington.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trademarks

Mills v. United States

The Quiet Title Act permits a plaintiff to waive the federal government's right of sovereign immunity when there is a “dispute” over real property interest claimed by the federal government.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Standing

Republic of Ecuador v. Mackay

Fed. R. Civ. Pro. Rule 26(b)(3) does not provide presumptive protection for all expert trial preparation materials.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

February 35 summaries

Berger v. Home Depot

Absent a settlement, a stipulated dismissal does not destroy adversity sufficient to bar appellate jurisdiction.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Carter v. Caleb Brett LLC

When a district court significantly reduces a fee award, it must explain with specificity its reasons for the reduction.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

United States v. Williams

An Alford plea to a state charge does not provide sufficient evidence “to prove commission of a state crime for purposes of a federal supervised release violation” when the state does not treat the plea as “sufficiently probative of the fact that the defendant actually committed the acts constituting the crime or crimes of conviction.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Team Equip., Inc.

A district court should not dismiss an original complaint without leave to amend when it does not find that an attempt to amend would be futile; when a plaintiff needs additional information to establish diversity of citizenship for federal jurisdiction diversity, the plaintiff is allowed to plead jurisdictional allegations based on information and belief.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Robins v. Spokeo, Inc.

Inaccurate consumer reporting information is sufficient injury in fact to establish Article III standing under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Standing

Greater L.A. Agency on Deafness v. CNN

For a defendant to successfully move for dismissal under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, the targeted conduct needs to be protected by the defendant’s free speech rights, and then the plaintiff must not have established a probability of prevailing on the merits of their claim.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

United States v. Lyle

Under the Federal Anti-Tampering Act, the removal of prescription drugs and re-gluing of the empty container are facts which may sufficiently allege "tampering with a consumer product."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Brewster v. Sun Trust Mortgage

The attempted collection of fees incurred during a foreclosure proceeding, even if the foreclosure is rescinded, violates the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act if the collection efforts occur while the servicemember is on active duty; and a complaint alleging as much is sufficient to state a claim under the SCRA.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

United States v. Carter

There is no future obligation of restitution when the sentencing court orders that the restitution shall be paid by forfeiture of the assets and does not make restitution part of post release conditions in the judgment.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

United States v. Hammond

Where Congress has, within its authority, determined an appropriate sentence for a crime, the district court has no discretion to disregard the minimum sentence mandated by the statute.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

Smith v. Swarthout

The court will properly deny a habeas corpus petition on appeal if the judgment was not contrary to clearly established federal law and was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

United States v. Vallejos

If one knowingly uses a file-sharing network to download child pornography, then he is engaging in the distribution of such materials, whether or not he knows he is allowing others to access those files.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

United States v. Vasquez-Perez

The initial appearance provisions in Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1, and the requirements therein, do not apply to a defendant already in custody for a separate offense when revocation proceedings begin; and, the procedural safeguards guaranteed by Boykin v. Alabama are not applicable in revocation proceedings.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

United States v. Popov

In health care fraud cases, the amount billed to an insurer shall constitute prima facie evidence of intended loss for sentencing purposes.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Peruta v. County of San Diego

San Diego’s “good cause” policy allowing concealed public carry of firearms, which does not allow permits for those with ordinary self-defense concerns, is an impermissible abridgment of the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

REAOC v. County of Orange

Without explicit legislative intent or statutory authority, longstanding practice or policy alone does not create an implied contractual right.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Contract Law

Reese v. Malone

A court should conduct a holistic scienter analysis to determine whether a party has pled sufficient facts in order to give rise to a strong inference of scienter.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Vosgien v. Persson

A finding of actual innocence will excuse the untimeliness of a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Frudden v. Pilling

A public elementary school's uniform policy that requires displaying the school's written leadership motto and provides a content based exemption for nationally recognized youth organizations unconstitutionally compels a student's speech and is subject to strict scrutiny review.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

United States v. Gonzales-Monterroso

Delaware’s attempted rape in the fourth degree statute does not categorically qualify as a “crime of violence” to warrant a sixteen-level sentencing enhancement because the statute’s definition of “substantial step” is broader than the generic federal analogue.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

HonoluluTraffic.com v. FTA

In considering alternatives to a proposed transportation plan, a party may rely on findings and studies that precede the proposed plan when determining that certain alternative proposals are imprudent.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Environmental Law

Nakano v. United States

Under 26 U.S.C. § 6672, assets are “encumbered” only if the taxpayer has a legal obligation to use the funds for a purpose that is superior to the interests of the Internal Revenue Service, and the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act did not affect the bankrupt taxpayer’s obligation to remit the excise tax to the federal government.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tax Law

Rea v. Michaels Stores

The reviewing court should apply the clearly erroneous standard of review when reviewing the district court’s determination of whether removal jurisdiction exists.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

Lilly v. ConAgra Foods

When state law requirements for nutrition labeling do not "stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of [the federal law's] full purpose and objectives" the state laws cannot be preempted.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Preemption

United States v. Chandler

Conviction of conspiracy to commit a crime of violence is a 'crime of violence' for the purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

United States v. Garcia-Santana

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act the definition of conspiracy requires proof of an overt act in furtherance of said conspiracy.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Sheehan v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco

Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, summary judgment should not be granted when a genuine issue of material fact exists in whether a state’s actors were objectively reasonable in forcing a confrontation with a known emotional and mentally ill person.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Rights § 1983

Stout v. FreeScore

If one offers a service that is represented, through advertisements or otherwise, as having the purpose to provide advice or assistance with regard to improving a consumer’s credit history, score, or record, then it will be deemed a “credit repair organization” under the Credit Repair Organizations Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1679 et seq.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Consumer Credit

Escriba v. Foster Poultry Farms

An employee can affirmatively decline to use FMLA leave, even if the underlying reason for seeking the leave would have invoked FMLA protection.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Labor Law

Garcia v. Google, Inc.

A trial court abuses its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction for the removal of a film available online in a copyright case when the video contains a performance that a plaintiff actress makes intentionally for a different film, and the plaintiff actress establishes: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits of her claim; (2) the likelihood of irreparable harm resulting from a denial of injunctive relief; and (3) a causal connection between the copyright infringement and the alleged harm.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Copyright

Martin v. Gomes

An expectancy interest is distinct from a property interest. An order relating to division of assets that addresses only property interests will not contravene a designated beneficiary's right to receive funds as an expectancy interest.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trusts and Estates

Tadevosyan v. Holder

The Board of Immigration Appeals abused its discretion in denying a motion to reopen because it failed to analyze the DHS’s opposition to the motion, apply the motion to the reopen standard, or provide a reasoned explanation for its decision.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Dariano v. Morgan Hill Unified Sch. Dist.

School officials do not violate students' right to freedom of expression, due process, and equal protection when they ask students to remove clothing bearing the American flag if it is reasonable for the officials “to proceed as though the threat of potentially violent disturbance [i]s real.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • First Amendment

United States v. Yazzie

A defendant's Sixth Amendment rights are not violated when child victims of sexual abuse are permitted to testify in a closed court and without the jury if the court has first determined that it would be detrimental to the victims to testify before an open court.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Airs Aromatics v. Victoria's Secret

Under Section 37 of the Lanham Act, trademark cancellation is a remedy that may be sought in a trademark infringement suit and does not provide an “independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction standing alone;” ongoing litigation over a trademark does not constitute sufficient continuous use for purposes of a showing of non-abandonment.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trademarks

March 51 summaries

United States v. Perez-Valencia

The panel qualified its use of the word "all" regarding the delegation of duties in the event of the District Attorney's absence to refer to “the routine standard daily functions of a prosecutor's office, which does not include administrative matters involving budgets, personnel,” or certain unique matters.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

United States v. Tanke

Mailings sent “to avoid detection or responsibility for a fraudulent scheme,” which were sent before the completion of a scheme, are within the mail fraud statute, and the perpetrator’s scope of the fraudulent scheme should be used to figure out when a scheme has finished.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Wells Fargo v. ABD Ins. & Financial Servs.

A district court abuses its discretion when it does not separately consider a false advertising claim and a trademark infringement claim because the claims have different tests.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trademarks

Clabourne v. Ryan

When a district court has ruled on a petitioner’s default of a claim prior to the announcement of Martinez v. Ryan, and the result of that claim would otherwise be uncertain, appellate courts should otherwise remand the case for additional review.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Peralta v. Dillard

A prison official who is sued under § 1983 for money damages may raise a lack of available resources defense.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Rights § 1983

United States v. Bainbridge

A change in the defendant's circumstances or a new method of rehabilitation is not necessary for a district court to modify a supervised release order.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Go v. Holder

The time, number, and other procedural requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c) apply to claims under the Convention Against Torture.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Montoya v. Holder

An immigrant has no vested right in a retroactivity claim if their actions have not substantially furthered their expectation of relief.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Turijan v. Holder

Felony false imprisonment under California law is not a categorical crime of moral turpitude because it does not require intent to injure someone, actual injury, or a protected class of persons and because the full range of conduct prohibited by the statute does not fall within the definition of moral turpitude.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

United States v. Wilkes

If Supreme Court precedent directly applies in a case, but appears to rest upon “reasons rejected in some other line of decisions, the Court of Appeals should follow the case which directly controls,” because the Supreme Court is entitled to overrule its own decisions, not the Court of Appeals.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. FDIC

Claims against a receiver are prudentially moot if there are insufficient assets to satisfy general unsecured liabilities; and, creditor's claims arising from post-receivership breach of pre-receivership agreements are subject to 12 USC § 1821(d)(11) priority distribution.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Perez-Palafox v. Holder

When determining whether a crime is a “serious crime” for removability, the Board of Immigration Appeals can rely on the Matter of Frentescu test to determine seriousness without going beyond the record.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

United States v. Chhun

18 U.S.C. § 956(a) is not ambiguous and applies to any activities, terrorist or not, involving the acts constituting conspiracy to commit murder while the person conspiring is in the United States.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Estate of Saunders v. CIR

A claim can be deducted from an estate tax return if the estimated value is reasonably ascertainable and not if it is vague or uncertain. Post-death events are allowed for calculation purposes of a deduction when the claim is “disputed or contingent.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tax Law

Huang v. Holder

The Court of Appeals deferred to the adverse credibility ruling of the Immigration Judge against an asylum applicant whose testimony was determined to be not credible and who failed to provide “reasonably obtainable corroborating evidence” of her testimony.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Rivera v. County of Los Angeles

Counties are not liable for violations of federal or state laws when arrestee was mistakenly identified as subject of arrest warrant because the counties had good faith, reasonable beliefs to make arrest, and statutory immunity.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Baumann v. Chase Investment Services

The district court does not have jurisdiction over cases brought initially under the California Labor Code Private Attorney General Act of 2004 ("PAGA") and then removed to federal district court under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 because the PAGA is not sufficiently similar to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 class actions.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

San Luis v. Jewell

A biological opinion is not arbitrary and capricious when it relies on raw numbers and includes adequate support and explanations for its determination that a threatened species’ habitat is in danger; a district court oversteps its bounds when it admits additional expert testimony that the parties have selected, but have not agreed to.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Environmental Law

United States v.Morales-Isabarras

Delays in executing a warrant under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(i) must be "'reasonably necessary,' taking into account 'the legitimate interests of the defendant and the government."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

United States v. Morris

In calculating loss associated with mortgage fraud cases, courts should use the following two steps set forth under U.S.S.G. §2B1.1(b): (1) calculate the greater of actual or intended loss by using a reasonable foreseeability analysis and (2) deducting from the actual or intended loss the value of any collateral recovered or recoverable by the creditor.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Blake v. Baker

A habeas petitioner's post-conviction ineffective assistance of counsel claim constitutes good cause for failure to exhaust a claim if it is reasonably supported by sufficient evidence; the district court abuses its discretion by denying a motion to stay and hold in abeyance a mixed petition if: (1) petitioner shows good cause for failure to exhaust, (2) the unexhausted claims are potentially meritorious, and (3) there is no indication that petitioner engaged in intentionally dilatory litigation tactics.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Coronado v. Holder

California Health & Safety Code § 11377(a) is a divisible statute and convictions for possessing methamphetamine in violation of the statute are not categorical removable offenses.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Rosebrock v. Mathis, et al.

If an organization does not have an organization-wide policy to apply a policy inconsistently, and the associate director clearly communicates the organization's consistent stance on the policy, the organization is not applying the rule inconsistently.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Murray v. Schriro

Under the AEDPA, a state court’s failure to undertake a comparative juror analysis is not “contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, or an unreasonable determination of the facts;” a court properly rejects an ineffective assistance of counsel claim when an attorney diligently pursues a number of avenues for obtaining background evidence; and a court is proper in denying a motion to amend the habeas petition when the claims are “duplicative, frivolous, and futile.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Murray v. Schriro

A denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition brought after April 24, 1996 to challenge a murder conviction and capital sentence will not be overturned where the petitioner’s claims fail to show the state court decision: “(1) was contrary to clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court, (2) involved in an unreasonable application of such law, or (3) …was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the record before the state court” under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

ALASKA STOCK V. HOUGHTON MIFFLIN

Under the Copyright Act, where photographers assign their ownership of copyrights in their images to a stock agency and the stock agency has registered the complete collection as a whole, both the collective work and the individual images are registered. This includes situations where the copyright registration application lacks the individual name of each photographer, and lacks specific titles for each photograph.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Copyright

Haro v. City of Los Angeles

Fire department employees whose job duties do not included fire suppression are entitled to standard overtime pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act because they do not fall within the “engaged in fire protection” exemption.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Labor Law

ISLAMIC SHURA COUNCIL OF SO. CAL. V. FBI

Motions for sanctions under section 11(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure can't be granted if the district court had already decided the underlying dispute when the motion had been filed.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Family PAC v. Ferguson

The term “costs” in Rule 39 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure does not include attorney’s fees.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

Narayanan v. British Airways

The Montreal Convention’s two-year statute of limitations period under Article 35(1) operates as a condition precedent to suit, and is not subject to equitable tolling.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Haskell v. Harris

DNA collection from all adults arrested for or charged with any felony or attempted felony is not a violation of the constitution.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Rights § 1983

Johnson v. Consumerinfo.com

28 U.S.C. §1292(b) is the sole route for an appeal of an order to stay proceedings and compel arbitration.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Arbitration

Oliner v. Kontrabecki

In order to seal all records of a civil proceeding, the party must show that there is an overriding compelling government interest in sealing the record.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Bankruptcy Law

Tattersalls v. DeHaven

The district court's use of Rule 60(a) to correct a judgment and award monetary damages, is proper when the district court's original intent is to award monetary damages.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

United States v. Hernandez-Arias

If one’s temporary resident status is terminated, it acts as a revocation of any prior admission and he or she will return to the status of an inadmissible alien who is subject to removal.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

United States v. Montes-Ruiz

A federal sentencing court may not impose a consecutively running sentence to another pending federal sentence that has not been finalized.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Arjmand v. DHS

Although 49 U.S.C. § 46110 “grants exclusive jurisdiction to the federal courts of appeals to ‘review' the ‘order[s]’ of a number of agencies, including the Transportation Security Administration (TSA),” a federal court of appeals does not have original jurisdiction when a petitioner seeks the relief of being removed from the Consolidated Terrorist Screening Database, or “watchlist,” through TSA, because the watchlist is “maintained by the Terrorist Screening Center,” and § 46110 “does not grant the circuit courts the jurisdiction to review TSC orders, the statute cannot grant jurisdiction over claims seeking removal from the [watchlist].”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

Davis v. Walker

When a lengthy and indefinite stay effectively puts a prisoner out of court, it is an appealable final decision because the stay order fails to adequately protect the prisoner’s interests.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Rights § 1983

Jackson v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco

When governmental action does not create a substantial burden on Second Amendment rights, intermediate scrutiny may be applied in determining the constitutionality of regulations that limit the sale of hollow-point ammunition and requiring safe storage of firearms when not being carried on the person.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Organized Village of Kake v. USDA

Regardless of an existing agency rule or decision, an agency is not stopped from changing that rule or decision, nor does the agency face a higher burden to do so under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Mayes v. Premo

When determining whether to grant a writ habeas corpus based on racial discrimination, totality of the circumstances must be considered, and just a close comparative juror analysis is not sufficient to undermine the prosecutor’s credibility.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Rouse v. Wachovia Mortgage

For diversity jurisdiction purposes, national bank is a citizen only of the state where its main office is located.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

United States v. Guillen-Cervantes

A criminal forfeiture judgment for conviction for conspiracy to transport and harbor illegal aliens pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 982 does not violate the Fifth Amendment because there is no constitutionally protected liberty or property interest being deprived because there is no implied right to contribution.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

United States v. Vargem

When a district court misstates Sentencing Guidelines ranges it constitutes plain error because there is probability the district court would have applied a different sentence. It is also plain error to apply an enhancement when other actions by the defendant are not “relevant conduct” in relation to the conviction.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Ventress v. Japan Airlines

The Federal Aviation Act impliedly field preempts state whistleblower and employment law claims regarding pilot qualifications and medical standards.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Preemption

Ceron v. Holder

A lawful permanent resident of the United States may be removed for a crime of moral turpitude for which a sentence of one year or longer may be imposed, even if the individual in question receives a sentence of less than one year.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Goldman Sachs & Co. v. City of Reno

A city may be a customer under the Financial Industry Regulation Authority and therefore is entitled to arbitration, however, when a city agrees to a forum selection clause they waive their right to arbitration.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Arbitration

Gonzalez v. City of Anaheim

Summary judgment for an excessive use of deadly force claim should not be granted if, based on the totality of the circumstances, a jury could reasonably rule for either party.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Lal v. California

Ninth Circuit upholds qualified immunity in officer involved shooting where "suspect posed an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others." Further, qualified immunity "does not become less if [the] assailant is motivated to commit 'suicide by cop.'"

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Rights § 1983

Ortega v. Holder

Individuals must take actual action to establish expectation of vested rights to defeat reinstatement of a deportation order.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

United States v. IMM

(1) The competency of a child witness is a matter within the discretion of the trial judge and not to be disturbed unless clearly erroneous. (2) Inculpatory statements made by a juvenile defendant in custody must be suppressed if the defendant was not properly read his Miranda rights.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

April 54 summaries

Block v. eBay

In order to state a claim for violations under California’s False Advertising Law, a private plaintiff must prove actual, reasonable reliance on the misrepresentations, and those misrepresentations must be material.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Block v. eBay

In order to state a claim for violations under California’s False Advertising Law, a private plaintiff must prove actual, reasonable reliance on the misrepresentations, and those misrepresentations must be material.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Korab v. Fink

A state does not commit a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by not filling the gap left “by Congress’s withdrawal of federal funding for Compact of Free Association with the United States residents.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Rights § 1983

Peabody Coal v. OWCP

The Administrative Procedure Act is not violated when an ALJ relies on the regulatory preamble to the Black Lung Benefits Act when using it to understand medical issues and his award determination is based on supporting substantial evidence.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

S.L. v. Upland Unified Sch. Dist.

Under the Individuals with Disabilities Act, a child can be reimbursed for private schooling if the private schooling is shown to be appropriate; a motion for attorneys fees must be timely filed.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Disability Law

United States v. Lopez

A “properly authenticated verification of removal is legally sufficient to support a finding of physical removal beyond a reasonable doubt”; and, the government is required to show physical removal but not to show that before removal of an alien an order of removal was issued.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Albino v. Baca

If a defendant in litigation subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act believes a plaintiff has not met the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s exhaustion requirements, the issue of “exhaustion should be decided, if feasible, before reaching the merits of a prisoner’s claim [via a motion for summary judgment]”; a courts’ decision regarding disputed factual question(s) relevant to exhaustion at the beginning of litigation does not bind the jury, if considering the same disputed fact(s) is necessary for deciding the merits of the case.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

United States v. Ward

If defendant does not expressly raise a "Fifth Amendment objection" to an amended indictment, but still objects to a substantive change in jury instructions and the court does not change the instructions to accurately reflect the conduct alleged, the court will have "constructively amended the indictment by permitting the jury to convict [the defendant] based on conduct not alleged in those counts" in violation of the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Messick v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.

Under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, an expert’s testimony may only identify a substantial factor contributing to a condition and need not identify the cause of a condition to be reliable, also given the liberal thrust favoring admission the testimony is relevant if it based in knowledge with a valid connection to the condition at issue.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Samsung Electronics v. Panasonic Corp.

A plaintiff may allege a continuing antitrust violation that allows the plaintiff to bring a claim within four years of a later violation, if there is a new and independent act by the defendant that does more than reaffirm the previous violation, and the new act inflicts some new and accumulating injury upon the plaintiff.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

Courthouse News Service v. Planet

It is incorrect for a district court to abstain from hearing a case where the plaintiff’s claim presents an important constitutional question and the relief sought would not excessively intrude on sensitive state interests.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Rights § 1983

United States v. Albino-Loe

Notices to Appear when introduced in a removal hearing, are not testimonial and do not run afoul of constitutional concerns; and, a court is prohibited from ruling on sentence enhancements in removal cases where the state of the originating offense did not permit certain affirmative defenses.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

United States v. Dominguez -Maroyoqui

A violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(a) is not a categorical crime of violence, and a felony conviction under that subsection cannot support a “crime of violence” sentence enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

United States v. French

A defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to self-representation is not violated when a court adequately advises the defendant of the disadvantages of foregoing counsel and the defendant affirms his or her wish to proceed pro se is voluntary; a conviction for money laundering will be reversed when the state fails to provide sufficient evidence that the defendant “knowingly” engaged in the transaction.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

PAMC, Ltd. v. Sebelius

The failure to timely submit data on a quarterly basis to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services under the Reporting Hospital Quality Data for Annual Payment Update program will result in a reduction by two percentage points to the medical center who failed to submit the data.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Eldee-K Rental Properties v. DIRECTV

The local action doctrine applies to “actions to recover or determine rights or interests in real property, actions to remedy injuries to real property, and actions to foreclose on liens and mortgages on real property.” As a result, other actions not falling into those categories are transitory.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Property Law

United States v. Barrios-Siguenza

A court cannot vacate an invalid conviction of a defendant who has been deported if the case is “unlikely to language for an indefinite period of time.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

United States v. Sheldon

Under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) the Government does not need to prove a defendant’s knowledge concerning the interstate commerce travel of materials used in the production of child pornography.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Gordon v. Deloitte & Touchie

The statute of limitations period cannot be reopened after an insurance company decided to reopen a claim because doing so would discourage any future decisions by insurance companies to reopen a claim even when the decision to do so may be warranted.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Insurance Law

United States v. Gillenwater

To authorize an order for involuntary medication to attain competency of a defendant, the court must find clear and convincing evidence that there is (1) an important governmental interest; (2) involuntary medication will significantly further that interest; (3) involuntary medication is necessary; and (4) the administration is medically appropriate.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

United States v. Villalobos

A district court's instruction that all threats to testify are produce information are "wrongful" is erroneous if they were made with the intend to induce or take advantage of fear, however when the error is harmless it is overlooked.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Gallardo v. United States

In pursuing a Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) action, a plaintiff’s claim accrues when she becomes aware of her injury and its cause, however, equitable tolling of the FTCA’s statute of limitations may be appropriate in some circumstances.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

Jackson v. Barnes

A claim brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is not barred if the second conviction will not be affected, even if the damages are nominal because the prisoner was serving time for an unrelated conviction.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Meritage Homes of Nevada V. FDIC

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation may satisfy judgments against it with receiver's certificates as opposed to cash.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Consumer Credit

United States v. Charles

The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010’s provisions only apply to offenders who are sentenced after August 3, 2010 and Amendment 750 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines does not apply to those sentenced under the career offender guideline.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Yokeno v. Sekiguchi

Organic Act of Guam granted the District Court of Guam the same privileges other courts possess regarding diversity jurisdiction that have been set forth in Article III., but because the Constitution does not confer Article III courts diversity jurisdiction involving aliens, the Organic Act must also be limited by the Constitution and diversity jurisdiction involving aliens is not permitted.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Carrion Garcia v. Holder

An adverse credibility finding will not necessarily preclude a Convention Against Torture claim, unless there is a convincing reason to support such a determination after sufficient consideration has been given to all of the evidence provided by the petitioner.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

In re: Schwartz-Tallard

Attorneys’ fees incurred by a bankruptcy debtor in defense of a creditor’s appeal of a ruling that the creditor had violated the automatic stay requirement are actual damages recoverable by the debtor.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Bankruptcy Law

He v. Holder

A showing of substantial economic disadvantage suffered, or other sufficient harm, is required to establish an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution to be granted review of the Board of Immigration Appeal's denial of asylum and withholding of removal.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

United States v. Christian

A district court abuses it discretion by not considering whether expert testimony would have been relevant and helpful to the jury in determining a defendant's diminished capacity defense.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

United States v. Emmett

When denying a petitioner’s motion based on 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), a district court must provide an adequate reason for denying the motion; and, it is not an abuse of discretion for a court to require a defendant to demonstrate that he suffered an undue hardship as one of the factors for a 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) claim.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

United States v. Odachyan

Judicial statements which respond to arguments made by the defendant in the manner of a “general frustration” that do not represent their own personal bias are not unconstitutional and not enough to make a fair judgment impossible; and, a defendant may waive his right to appeal by a knowing and voluntary waiver.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

Forbess v. Franke

Where a mental illness suffered by a defendant involves delusions that are so severe that he cannot rationally understand the importance of timely filing a federal habeas corpus petition; and, where the peculiar or unique nature of that illness makes it impossible for him to file, and in fact caused him not to timely file that petition, such a mental illness is sufficient to entitle that defendant to an equitable tolling of the 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A) one-year statute of limitation.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

In re: Perez

The timing of a statement of disclosure does not negate an employee's status as an informant, and the identity of informants will only be justifiably released to the defending party if the information is essential to a successful defense.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Tobeler v. Colvin

Under the Equal Access to Justice Act, an award of attorney’s fees is appropriate where the government’s underlying position was not substantially justified, despite justification for their litigation position.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

United States v. Harrington

Due process is violated when a park ranger in a national park does not inform a suspected drunk driver that refusal to submit to a breath or chemical test is a freestanding offense that is punishable with a fine or imprisonment.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

United States v. Taylor

Willfully withholding materially false information to persuade or otherwise attempt to persuade a judge may permit a judge to add an obstruction of justice enhancement to a defendant’s pending case under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3C1.1.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Jin v. Holder

In an adverse credibility determination, substantial evidence must reasonably show that a petitioner is not credible based on the totality of circumstances.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Wolfe v. BNSF

An employee’s state law claim alleging injury caused by misconduct in employee disciplinary proceedings under a collective bargaining agreement is preempted by the federal Railway Labor Act while an employee’s state law claim concerning alleged negligent mismanagement resulting in a head-on collision is not preempted by the ACT because it is independent of a collective bargaining agreement and therefore did not require interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

Hedlund v. Ryan

If an application for writ of habeas corpus is based on a claim or claims that were adjudicated on the merits in state court proceedings it will not be granted, unless the state court decision was contrary to or involved unreasonable application of Federal law or the decision was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Hernandez v. Holland

A mid-trial conversation between a defendant and a court bailiff does not constitute an interrogation under Miranda.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Stockwell v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco

Where a district court evaluates the merits of a case in assessing whether the common question required for certification of a class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2) exists, instead of evaluating the commonality of the questions presented to the members of the putative class, there is an abuse of discretion reversible under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

United States v. Gomez

To attack a deportation order, an alien defendant must demonstrate: (1) exhaustion of any administrative remedies to seek relief against the order; (2) the deportation proceedings deprived judicial review; and (3) the entry of the order was fundamentally unfair if due process rights were violated in the deportation proceeding and the defendant suffered prejudice as a result of those proceeding defects.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Leite V. Crane Co

When a plaintiff challenges removal under the federal officers removal statute, the burden is on the defendant to show beyond a preponderance of the evidence that the colorable federal defense and causal nexus requirements for removal jurisdiction were met.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Nevarez v. Barnes

An amended law that requires a reduction of time credits as a consequence of intervening misconduct by an inmate who was previously eligible for time credits does not raise ex post facto issues.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

United States v. Ramirez-Estrada

Use of a defendant's post-Miranda-invocation of silence to impeach the defendant violates the defendant's constitutional rights under Doyle v. Ohio, regardless of whether or not the police complied with Miranda.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

United States v. Ruiz-Lopez

To uphold a conviction for illegal reentry after deportation, documents within an individual’s official record of prior encounters with immigration enforcement (“A-file”) may provide sufficient evidence of alienage.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

United States v. Thum

In order for a defendant to have encouraged or induced an illegal alien to reside in the US in violation of 8 USC § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv), the defendant must expel some effort to actually convince the illegal alien to remain in the United States, or to actually assist in the alien’s ability to remain living in the United States indefinitely.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Ragasa v. Holder

A foreign-born child, whose biological parents were not U.S. citizens at the time of his birth does not obtain citizenship citizenship through a subsequent adoption by U.S. citizens, however to establish removability under Section 237(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act the government must prove that the drug underlying the state conviction is covered by Section 102 of the federal Controlled Substances Act.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Brown v. Oregon Dept. of Corr.

An inmate’s claim for monetary damages due to a violation of their procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment will not prevail where state officials,reasonably performing within their official capacities, do not deprive an inmate of a constitutional right if the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Frost v. Van Boening

A trial court infringes on a defendant's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights when it precludes defense counsel from making a legitimate defense theory to the jury.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Technica, LLC v. Carolina Cas. Ins Co.

The absence of a state license to contract does not preclude a subcontractor from pursuing a claim under the Miller Act for payments due under the contract.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Remedies

Dixon v. Williams

Erroneous jury instruction regarding self-defense was not harmless because it limited the jury's consideration of what constitutes manslaughter instead of murder.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

United States v. Hernandez-Estrada

When determining whether certain groups are underrepresented, each case should be assessed based on its particular circumstances; and, in order to establish a prima facie case pursuant to the Jury Selection Act, the evidence must show that underrepresentation of minority groups in jury selection proceedings is due to systemic causes.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

May 40 summaries

Butler v. Long

A party is entitled to equitable tolling if a district court has dismissed the initial habeas petition before allowing a party to amend the petition.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

City of Pomona v. SQM

Facts that cast doubt as to the credibility of an expert witness and contested facts as to the strength of a scientific method are questions reserved for the fact finder.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Lindsay v. Bowen

It is not a violation of constitutional rights for a state to exclude a person from the ballot who is constitutionally ineligible to be president, even if their stated goal is not to actually become president but only to run.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

United States v. Castro-Verdugo

The district court has jurisdiction to revoke probation when (1) the defendant is still serving a term of probation and (2) the defendant violates its conditions.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Eclectic Props. East v. Marcus & Millichap Co.

To bring forth a RICO violation claim, a plaintiff must provide sufficient factual allegations that establish a plausible theory of specific intent to defraud, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) and 9(b), otherwise the claim will be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Orpiada v. McDaniel

In states expressly rejecting the prison mailbox rule, tolling of a state habeas corpus petition under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty will not be allowed if filed in an untimely manner.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Pirir-Boc v. Holder

For the purposes of asylum and withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture, there must be evidence to support that the particular persecuted social group the petitioner belongs to is socially recognized. The persecutor's perception and persecutory conduct are factors to consider to determine a group's social viability.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Progressive Gulf Ins. Co. v. Faehnrich

A choice-of-law provision in automobile insurance contracts does not violate Nevada public policy.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Insurance Law

United States v. Brooks

In order to allow one to regain competency to stand trial, the government may order the administration of antipsychotic drugs against the defendant’s will, but only if there is no other way to administer the drugs and the four Sell factors are met.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Garcia v. PacifiCare of California

A health insurance company’s refusal to cover myoelectric prosthetics is not a violation of California Health and Safety Code §1367.18.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Insurance Law

In Re: Zynga Privacy Litigation

A claim under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act must make an allegation that the contents of a communication were disclosed in order to survive a motion for dismissal.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

LOWD/BMBP v. CONNAUGHTON

Where the United States Forest Service’s final environmental impact statement relating to a logging project relies upon a particular forest’s travel management plan, in terms of regulating off-road motorized travel, reducing the amount of roads in a forest, and addressing environmental harms, which is later withdrawn; and, plaintiffs make adequate showings that they are: (1) likely to prevail under the National Environmental Policy Act, (2) likely to face irreparable harm, and (3) that the balance of equities tips in their favor – plaintiffs are entitled to the issuance of a preliminary injunction.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Environmental Law

United Transp. Union v. Foxx

If a collective bargaining agreement is unclear in its terms, the Federal Railroad Association lacks jurisdiction to issue an order interpreting the agreement.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Labor Law

Horne v. USDA

USDA’s action of imposing a raisin marketing order diverting a percentage of raisins from raisin handlers does not violate the Takings Clause because the requirement to divert raisins in order to maintain market conditions is “roughly proportional to the specific interest” that the USDA is attempting to protect.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Property Law

United States v. Cabrera-Perez

An alien is only eligible for voluntary departure if he has not committed a crime of violence.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Wolfson v. Concannon

Free speech restrictions by states on non-judge candidates running for judicial office must be based on a compelling state interest and must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Chandra v. Holder

The panel may hear a petitioner’s untimely motion to reopen even if the changed country conditions are made relevant solely by the petitioner’s personal circumstances.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Green v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco

An officer who does not verify the plates of a stolen vehicle while making a stop may be making an unlawful stop.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Rights § 1983

In Defense of Animals v. Dep’t of the Interior

Under the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act the BLM has authority to remove horses and burros when their populations exceed previously designated Appropriate Management Levels within Health Management Areas , further if the BLM provides the pertinent information in a convincing report, an environmental impact statement is not required under the National Environmental Policy Act.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Environmental Law

United States v. Preston

Police officers using coercive measures against a person who is mentally handicapped in order to determine if a crime has been committed violates constitutional rights because that confession is involuntary, thereby making the confession inadmissible.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Yeh v. Martel

Neither limited mental ability nor limited knowledge of the English language are per se extraordinary circumstances that entitle a petitioner to an equitable tolling of the limitations period on a petition for Habeas Corpus.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Oliver v. SD-3C

When seeking injunctive relief pursuant to federal antitrust laws, section 16 of the Clayton Act governs. To determine whether the complaint is filed in a timely manner, the equitable defense of laches applies, subject to both the continuous violations and speculative damages exceptions.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Corporations

United Nat’l Maint. v. San Diego Convention Ctr.

Under California law even though a party has an economic interest in a contractual relationship, that party can still be found liable for any intentional interference with that contract.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

Hurles v. Ryan

A remand is appropriate when appellate counsel fails to raise all nonfrivolous issues on appeal, including inadequacy of trial or appellate counsel, and the failure results in actual prejudice; and, a failure to hold an evidentiary hearing is evidence of defective fact-finding and may provide evidence of judicial bias.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Zhi v. Holder

A judge’s adverse credibility determination must be grounded in substantial evidence in light of the totality of the circumstances, and a judge must provide notice or an opportunity for explanation to asylum applicants of the corroborative evidence needed to meet his or her burden of proof.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Chaudhry v. City of Los Angeles

California's survival statute does not apply to claims where the death of the decedent was caused by a violation of federal law.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Rights § 1983

People of the State of Cal. v. U.S. D.O.I.

The Secretary of the Interior does not abuse his or her discretion when electing to not create an Environmental Impact Statement when redistributing a water allotment.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Environmental Law

Pyramid Tech. v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co.

Expert testimony that meets the standards of the Federal Rules of Evidence is admissible in court for a trier of fact to determine its correctness so long as a court deems the opinions to be based on sound methodology and relevant principles within the expertise of the aficionado.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Vega v. Ryan

When applying Strickland v. Washington, a petitioner is required to prove (1) that counsel’s efforts fell below the standard prevailing in the community, and (2) that those failings prejudiced him; and, the petition must demonstrate that the likelihood of a different result is substantial not just conceivable.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

ProtectMarriage.com v. Bowen

The constitutional validity of contribution disclosure requirements is evaluated using exacting scrutiny, which balances a burden on First Amendment rights and the substantial government interests of (1) providing the electorate with information about the source of campaign money, (2) deterring corruption and the appearance of corruption, and (3) keeping accurate records.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

United States v. Garza

A district court does not commit plain error in not sua sponte convening a hearing on the defendant’s competency where the medical history of a defendant is not strong and there is not a clear connection between the defendant’s ostensible dementia and any negative effect on his capability of understanding the proceedings or in aiding counsel in his defense.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Singh v. Holder

In a witholding of removal proceeding the burden shifts to the petitioner when the Government can show there is a fundamental change in circumstances in a country's conditions, an agency is permitted to consider the probative value of hearsay and non-hearsay evidence in this determination.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

United States v. Arreola

When determining if a particular crime fits within a categorical definition outlined by another statute, it is appropriate to look at the definition of the crime itself and not at the particular circumstances surrounding the offense.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

United States v. Ezeta

An indictment for fraud under 20 U.S.C. § 1097(a) does not require the government to prove that the defendant personally received or exercised control over funds.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

United States v. Guerrero-Jasson

When applying the twenty-year statutory maximum penalty under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b), whether the defendant was removed before or after an aggravated felony conviction must be submitted to a jury or admitted by the defendant.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

George v. Edholm

The actions of a private individual may be attributed to the state if there is a close enough connection between the challenged action and the state actor so that the behavior may be treated as if it was “of the State itself."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Rights § 1983

Plata v. Brown

A district court’s order is consistent with the Prison Litigation Reform Act if it is “a sensible scheduling order designed to provide the court and Plaintiffs with adequate notice of the evidence the State intends to rely upon in a motion to terminate.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Rights § 1983

United States v. Rangel-Guzman

In a criminal trial, a prosecutor must use another witness to impeach prior statements of the witness.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

United States v. Sullivan

Venue in district court is proper when an essential conduct element of the offense continues into the charging district.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Ervine v. Desert View Reg’l Med. Ctr. Holdings

To prove standing under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a party must show a real and immediate threat that he will be subject to a discriminatory act by the defendant; and, under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, each discrete and independent discriminatory act causes a claim to accrue and a new limitations period to begin.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Disability Law

June 39 summaries

FTC v. BurnLounge, Inc.

A multi-level marketing business can be classified as a pyramid scheme when it satisfies the two-prong Webster v. Omnitron International, Inc. test, by making people buy the rights to sell that business’ product and providing cash incentives for recruiting new participants to purchase the right to sell that product.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Corporations

Wilcox v. Arpaio

When determining if two parties created an enforceable agreement, resulting in the settling of both federal and state law claims through the use of the same evidence for both sets of claims, federal mediation law is to be applied.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution

Laguna v. Coverall North America

An award of attorney’s fees in a settlement agreement reached before class certification is fair, reasonable, and adequate under the lodestar method, if: (1) the relief sought is mostly injunctive and a fee-shifting statute exists; (2) the amount of the award is significantly less than the lodestar amount; and, (3) the reviewing court cross-checks the amount of the award against an alternative percentage-of-recovery method.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Planned Parenthood Arizona v. Humble

When determining whether a woman’s constitutional right to abortion has been hindered, the undue burden test will apply, whereby it must be shown that a substantial obstacle prevents or defers a woman from accessing preferred methods of abortion.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Rosales-Martinez v. Palmer

If a prisoner’s claim for relief is based on an unlawful sentence, then the statute of limitations does not begin to run until the conviction or sentence is invalidated.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Rights § 1983

Wood v. Yordy

The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act does not authorize suits against a person in anything other than an official or governmental capacity.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Rights § 1983

Burton V. Infinity Capital Management

Quasi-judicial immunity is not extended as a matter of law to an attorney who prepares a judicial order for a judge.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sovereign Immunity

United States v. Osinger

Prohibiting conduct under 18 U.S.C.§§ 2261A(2)(A) is not facially invalid under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Parsons v. Ryan

Inmates alleging Eighth Amendment violations satisfy the class certification requirements pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, which, in turn, allows the putative class and subclass to seek injunctive and declaratory relief as an appropriate remedy.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

United States v. Spear

Knowing and voluntary waiver of a defendant's right to appeal sentence does not extend to right to the defendant's right to appeal his conviction.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Cohen v. City of Culver City

When a facility is already in compliance with the ADA but disabled access has been eliminated, 28 C.F.R. § 35.151 applies rather than 28 C.F.R. § 35.150 for purposes of determining whether a person has been denied the benefits of a public entity’s services.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Disability Law

Gabriel v. Alaska Electrical Pension Fund

An error of calculation in a benefit pension plan is not sufficient to invoke equitable estoppel.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

Sinibaldi v. Redbox

When a zip code, in connection with a self-serve kiosk, is asked of a customer the information does not violate the California’s Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971 because it falls under an exemption in Cal. Civ. Code § 1747.08(c)(1) where a “card is being used as a deposit to secure payment in the event of default, loss, damage, or other similar occurrence.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Corporations

Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum

The state action doctrine is implicated when a court must decide a matter that is determined by the effect of a foreign sovereign’s original action; if the state action doctrine is implicated it is then relevant to determine if there are any applicable exceptions.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Street Surfing v. Great Am. E&S Ins. Co.

An insurance company may deny coverage under a prior publication exclusion if the publication was used before coverage and post-coverage advertisements are substantially similar to advertisements posted before the coverage period.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Insurance Law

In re: MERS

One must be in possession of both the promissory note and deed of trust of a mortgage in order to foreclose on a property, but if these documents are separated, the assignment of a beneficial interest in the deed of trust to the note holder will “reunify” the documents.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Property Law

Jiang v. Holder

Inconsistencies between an individual’s asylum declaration recounting physical abuse suffered and the failure to testify about the same during a removal hearing until prompted by the attorney to do so is a sufficient basis to support an Immigration Judge’s adverse credibility determination.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

ReadyLink Healthcare v. SCIF

Abstention in civil cases is proper when state proceedings: (1) are ongoing; (2) either involve a state’s interest in enforcing orders or judgments of its courts or are quasi-criminal actions; (3) are of an important state interest; and, (4) permit involved parties to bring federal challenges.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

United States v. Goldtooth

The crime of attempted robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2111 requires proof of specific intent.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

United States v. Quintero-Junco

A district court that imposes a non-United States Sentencing Guidelines sentence for illegal reentry after deportation does not commit methodological or plain error where it treats the Guidelines as its starting point and then relies on the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors; and, a sentencing court’s improper execution in applying the modified categorical approach to a divisible statute when analyzing a defendant’s prior conviction is inconsequential where the elements of the pertinent statutory prong categorically match the elements of the United States Sentencing Commission’s definition of “forcible sex offense.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

Reddam v. CIR

A capital loss tax deduction must have economic substance; and, under the economic substance doctrine, a transaction must not be intended only to create a capital loss with no real expectation of generating income.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tax Law

Chula Vista Citizens v. Norris

Official proponents for ballot initiatives cannot be associations because any official proponent must be a natural person, and requiring an official proponent to identify themselves on the face of the petition for ballot initiative violates the First Amendment.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Rights § 1983

Ruiz v. Affinity Logistics

When one controls the details of another’s work, courts must weigh a variety of factors to determine whether the worker is an employee or an independent contractor, including determining whether the “employer” has the right to control the details of the work.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Labor Law

Trillo v. Biter

An improper comment by a prosecutor does not materially affect the fairness of a trial when the trial court sustains the defendant’s objection and instructs the jury that statements made by the attorneys during trial are not evidence; and, to be deprived of a fair trial, there must be a reasonable probability that the jury would have reached a different verdict without the prosecutorial misstatements.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

United States v. Aguilera-Rios

A conviction under a state statute that is not a categorical match for the federal aggravated felony firearms offense is not grounds for a removal order.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

United States v. Jackson

In order to meet 18 U.S.C. § 701’s element of “prescription by the head of a United States department or agency,” evidence of who prescribed the design of the badge, card or other insignia must be presented.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

United States v. Richardson

The Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”) does not violate the non-delegation doctrine because each state’s public office must respectively interpret policy in order to protect the public from sex offenders; similarly, SORNA does not violate the Tenth Amendment commandeering principle because Congress conditioned the receipt of federal funds on the implementation of SORNA requirements, whereby states are free to choose whether or not to enact SORNA.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

United States v. Rodriguez

Medical negligence can only be asserted as an affirmative defense in a murder trial in the event that the superseding act was extraordinary and unforeseeable, therefore breaking the logical chain of proximate cause, absolving the defendant(s) from murder.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Allen v. Meyer

A magistrate judge has no jurisdiction to enter a final judgment without the consent of the parties.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Ramona Equip Rental v. Carolina Cas. Ins. Co.

In an action brought under the Miller Act regarding an open book account for the same government project, any ninety day notice of a claim will be considered timely to all deliveries made on the account so long as the notice is given within ninety days of the last delivery.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Davis v. Nordstrom, Inc.

Under California law, a company’s revisions to an employee arbitration policy contained in its employee handbook precluding its employees from bringing class action lawsuits can be a valid agreement where the company: (1) satisfies minimal state law requirements for providing employees reasonable notice of the change; and (2) does not seek to enforce the arbitration provision during the notice period provided.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

Hendricks & Lewis PLLC v. Clinton

Under Washington law copyrights in the masters are subject to execution to satisfy a debt.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Copyright

Johnmohammadi v. Bloomingdale’s

An arbitration clause in an employment contract that disallows class action arbitration is valid where the employee has the opportunity to opt-out of the clause.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

United States v. Shouse

It is not abuse of discretion for the trial court to apply enhancement factors under United States Sentencing Guideline § 2G2.2(b)(4) or order the sentence run consecutively to an undischarged state sentence for sexual exploitation of a minor by production of sexually explicit visual or printed material that portrayed sadistic or masochistic conduct or other depictions of violence.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

United States v. Torres Pimental

When the delay in presenting a defendant to a magistrate judge is unreasonable and unnecessary, statements made prior to appearing before the judge must be suppressed.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Tourgeman v. Collins Financial Servs.

A debt collector cannot present misleading information that is material in the collection of their debt; and, under section 1692e of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, a debt collector is liable if the least sophisticated debtor would be misled by a communication.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Bankruptcy Law

In re: Icenhower

An Amended Consolidated Judgment is sufficiently specific if it orders a party to take “a specific and definite course of conduct.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Bankruptcy Law

The Arc of California v. Douglas

While a home- and community-based services waiver may serve as a bypass to the Medicaid Act, when there is irreparable harm as a result of the waiver, it may be enough to warrant a preliminary injunction.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

United States v. Tillman

An order removing appointed counsel cannot be directly appealed because the order is nonfinal but can be raised by the defendant on appeal of the underlying case; additionally, a sanctions order can be directly appealed because it raises serious implications regarding the attorney’s reputation.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

July 40 summaries

Sandoval v. Las Vegas Metro Police Dep't

Police officers executing a warrantless search are not entitled to qualified immunity if the search is not supported by an exception to the warrant requirement; however, separation of father and son for forty minutes and killing of family dog during execution of the search does not constitute deprivation of a familial relationship.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Rights § 1983

Anderson v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco

To assert a valid bona fide occupational qualification defense for sex discrimination, an employer must prove: (1) that the job qualification justifying the discrimination is reasonably necessary to the essence of its business; and (2) that sex is a legitimate proxy for the qualification because (a) it has a substantial basis for believing that all or nearly all individuals of that particular sex lack the qualification, or (b) it is impossible or highly impractical to insure by individual testing that its employees will have the necessary qualifications for the job.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

United States v. Lizzaraga-Carrizales

The 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) safety valve determination does not implicate the United States Supreme Court case Alleyne v. United States because no increase in the statutory minimum sentence occurs as a result, so a district court may engage in judicial fact-finding when making such a determination.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

In Re: Icenhower

Even after a notice of appeal has been filed, a bankruptcy court typically does not have the ability to alter or expand a judgment, although, the bankruptcy court retains jurisdiction to oversee any ordered course of conduct by parties to an action.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Bankruptcy Law

United States v. Lopez-Chavez

Ineffective assistance of counsel exists where an attorney concedes removability based on a prior conviction and for failing to appeal the decision of the court, which if properly appealed the court would have been bound by precedent to render a favorable holding in favor of the client.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Arizona Dream Coalition v. Brewer

A preliminary injunction is proper in an equal protection claim when the plaintiff can show a likelihood of success on the merits of their equal protection claim, that the plaintiff is likely to suffer irreparable harm unless the policy is enjoined, and that both the balance of equities and the public interest favored an injunction.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Bojnoordi v. Holder

The statutory terrorism bar at 8 U.S.C.§ 1182(a)(3)(B) applies retroactively to material support of a Tier III organization, even if the organization was not officially designated as a terrorist group at the time of the material support.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Dilts v. Penske Logistics, Inc.

State laws are not preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 unless proven to have a “significant impact” on prices, routes and services.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Labor Law

Avila v. LAPD

When an employee’s testimony provides a motivating factor in that employee’s termination, the employer has violated the FLSA’s anti-retaliation provision, 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3), and the employee may recover liquidated damages.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Labor Law

United States v. Hsiung

The Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1—7, does not apply to import trade, unless it proximately causes a direct effect on domestic commerce in the United States.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Amado v. Gonzalez

Under Brady v. Maryland, prosecutors must disclose favorable and material evidence to the defense; and, in making a Brady claim, the defense must show that the evidence is both newly-discovered and that the exercise of due diligence would not have uncovered the evidence.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

United States v. Ruiz

Reckless omissions by a police officer about the credibility of an eyewitness to obtain a search warrant may fatally undermine a finding of probable cause without corroboration that the eyewitness is truthful.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Flores v. County of Los Angeles

Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must show that the lack of training is the proximate cause of an assault.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Rights § 1983

Garrison v. Colvin

In determining whether a claimant is entitled to an award of Social Security Disability benefits, the “credit-as-due” analysis will be applied in order to determine whether the case should be remanded to the Administrative Law Judge to determine disability benefits, whereby three elements must all be satisfied: (1) the record must be fully developed that additional proceedings are not useful; (2) lack of “legally sufficient reasons” provided by the Administrative Law Judge for denying evidence; and (3) assuming the discarded evidence were true, on remand, the Administrative Law Judge would be obligated to conclude the claimant is disabled.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Disability Law

E.M. v. Pajaro Valley USD

A school district is given deference to determine whether a child may be classified as a "child with a disability" because of the ambiguous intent of Congress in 20 U.S.C. § 1401(3)(A)(i); and, the agency's interpretation will take effect unless it is inconsistent or plainly erroneous to the regulation.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Disability Law

Merritt v. Countrywide Financial Corp.

Pursuant to the Truth in Lending Act a court may only order the statutory sequence altered and require tender before rescission at the summary judgment stage and then only on a case-by-case basis, once the creditor has established a potentially viable defense; additionally pursuant to the Real Estate Settlement Practices Act the doctrine of equitable tolling a borrower, in appropriate circumstances, may suspend the limitations period until the borrower discovers or had a reasonable opportunity to discover the violation.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Consumer Credit

Police Retirement Sys. V. Intuitive Surgical

Forward-looking statements that include sufficient warning fall within the safe harbor provision when there is a heightened Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) pleading requirement.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Corporations

Van Der Hule v. Holder

Even though a felon has had some rights restored following completion of a felony sentence, further federal restriction on the right to purchase and possess a firearm is permitted unless those restored rights grant the convicted person full rights equal to a person never convicted of a felony.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

To have constitutional standing an organizations purported injuries must be casually linked to an Environment Protection Agency (EPA) approval of a regional haze plan; further an EPA approval of a plan is not arbitrary and capricious if it considers the relevant factors for approval.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Coronado v. Holder

An individual can be held inadmissible based on a conviction for possessing methamphetamine, in violation of California Health & Safety Code § 11377(a) because § 11377(a) is a divisible statute and in applying the modified categorical approach violation of § 11377(a)also violates the Federal Controlled Substances Act.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Schultze V. Chandler

In bankruptcy proceedings, a committee's retained counsel represents only the bankruptcy estate as a whole and the counsel has no fiduciary duty to individual members.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Bankruptcy Law

Wood v. Ryan

Where a state department of corrections withholds information regarding the method of a prisoner’s impending execution, a district court abuses its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction request delaying the execution until the prisoner receives this information, if: (1) the prisoner has raised serious questions as to the merits of a First Amendment claim; (2) the balance of equities tips sharply in the prisoner’s favor; (3) the prisoner will face irreparable harm if an injunction is not granted; (4) the injunction is in the public interest.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

United States v. Liera-Morales

An ongoing hostage situation is an emergency situation for the purposes of determining whether statements made during police interrogations are nontestimonial.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Gonzalez v. Planned Parenthood

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) and 9(b), a claim under the False Claims Act must plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief through factual allegations, and must adequately plead falsity.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Juarez Alvarado v. Holder

A petition will be denied under the modified categorical approach that the government met its burden to prove removability based on attempted possession of a controlled substance, even when the court could not consider the indictment because the count as originally charged was dismissed the defendant pled to a lesser charge in a modified count because it could consider a page in the indictment that described the substance as methamphetamine and the statement was specifically incorporated into the plea agreement as the factual basis supporting the guilty plea.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

United States v. Daniels

According to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(b)(2)(E), a court is required to personally address a defendant giving the defendant a chance to present mitigating information before imposing a sentence.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

United States v. Kiefer

Applying the mandatory minimum sentence for a child pornography conviction under U.S.S.G.§ 2G2.2 does not violate the separation of powers doctrine.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Daubert v. Lindsay USD

The Americans with Disabilities Act does not require school districts holding events at a facility constructed prior to the passing of the Americans with Disabilities Act to offer access to specific areas of the facility because it is not a normal function of a government entity to provide a particular social experience of watching a football game from the bleachers.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Disability Law

Fong v. Ryan

To determine whether a district court erred in denying a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition based on false statements by a State representative, the Napue v. Illinois standard will be applied, which holds that convictions based on false evidence by representatives of the State must show that a jury’s judgment could have been affected by the mistake; furthermore, in order to determine whether the district court erred in denying an ineffective counsel claim, Strickland v. Washington will be applied, requiring a showing of “both deficient performance and prejudice.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

McDaniels v. Kirkland

A court is not required to sua sponte augment a trial record to allow for comprehensive comparative juror analysis when making a determination of whether racial discrimination occurred during jury selection.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

United States v. Gowadia

Under the McNabb-Mallory rule, admission of a confession is not barred if the confession was obtained within six hours of arrest; also, if the confession occurred before presentment and beyond six hours, the court must decide whether the delay was unreasonable or unnecessary, and if it was, the confession should be suppressed.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

United States v. Szabo

When a non-public forum implements restrictions on speech or conduct they do not necessarily violate the First or Fifth Amendments so long as the regulations administered are reasonable for the purpose of the forum and they are viewpoint neutral.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

United States v. Valdez-Novoa

If an alien challenges his deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d)(3), he must demonstrate: (1) the defects in the proceeding were a violation of his due process rights; and, (2) he suffered prejudice, in that the Immigration Judge failed to advise him of his eligibility to voluntarily depart and the Immigration Judge would have granted such voluntary departure.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Rundgren v. Washington Mutual

Under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, a party must exhaust all remedies under the statute before addressing the matter in court.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

United States v. Hurtado

When determining whether a defendant qualifies for a minor role sentence reduction, the comparison is between average participants, not above-average participants for the “substantially less culpable than the average participant” test.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

IFC v. Roman Catholic Church

If an insurance provision includes the phrase “any insured,” the plain language of the phrase clearly intends to include innocent co-insureds.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Insurance Law

Petrie v. Electronic Game Card, Inc.

A party does not violate the discovery stay under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act when it relies on materials provided by a third party pursuant to a valid subpoena issued when no PSLRA discovery stay was in effect.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

United States v. Reyes-Solosa

A three week postponement of a supervised release revocation hearing is not an unreasonable amount of time when waiting for the judgment of a criminal case.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

United States v. Parker

Actions that take place in the Nation Forest System and affect, threaten, or endanger National Forest land are subject to Forest Service Regulations, even if they take place on a county road subject to easement.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

United States v. Stewart

For purposes of defining and sentencing career offenders, the ambiguous language of 28 U.S.C. § 994(h) includes not only prior federal drug convictions, but also prior drug convictions where the conduct could have been charged federally.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

August 64 summaries

Arizona v. Reytheon Co.

A consent decree may be granted by a district court if a settlement agreement is fair, reasonable, and consistent with Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) objectives, the terms of which must be independently scrutinized and comparatively analyzed to meet CERCLA requirements.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Environmental Law

People of the State of Cal. v. U.S. D.O.I.

In an amended opinion the panel affirmed that the Secretary of the Interior does not violate the National Environmental Policy Act when determining that a supplemental environmental impact statement is unnecessary.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Environmental Law

State of Hawaii v. HSBC Bank Nevada

An action by a state Attorney General against credit card providers for state law claims of deceptive marketing practices cannot be removed to federal court because it is not pre-empted by federal law and is not a class action.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Compton v. Countrywide Financial Corp.

In determining whether to dismiss an unfair and deceptive trade practice claim a district court need only address whether the complaint adequately alleged that the lender used unfair or deceptive acts in its relationship with the borrower, not whether the lender breached a duty of ordinary care.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

Ringgold-Lockhart v. County of Los Angeles

A district court errors in imposing pre-filing restrictions when it only relies on an individual’s actions in two lawsuits and fails to consider less restrictive sanctions.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Smith v. Mylan, Inc.

Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1446, a state court action may be removed to federal court over one year after the initial action was filed if diversity jurisdiction is present and no party objects to the removal.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

United States v. Carr

Pretrial identification testimony is admissible as evidence if the procedure was not impermissibly suggestive and a jury could weigh any delay in testimony under the totality of circumstances.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Columbia Riverkeeper v. U.S. Coast Guard

A U.S. Coast Guard letter of recommendation is not a final agency action under the Natural Gas Act that would allow for judicial review.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

United States v. Hernandez-Arias

The Ninth Circuit in amending its previous decision in this case, 745 F.3d 1275, allows for the adjustment of an alien to the status of a lawful temporary resident.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

La Quinta Worldwide v. Q.R.T.M.

With regard to trademark infringement, consumer confusion must be analyzed by weighing eight factors in order to determine the likelihood of confusion; and, before a permanent injunction may be granted, the court must take into account all relevant facts, balancing each party’s interests.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trademarks

Coons v. Lew

The Affordable Care Act does not preempt the Arizona Act, nor does it violate an individual's substantial due process rights.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Loos v. Immersion Corp.

A securities fraud claim may be dismissed if the announcement of an investigation, without more, is used to establish the loss causation element.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Corporations

K.C. v. Torlakson

A federal court will have the discretion to exercise ancillary jurisdiction over a motion to enforce attorney’s fees in a matter that is related to, but may be separate from, a federal lawsuit, even if such lawsuit has concluded.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Nordstrom v. Ryan

The Constitution permits prison guards to inspect confidential legal mail for contraband in the presence of the inmate, but it does not allow for the reading of confidential mail.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Rights § 1983

S. Cal. Darts Ass'n v. Zaffina

Under the Lantham Act, an unincorporated association may bring suit in federal court to protect its trademarks from infringement.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trademarks

United States v. Mageno

A prosecution’s misstatement of fact in closing argument is a sufficient argument to consider a reversal, even though the defendant did not object to the misstatement at trial, did not raise this argument in their opening brief, and did not adopt it as a ground for reversal until oral argument, because it encouraged the jury to convict the defendant on evidence not presented at trial, and there was a reasonable probability that the misstatements affected the outcome.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Sierra Club v. U.S. EPA

The Clean Air Act requires a company to demonstrate that they complied with the applicable regulations in effect at the time a permit was issued by the Environmental Protection Agency; and, the Environmental Protection Agency cannot waive this requirement because Congress has spoken on this issue directly.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Environmental Law

USA v. JDT, Juvenile Male

In order to establish jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 5032, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Act, mere certification is sufficient, subject to circumstances questioning its “accuracy or validity”; in addition, aggravated sexual abuse charges in regards to children pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2241(c) will be applied to anyone charged with a crime therein, which includes juveniles under the age of twelve, requiring only a showing of knowledge of facts underlying the charge.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Encompass Ins. Co. v. Coast Nat'l Ins. Co.

An injury that occurs when a third-party unloads an injured person from a vehicle is covered under permissive use under the third-party and driver's car insurance policy.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Insurance Law

Stanley v. Chappell

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act requires postponement of federal review of a state court ruling until all state court remedies have been exhausted.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

United States v. Orozco

Testimony that a government official had advised a defendant of a “right to consulate” does not necessarily indicate the defendant’s illegal status because all foreign nationals enjoy this right; additionally a defendant must generally invoke his right to testify prior to the close of evidence.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

American Tower Corp. v. City of San Diego

Under the California Code of Streamlining Act, an application will be deemed approved provided an absence of approval or denial from the lead agency after a sixty-day time frame only if landowner rights are not affected, in which case due process requirements must be satisfied; Additionally, to prevail on an unreasonable discrimination claim under the Federal Telecommunications Act, providers of cell coverage services must demonstrate that (1) a significant gap in service coverage is closed by a State or local government; or (2) that the facility in question is the “least intrusive means,” supported by a feasibility of alternative designs analysis.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Corporations

Colwell v. Banister

To determine whether an inmate’s Eighth Amendment rights have been violated by the denial of medical surgery, the objective and subjective standards will be applied, whereby (1) under the objective standard, there must be a serious medical need, and (2) under the subjective standard, the corrections facility must be deliberately indifferent to an excessive risk to the health and safety of an inmate.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Rights § 1983

Nguyen v. Holder

An alien’s petition for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture may be reviewed when there is substantial evidence tending to prove that the individual would be tortured in their land of origin.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

FTC v. Kimoto

An individual will be held liable under the Federal Trade Practices Act if he or she is found to have actual knowledge of material misrepresentations,was recklessly indifferent to the truth or falsity of a misrepresentation, or had an awareness of a high probability of fraud; further one can be held individually liable under the Electronic Funds Transfer Act for violations committed by corporations if he or she has personal involvement in such violations.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Consumer Credit

Moore v. Helling

A court's failure to retroactively apply a new governing rule for the definition of first degree murder is not contrary to clearly established federal law.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Van Asdale v. Int’l Game Tech.

The postjudgment interest rate to be applied on an award of back wages as a result of a whistleblower case arising under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act is to be the same rate as applied to all civil cases that arise in federal district court.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

Weaving v. City of Hillsboro

A person is not covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act simply because they lack interpersonal skills.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Disability Law

Arrendondo v. Neven

Supreme Court precedent, “does not require a defendant waiving his right to counsel to understand the potential application of recidivist sentencing enhancements that had not yet been charged, and were not required to have been charged at the time of the waiver.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Brown v. Holder

It is a violation of due process when the Immigration and Naturalization Service either intentionally or arbitrarily obstructs applications for naturalization.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Ghanim v. Colvin

An administrative law judge must provide reasons supported by substantial evidence to reject the opinions of a treating physician.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble, Inc.

Contract Law: Unless there is evidence that a user of a website obtained actual knowledge of the Terms of Use via the use of the website, the validity of notice provided by a browsewrap agreement is based on whether the use of the website would put a “reasonably prudent user” on notice, where sufficiency of notice will depend on the content and design of the website.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Contract Law

Thomas v. County of Riverside

To survive summary judgment in a First Amendment retaliation case, evidence of materially adverse employment actions that are reasonably likely to deter protected speech must be provided.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Labor Law

Jones v. Taylor

Recantation testimony is generally unreliable and unpersuasive when determining the merits habeas corpus petition based on a freestanding claim of factual innocence.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

United States v. Cisneros

Under Oregon law, fleeing or attempting to elude police is a divisible statute and use of a vehicle in commission of the offense will qualify as a violent felony predicate offense for the purposes of sentencing pursuant to the Federal Armed Career Criminal Act's residual clause.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

United States v. Gadson

Statements deflecting blame are not an admissible exception to hearsay.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Williams v. State of California

Dismissal of a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 is appropriate when plaintiff fails to allege specific facts against a particular defendant other than to identify the defendant's title. Denial of leave to amend is appropriate if amendment would be futile.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Rights § 1983

Ctr. for Cmty. Action v. BNSF

A claim under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act citizen-suit provision must allege that a person has contributed or is contributing to the past or present handling, storage, treatment, transportation, or disposal of any solid or hazardous waste which may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the environment.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Environmental Law

ISKCON v. City of Los Angeles

A reasonable restriction on solicitation for funds in major international airports is permitted because they “have a legitimate interest in controlling pedestrian congestion and reducing the right of fraud and duress attendant to repetitive, in-person solicitation for the immediate receipt of funds.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • First Amendment

Pacific Shores Hospital v. UBH

When entrusted with a fiduciary duty, fiduciaries must perform their duties with “care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances” compared with that of a reasonable person in a like position.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Insurance Law

Martinez v. Aero Caribbean

General personal jurisdiction may be exercised over a corporation only when its contacts “render it essentially at home” in the state.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

United States v. Cyr

Forfeiture does not violate the Excessive Fines clause of the United States Constitution as long as the forfeiture is not grossly disproportional to the gravity of the defendant’s offense.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Doyle v. OneWest Bank

In class action suits, the citizenship of the plaintiff class must be determined based on the complaints being filed in the proper court, and not based on subsequent motions filed after removal.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Hernandez v. Spearman

If a pro se prisoner has a third party deliver his or her habeas petition to prison authorities, the prison mailbox rule will still apply, so the filing date of the petition will be the date of delivery to the prison authority.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Mastro v. Rigby

Disrespect or disregard for the judicial system is not a sufficient basis to utilize the fugitive disentitlement doctrine, as it is a harsh penalty and should be narrowly applied.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Bankruptcy Law

Rendon v. Holder

A state conviction will qualify as an aggravated felony, and render one ineligible for cancellation of removal, if it matches the comparable, generic federal statute under the “categorical approach,” or is divisible, under the “modified categorical approach,” in such a way that reveals alternative elements matching the comparable, generic federal statute.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Lai v. Holder

A petitioner’s omission of details concerning third parties until cross-examination, which were not contradictory to his earlier testimony or application materials, does not support an adverse credibility determination; and it is an error to reject a petitioner’s explanation for failing to amend or add this information to his asylum application at the outset of his merits hearing.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Murphy v. Sloan

In deciding whether to return a child under the International Child Abduction Remedies Act the court will look to the last held mutual intent on where the child’s habitual residence will be, as well as whether the child’s attachment to the two countries has shifted to the point that returning the child would result in removal from a developed social and family life.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

United States v. Fowlkes

The forcible removal of drugs from an arrestee’s body cavity requires a warrant and that personnel with medical training execute the warrant.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Woods v. Sinclair

First, waiver of the right to counsel must be unequivocal; second, Confrontation Clause rights are violated if trial error results in actual prejudice; third, to determine whether evidence was withheld at trial in violation of Brady v. Maryland, evidence must be shown to be exculpatory or impeaching, leading to actual prejudice and a reasonable probability that admitting the evidence would have lead to a different result in the trial proceeding; fourth, in order to prevail on an ineffective counsel claim and to excuse a procedurally barred claim under Martinez v. Ryan, substantiality and actual ineffectiveness must be established.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

In the Matter of Mwangi

Property of the bankruptcy estate remains estate property from the filing of the petition until the 30-day objection deadline from the section 341(a) meeting of creditors has run; and, during this time the debtor has no right to possess or control that property.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Bankruptcy Law

Rashdan v. Geissberger

When evaluating a Title VI discrimination claim, the court may use the test for Title VII discrimination to determine if the plaintiff established a prima facie case.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

Singh v. Holder

A nexus is established between mistreatment and a political opinion when the mistreatment is due to a suspicion of a crime against the government.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

United States v. Mendez

Under Washington law, juvenile adjudications are considered predicate offenses when calculating punishment for offenses after the juvenile has become an adult.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Alexander v. FedEx

An employers right to control the manner and means of a worker in order to achieve a desired result tends to show the worker’s status is that of an employee.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

ASARCO v. Union Pacific

An otherwise time barred claim in an amended pleading shall be found timely if the claim is able to relate back to an original pleading and the amended pleading came about from “the conduct, transaction or occurrence” as raised in the original pleading.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Slayman v. FedEx

A Court may use the "Economics Realities Test" as well as the "Right to Control Test" to determine if an individual is an employee or and independent contractor to an employer.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

Wharton v. Chappell

Occasional sightings by the jury of the petitioner in shackles does not establish prejudice; Also, in an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, both deficient performance and prejudice must be established, which lead to a “reasonable probability” of a different outcome in the proceedings; Further, during the penalty phase of a capital crime, counsel must sufficiently investigate and prepare in order to present and explain the importance of existing extenuating factors.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

White v. University of California

The National Graves Protection and Repatriation Act does not abrogate tribal sovereign immunity.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Indian Law

Cruz v. City of Anaheim

A judge must examine all evidence in the record, including circumstantial evidence, in determining the consistency and credibility of a police officer’s story.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Lacano Investments v. Balash

A federal court does not have jurisdiction over an action where the plaintiff seeks relief that is functionally equivalent to quiet title over submerged lands because such is barred by the Eleventh Amendment and specifically does not invoke the Ex parte Young exception.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sovereign Immunity

United States v. Luis

A pecuniary loss suffered by a victim is sufficient to satisfy the "offense against property" requirement under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

United States v. Nora

Evidence must be suppressed if it was seized after arresting a suspect inside his home without first obtaining an arrest warrant or showing an exception to the warrant requirement.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Oracle Corp v. SAP AG

A plaintiff does not have to show it would have actually licensed its material to receive a hypothetical-license damage award, however, a hypothetical-license award cannot be based on undue speculation.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Copyright

September 53 summaries

Loos v. Immersion Corp.

In a securities fraud claim, the mere announcement by a company of an internal investigation is not sufficient to establish the element of loss causation

Area(s) of Law:
  • Corporations

El Dorado Estates v. City of Fillmore

A mobile park home owner suffers actual injury when a city creates unreasonable delay and added expenses during the application process for the park to subdivide.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Standing

Rosenbloom v. Pyott

Demand on the board of a corporation by their shareholders to bring a derivative claim in the corporation’s own name is excused where the shareholders can show why the demand would be futile.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Corporations

Alaska Cmty. Action v. Aurora

General Permits issued under the Environmental Protection Agency’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System authorize an exclusive list of allowable non-stormwater discharges, and non-stormwater coal discharges are not included in that list, therefore they are prohibited by the plain terms of the General Permits.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Jimenez v. Allstate Insurance Co.

A court correctly grants class certification if the “common questions contain[] the ‘glue’ necessary to say that ‘examination of all the class members’ claims for relief will produce a common answer to the crucial question[s]’ raised by the plaintiffs’ complaint.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

Doe v. Nestle USA, Inc.

There is no definite rule of corporate immunity or liability, so for each Alien Tort Statute claim, international law will determine corporate liability and domestic tort law will determine whether a corporation is subject to the standards underlying the claim.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

Roman-Suaste v. Holder

A conviction for the possession of marijuana for sale, violating California Health & Safety Code § 11359, is a categorical aggravated felony and thus constitutes illicit trafficking of a controlled substance, and is an aggravated felony under Federal Law constituting a sufficient crime for removal from the United States.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

United States v. Hardrick

Prior acts evidence intended to show knowledge of the defendant doesn’t need to be similar to the charged act, so long as the prior act was an act that would tend to make the fact that the defendant actually had knowledge more probable than not.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

United States v. Reyes

A defendant's constitutional rights are not violated when he is excluded from side bar conversations between the court and counsel discussing whether prospective jurors should be dismissed for cause, exercising peremptory challenges, and deciding whether to proceed in the absence of prospective jurors, because the conversations are conferences or hearings on a matter of law.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

United States v. Tomsha-Miguel

18 U.S.C. § 912, which prohibits the impersonation of a United States officer or employee, is a permissive restriction on speech because it protects the integrity and repute of the government and it is not unconstitutionally overbroad because it incorporates the element of intent to deceive.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Fortyune v. City of Lomita

Under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, local governments must guarantee that any normal government functions be reasonably accessible to peoples with disabilities.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Disability Law

Torres-Valdivias v. Holder

When reviewing the criminal history of an alien in an application for an adjustment of status, the Board of Immigration Appeals has the discretion to consider the facts of a prior crime, or to follow a categorical standard, which only uses the statutory definition of the crime and not any surrounding facts.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

United States v. Index Newspapers

Although the public has no First Amendment right of access to grand jury proceedings, once a grand jury witness has been held in contempt and ordered to confinement, the public has a right of access to public portions of contempt proceedings, including transcripts and relevant filings, subject to government redactions; however, there is no right of public access to closed contempt proceedings because matters and testimony relating to the grand jury investigation are involved.

Area(s) of Law:
  • First Amendment

Castellanos v. Small

A Batson motion for discriminatory use of peremptory challenges to exclude jurors must be granted if: (1) the defendant makes a prima facie showing of purposeful discrimination by showing that the totality of the relevant facts gives rise to an inference of discriminatory purpose; (2) the State’s justifications for the racial exclusion are not adequate; and, (3) the court decides based on the justifications offered that the State engaged in purposeful discrimination when it exercised the peremptory strike.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Kowack v. USFS

When redacting documents in a Freedom of Information Act request, a detailed Vaughn index is required to supplement the redacted information.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

Tarabochia v. Adkins

Department of Fish and Wildlife officers cannot invade a party’s right not to be stopped without having reasonable suspicion that the party had or was about to engage in unlawful activity.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Rights § 1983

McMonagle v. Meyer

Finality for the purposes of federal habeas petitions occurs once the state supreme court has denied a state habeas petition and the United States Supreme Court has denied cert or the 90-day period for filing a petition for cert has lapsed.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Rudin v. Myles

Equitable tolling is available if extraordinary circumstances made it impossible to file an application for federal habeas relief within the limitations period.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

MEIC v. Stone-Manning

A plaintiff cannot establish standing under the firm prediction rule unless they are able to show that the approval of an application is “inevitable” or “nearly certain” to occur.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Environmental Law

Butler v. NCRC

An Appellant's original complaint must sufficiently identify all of the proper defendants in order for a later time-barred complaint to relate back under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c)(1).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

In re: Snowden

Emotional distress damages are proper when a debtor suffers significant emotional harm, establishes the significant harm, and shows a causal connection between the harm and an automatic stay violation.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Bankruptcy Law

United States v. Dreyer

A military affiliated investigator that investigates non-military related crimes and does not have a reasonable connection between the military and the crimes violates the Posse Comitatus Act.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

United States v. Johnson

If proven by the preponderance of the evidence, a defendant forfeits his/her right to confrontation if he/she engages in or acquiesces to witness tampering.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Andersen v. DHL Retirement Pension Plan

According to the definitions provided in ERISA, one’s “accrued benefit” is reduced only if the annual benefit of a defined benefit plan is reduced or the balance of the individual’s contribution plan account is reduced.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

Hawkins v. FTB

Specific intent is required for a showing of willful attempt to evade or defeat taxes when assessing in bankruptcy whether tax debt is dischargeable.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Bankruptcy Law

Bradford v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.

An individual terminated from his job receives adequate due process when, in the context of the circumstances at issue, sufficient procedures provide the individual an opportunity to be heard.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Labor Law

C.M. v. Lafayette Sch. Dist.

Pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), a variety of assessment tools must be implemented when conducting an initial evaluation for the purposes of determining whether a child has a disability and when determining what content to include in an individualized education plan (“IEP”); Additionally, a child with disabilities is denied a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) when parents are not granted access to Response-to-Intervention (“RTI”) data because parental informed consent is required for both the initial evaluation and any special education services.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Disability Law

United States v. FRC

Even though a settlement under CERCLA may cause another primarily responsible party to become disproportionately liable, a court will not be found to have abused its discretion in not conducting a comparative fault analysis.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Environmental Law

Chemehuevi Indian Tribe v. Jewell

Under the Indian Nonintercourse Act, even though a tribe would still hold title to the land, an assignment of a deed that grants control similar to that of fee simple ownership requires Congress’s approval.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Indian Law

Doe v. Internet Brands, Inc.

The Communications Decency Act does not bar a failure to warn claim between a website provider and an individual who was harmed by a third party user of the website.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

Gibbs v. LeGrand

Attorney misconduct, including not informing the client that their habeas corpus petition has already been denied, rises to the level of an extraordinary circumstance allowing for filing timeframe to be equitably tolled.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Peter-Palican v. CNMI

A triable dispute must be present to survive summary judgment for retaliation, breach of contract, and estoppel claims.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Rights § 1983

Tatum v. Moody

The Fourteenth Amendment protects individuals from prolonged detention when the police, with deliberate indifference to, or in the face of a perceived risk that their actions will violate the individual’s right to be free of unjustified pretrial detention, withhold from the prosecutors information strongly indicative of the individual’s innocence.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Rights § 1983

ICNU v. BPA

The Appropriations Clause does not establish a duty in which a business that is funded by a permanent appropriation, or revolving fund, must recover subsidies that were improperly distributed, so long as the behavior is not “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

United States v. Garcia

The Commerce Clause jurisdictional requirements for an 18 U.S.C. § 844(i) conviction are satisfied, so long as the building and vehicle damaged are used in, or affect interstate commerce.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Gomez v. Campbell-Ewald Co.

A government contractor can be held liable for a violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act when a third-party vendor sends unsolicited text messages.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

Medina-Lara v. Holder

The government bears the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that a California Health & Safety Code § 11351 conviction is a controlled substance or an aggravated felony offense.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Ollier v. Sweetwater Union High Sch. Dist.

Under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, unlawful sex discrimination in high school athletics occurs if the “interest and abilities of female athletes” are not “fully and effectively” accommodated, with “substantially proportionate participation opportunities for male and female students” as compared to each respective group’s enrollment; however, the substantial proportion requirement can be circumvented by past and ongoing efforts to expand an athletic program; additionally, a student athlete has standing to bring a retaliation claim if there is a “judicially cognizable” injury.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Rights § 1983

The Boeing Company v. Raphael

A state’s authority to regulate nuclear safety is preempted by the federal government’s control over the field of nuclear safety.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Environmental Law

Sandoval-Gomez v. Holder

Attempted arson under the California Penal Code constitutes an aggravated felony under the federal explosive materials statute; and, the California Penal Code section governing attempted arson is divisible and under the modified categorical approach falls under the definition in the federal statute.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Sessoms v. Grounds

Statements regarding a request for counsel in a custodial interrogation must be taken as a whole to determine whether an ordinary person would regard them as an unambiguous and unequivocal request to have counsel present.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Garcia v. Comm’s of Soc. Sec.

In order for there to be no legal error for determining that an individual is entitled to social security benefits, a complete record must be implemented.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Retail Prop. Trust v. UBCJA

Section 303 of the Labor Relations Management Act does not completely preempt state claims because it is not written in a way and is not intended to so thoroughly occupy the field of federal labor law that it replaces state law claims.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Labor Law

Zoggolis v. Wynn Las Vegas

In an action by a patron against a casino owner, the patron does not have to go before the Nevada Gaming Control Board, when the debts are evidenced by credit instruments.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Friends of the Wild Swan v. Weber

In order to obtain a preliminary injunction against an agency, a party must demonstrate (1) a likelihood of success on the merits of a claim, and (2) that irreparable harm will ensue in the absence of preliminary relief; Also, an agency’s findings will be set aside only where particular actions are arbitrary and capricious.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Environmental Law

United States v. Aguilera-Rios

If one is deported due a firearms offense under a state statute, the deportation is improper if the state law is not a categorical match to the federal firearms offense in 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(C) and the federal definition for “firearm” in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Armstrong v. Brown

A modified injunction altering the accountability system complies with the prison litigation reform act when the original injunction requires the state to specify steps to ensure that disabled inmates are provided with needed accommodations.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Rights § 1983

EEOC v. Peabody Western Coal Co.

Tribal hiring preferences are not discriminatory because tribal affiliation is a political classification and not a national origin classification.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tribal Law

Deck v. Jenkins

Where a trial prosecutor in closing argument negated an essential element of intent under California law by “pushing defendant’s intent to commit a lewd act on a child under the age of 14 to potentially, ‘next week,’ or in ‘two weekends’ or to ‘just some point in the future’ it amounts to a constitutional trial error providing the basis for grave doubt as to whether the error had a substantial and injurious effect or influence on the jury’s verdict.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Mendia v. Garcia

In order to have Article III standing, the direct injury does not necessarily need to come from the government and can be from a third party's conduct.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Velasquez-Escovar v. Holder

As long as aliens provide a current address to the government and notify the government when they move, they are entitled to notice for a removal hearing before they can be removed from the United States.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

PRMA v. County of Alameda

A County Ordinance does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause if the Ordinance caused no discrimination towards interstate commerce, the Ordinance’s effect was limited to only the boundaries of the county, and that the burden of the ordinance is not outweighed by the local benefits of the program.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

United States v. Bryant

In tribal courts, uncounseled, past convictions resulting in imprisonment may not be used against the defendant in subsequent proceedings; however, past convictions may be used where the statutes serve as “enforcement mechanisms for civil disabilities” and if the tribal court guarantees a right to counsel.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

October 32 summaries

Aragon-Salazar v. Holder

An application for special rule cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act is not a continuing application, and the seven-year period during which the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act requires good moral character, ends on the day the application is filed.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

In Re: NVIDIA Corp. Sec. Litig.

Claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Security Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 must adequately allege a cogent and compelling inference of scienter to survive dismissal.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Corporations

Lightfoot v. Cendant Mortgage Corp.

A sue-and-be-sued provision in a congressional charter may be read to confer federal court jurisdiction if the charter specifically addresses federal courts.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Sturgeon v. Masica

Federal regulation that bans hovercraft on rivers within a national park is enforceable when the regulation applies to all land within the conservation area.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Wildlife Law

Latta v. Otter

Statutes and constitutional amendments preventing same-sex couples from marrying and refusing to recognize same-sex marriages validly performed elsewhere violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because they deny people who wish to marry persons of the same sex a right they afford to individuals who wish to marry persons of the opposite sex, and do not satisfy the heightened scrutiny.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Rights § 1983

Clark v. Arnold

According the U.S. Supreme Court case Strickland v. Washington, in order to prevail under a claim of ineffective assistance, one must demonstrate that (1) counsel was ineffective by an objective reasonableness standard and (2) the defendant was prejudice by such ineffective assistance in that trial would have had a substantially different outcome.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

United States v. Morales Heredia

When the government commits to a plea agreement, it may not use prejudicial or inflammatory language to implicitly argue for a sentence harsher than the agreed upon sentence.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

United States v. Renzi

If a member of Congress offers evidence of his own legislative acts at trial, the government is entitled to introduce rebuttal evidence narrowly confined to the same legislative acts.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Medina-Lara v. Holder

In determining eligibility for removal pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act, the modified categorical approach will be applied to determine whether the charging documents and the judgment abstract establish through clear and convincing evidence a guilty plea to the elements of a qualifying crime.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Litmon v. Harris

Sexually violent predators do not have a fundamental right to be free of registration and notification requirements.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

C.B. v. City of Sonora

For police acting at the behest of school officials to be entitled to qualified immunity against a Fourth Amendment violation claim, the court must determine (1) whether the official violated a constitutional right, (2) whether the constitutional right was clearly established, and (3) evaluate whether the police conduct was reasonable in light of the circumstances and not excessively intrusive.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Qualified Immunity

Latta v. Otter

A party seeking a stay “bears the burden of showing his entitlement to a stay,” and the court will consider “four factors: (1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Lopez-Valenzuela v. Arpaio

If bail is denied for certain serious felony offenses based on the illegal immigration status of the accused, and there is a great presumption of guilt for the charge in question, the substantive component of Due Process granted under the Fourteenth Amendment is violated and is considered to be unlawful pretrial punishment.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Young v. United States

The decision by the National Park Service not to warn visitors of a known danger is not covered under the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

United States v. Hernandez

A state statute is deemed to be a "categorical match” whereby allowing federal courts to impose sentencing enhancements upon a state conviction only if the state statute details the same or less amounts of conduct as the comparable federal statute.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

United States v. Bell

There is a Sixth Amendment violation when a defendant is precluded from making closing arguments at trail; however, there is no constitutional right for a self-represented defendant to be prompted to make such arguments.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

United States v. Vera

If a law enforcement officer testifies at trial as both a lay witness and an expert witness, the jury must be instructed as to the differences and significance of the separate roles so as not to give undue weight to lay witness testimony in violation of the Confrontation Clause.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Hughes v. United States

The Supreme Court has not made the Alleyne decision, which held that any fact that increases the mandatory minimum is an element must be submitted to the jury, retroactive to cases on collateral review.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

United States v. Moore

The narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment under the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Georgia v. Randolph will only apply if the co-occupant is physically present and expressly refuses to consent to the search.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Williams v. Swarthout

If a judge misstates and assigns guilt to a criminal defendant, “he strips the jury of its fundamental role and subverts the requirement that the jury must confirm the truth of every accusation.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Hernandez de Martinez v. Holder

A conviction for criminal impersonation by assuming a false identity with intent to defraud is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

United States v. Castro-Ponce

A perjury will only be deemed an obstruction of justice if the district court finds that the defendant gave, with willful intent, false testimony on a material matter.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Abbott v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

Montana unlawful restraint elements are not equivalent to kidnapping and the conflation of the two is arbitrary and capricious.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Carpenters v. Building Trades

To plausibly allege predicate acts of extortion under the Hobbs Act, a plaintiff must allege the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Labor Law

Carpenters v. Metal Trades

The duty of fair representation does not prevent unions from appointing or removing stewards based on union affiliation.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Labor Law

Verdugo v. Target Corporation

Commercial property owners do not owe customers a common law duty of reasonable care to maintain an Automatic External Defibrillator (“AED”) in cases of a medical emergency.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

Espino-Castillo v. Holder

The crime of fraud is considered a crime involving moral turpitude for the purposes of determining if a person is eligible for cancellation of deportation.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Malhotra v. Steinberg

In a False Claims Act case, publicly disclosed information must be brought by a party that was the original source of the information.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

United States v. Swisher

The First Amendment does not prohibit Congress from criminalizing the action of wearing unauthorized military medals or ribbons with the intent to deceive others.

Area(s) of Law:
  • First Amendment

Harris v. Amgen, Inc.

An employer has a fiduciary duty to employer-sponsored pension plan participants under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and the employer violates the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by failing to provide material information about the investment fund.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

NRDC v. USDOT

Agency regulations that fill explicitly left gaps in legislation are subject to the arbitrary and capricious standard when under review.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Vathana v. EverBank

No private right of action exists in order to enforce the provisions of the Truth in Savings Act.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

November 33 summaries

Owino v. Holder

When a petitioner seeks asylum relief, despite having a felony, the Immigration Judge must take into account the evidence that indicates the possibility of future torture if the petitioner returns to his or her country of origin.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Fresno Motors, LLC. v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC

Under the California's Vehicle Code section 11713.3(t)(2), a manufacturer cannot be sued for exercising its right of first refusal (“ROFR”) in a timely and lawful manner and is not required to provide proper notice of its intent to exercise ROFR to a proposed transferee of a franchise; Furthermore, section 11713.3(t)(6) allows a proposed transferee to recover incurred expenses resulting from a franchisor usurping its contractual right by exercising a ROFR.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tax Law

Ibarra-Hernandez v. Holder

Using the Social Security number of an actual person without his knowledge or permission to get a job at a retail store is a crime involving moral turpitude.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Spinedex Physical Therapy v. United Healthcare

A healthcare provider maintains Article III standing to bring claims against an assignee plan beneficiary for denied benefits but not for breach of fiduciary duty.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Insurance Law

Leal v. Holder

Felony endangerment, under Arizona law, is considered a crime of moral turpitude for the purposes of immigration removal proceedings.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Thurbon v. Gateway Unified Sch. Dist.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals only has jurisdiction to hear appeals of final judgments, with the exception of collateral orders; the disqualification of counsel and ethical sanctions intertwined with the disqualification of counsel are generally not considered collateral orders and therefore not within the Court’s jurisdiction.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

State of California v. Intelligender

A sovereign cannot litigate an already settled issue in a class action however, where the state action is brought on behalf of the people, it implicates the public’s interest as well as private interests, and therefore the remedial provisions sweep much more deeply and do not trigger the relitigation exception.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sovereign Immunity

Tamosaitis v. URS, Inc.

If one brings an action under 42 U.S.C. § 5851(a)(1)(A), he can only bring the action to federal court against defendants who have had at least one year’s notice of and opportunity to participate in the action.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Environmental Law

United States v. De La Torre Jimenez

Section 11351 of the California Health and Safety Code is “divisible” within the meaning of Descamps v. United States.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

United States v. Huitron-Rocha

A state statute is “divisible” under Descamps v. United States when that statute includes a listing of other controlled substances and the statute is indicative that the controlled substance constitutes an essential element of the crime.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Almanza-Arenas v. Holder

A conviction pursuant to California Vehicle Code § 10851(a) is not a categorical crime of moral turpitude, because it punishes both automobile theft, a permanent taking which is a CIMT, and joyriding, a temporary taking which is not.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Knutson v. Sirius XM Radio

An individual cannot assent to an arbitration provision in a contract when he or she is unaware that he or she is entering a contract at all.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Arbitration

United States v. Raya-Vaca

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1326, a conviction of illegal reentry into the United States requires the Government to establish that the defendant left the United States under order of exclusion, deportation, or removal, and then illegally reentered; in addition the Government must not violate the defendant’s due process rights or prejudice the defendant in convicting him.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

In the Matter of: Mortgages Ltd.

A bankruptcy court may not disregard statements in a pleading in regards to an agreement made between two parties unless the court finds that the agreement was made in bad faith.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Bankruptcy Law

In the Matter of: Mortgages Ltd.

An appeal from a bankruptcy order must be dismissed for mootness if an appellant does not seek a stay from the bankruptcy court or district court.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Bankruptcy Law

Landers v. Quality Communications

When bringing a claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the complaint must allege at least one workweek where the plaintiff worked overtime without adequate compensation.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Luis Mujica v. AirScan, Inc.

A corporation has no liability for claims under the Torture Victim Protection Act, and an Alien Torture Statute claim must “touch and concern the United States with sufficient force to displace the presumption against extraterritorial application”; also, the doctrine of international comity will bar state law claims where the federal government has a strong interest in respecting the judicial processes of other sovereigns and the foreign forum is adequate.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Shell Gulf of Mex. v. Ctr. for Biological Div.

A party does not have an adverse legal interest that satisfies the case or controversy requirement merely because it could be impacted by potential legal action of another.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Singh v. Holder

8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) unambiguously allows the Board of Immigration Appeals to reopen or reconsider any case that it has rendered a decision on at anytime and on its own motion; and, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(f) is consistent with the authority granted in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

JT USA v. CIR

The meaning of 26 U.S.C. § 622(e)(3)(B) is clear and unambiguous, and states that a unless a partner elects to have all of their partnership items treated as non-partnership items, the partner may not elect out of a proceeding under the Tax Equity & Fiscal Responsibility Act.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tax Law

United States v. Martinez

If a defendant is convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and has three prior violent felony convictions, a fifteen-year mandatory minimum sentence will be imposed.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

United States v. Waters

There is no ex post facto problem if amendments to post-conduct sentencing guidelines do not increase the punishment for the defendant’s crime over what was imposed when the defendant was sentenced.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

Corber v. Xanodyne Parmaceuticals

In a mass action suit, where the plaintiffs seek permission for coordination “all of the actions [] for all purposes,” creates federal jurisdiction for the claims under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

Doe v. Harris

Content-neutral restrictions on protected speech must not burden substantially more speech than is necessary to further the government’s legitimate interests.

Area(s) of Law:
  • First Amendment

Wilkerson v. Wheeler

Instructions by a court to the jury that a prisoner had been disciplined for resisting officers in the past is prejudicial and improper when a prisoner's indeterminate life sentence is not at stake, and the instruction is misleading and prejudicial on the grounds that it contradicted the prisoner's testimony, in a proceeding alleging excessive use of force in restraining a prisoner.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Rights § 1983

Taylor v. Cate

A state trial court may not resentence a petitioner based on new evidence that was not heard by the jury in the original trial proceeding, and, in which case, a petitioner is entitled to a new trial.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. USDA

Approval of a management plan is sufficient to establish causation and redressability.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Environmental Law

U.S. v. Gamez Reyes

If a sentencing enhancement is applied due to a special offense characteristic under the “Relevant Conduct” guideline of U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B), then the characteristic must be reasonably foreseeable to the defendant.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

United States v. Agront

The Department of Veterans Affairs regulation prohibiting disorderly conduct that creates loud, boisterous, and unusual noise is not unconstitutionally vague when the facts show a defendants’ conduct would tend to disturb the normal operation of the hospital.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Gant v. County of Los Angeles

Warrants must satisfy the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement by containing the subject’s name and a detailed physical description.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

United States v. Brooks

The admission of photographs of seized evidence does not violate the Confrontation Clause because photographs are not “witnesses” against the defendant.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

United States v. Prince

For purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act, attempted robbery qualifies as a violent felony because it presents “a serious potential risk of physical injury to another” and it possesses similar risks to that of burglary, in degree and in kind.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

United States v. Gavilanes-Ocaranza

The revocation of a supervised release does not violate a defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights to a speedy trial or a trial by jury.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

December 28 summaries

WildEarth Guardians v. McCarthy

The Environmental Protection Agency Administrator does not have a non-discretionary duty to issue regulations regarding updates to the Clean Air Act.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Environmental Law

Curley v. City of North Las Vegas

The correlation between an employee’s termination from work and his discrimination complaint against his employer does not necessarily create a prima facie case of retaliation by an employer where the employee’s disciplinary record at work was extensive, and an additional altercation with another employee occurred around the same time as his termination.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

In Re: The Mortgage Store, Inc.

Upon the avoidance of a fraudulent transfer, a bankruptcy trustee may recover from the initial transferee, which is determined by whether the transferee has dominion over the asset and the right to put the asset to the transferee’s own purposes.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Bankruptcy Law

Alvarez v. Tracy

A defendant alleging violations of the Indian Civil Rights Act must exhaust tribal remedies before a federal court will exercise jurisdiction over the claim.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Shirk v. United States

Under the Federal Torts Claim Act, the United States government may be found liable of a government employee's action if the "action is encompassed by a relevant federal contract or agreement" and if the act fell under the scope of employment.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

State of Arizona v. ASARCO

An award of $300,000 in a Title VII sexual harassment case is not excessive or in violation of due process when the plaintiff was only awarded nominal damages and no compensatory damages.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

United States v. Camou

A search of a cell phone’s contents is not incident to arrest if it is not roughly contemporaneous to the arrest.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Abdisalan v. Holder

A Board of Immigration Appeals decision that denies some claims, but remands any other claims for relief to an Immigration Judge for further proceedings, the Board's decision is not a final order of removal with regard to any of the claims, and it does not trigger the thirty-day window in which to file a petition for review.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Flor Saldana v. Occidental Petroleum Corp.

A complaint under the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350, is nonjusticiable if it is inextricably bound to a political question, and in order to sever a political question from a negligence or liability claim, a factual basis of operational control must be established.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

United States v. Garcia-Santana

The generic federal definition of conspiracy, codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(U) requires proof of an overt act.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

United States v. Reves

A district court does not have jurisdiction to hear a defendant’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate their sentence where the motion is filed one day after their probation ends due to the statute’s requirement that the defendant be “in custody.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Vivid Entertainment v. Fielding

The presence or absence of a condom in adult films is not a significant enough detail to be considered an "expressive message" for the purposes of protection under the First Amendment.

Area(s) of Law:
  • First Amendment

Conservation Congress v. Finley

If a court must determine whether an Environmental Impact Statement, following a consultation under 50 C.F.R. § 420, contains a reasonably thorough discussion of the potential environmental impacts of a project, then it must employ the rule of reason, which is essentially the same standard as abuse of discretion.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Environmental Law

Gabriel v. AEPF

The availability of the equitable remedy of a surcharge is dependent on whether the pleading party adequately proves harm and causation, not reliance, as a result of a breach of fiduciary duty.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Remedies

OPERF v. Apollo Group

Businesses may make statements about their overall revenue to investors if the statements fall into the category of lawful "business puffery."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

United States v. Kollman

Under 26 U.S.C. § 6330(e)(1), the running of the statute of limitations is tolled during the time which a taxpayer could file an appeal to the Tax Court, even if the taxpayer does not actually file such an appeal.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tax Law

Arduini v. Hart

Issue preclusion prevents a moving party, who is in privity with other prior plaintiff’s, from suing on the same or ultimately same issue against a defendant who has already prevailed on the issue, despite new legal or factual arguments.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Inst. of Cetacean Research v. Sea Shepherd

The party an injunction is issued upon can be held in contempt if they aid and abet another party in performing acts prohibited by the injunction.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

United States v. Alvarado-Pineda

A defendant is not prejudiced by procedural defects in a removal proceeding when defendant is convicted of an aggravated felony that renders him ineligible for relief from an underlying removal order.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Salus Mundi Foundation v. CIR

Under 26 U.S.C. § 6901, the two prongs used to establish whether a transferee of a taxpayer’s assets is liable for the taxpayer’s failure to pay income tax operate independently.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tax Law

San Luis v. Locke

A reviewing court must uphold agency action unless it is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; Under this standard, an agency action is sustained if the agency has articulated a rational connection between the facts found and the conclusions made.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Treichler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.

When denying an applicant receipt of disability insurance benefits, the Administrative Law Judge must give proper reasoning.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Mann v. Ryan

Professional assistance of counsel is ineffective if it is unreasonable under all of the circumstances, and counsel’s professional assistance during the sentencing phase of the trial is constitutionally deficient if reasonably available mitigating evidence is not adequately investigated or presented.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

City of Spokane v. Fed. Nat'l Mortgage Ass'n

Congress has the constitutional authority to exempt Fannie May and Freddie Mac, part of the secondary mortgage market, from state and local taxes.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tax Law

Pom Wonderful v. Hubbard

In a trademark infringement action, the absence of evidence of actual confusion on the part of the consumers is a neutral factor and is not to be weighed against the plaintiff in determining whether an injunction is appropriate.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trademarks

Burrell v. Colvin

When an administrative law judge denies social security disability benefits the judge must identify what testimony is not credible and what evidence undermines the claimant’s complaint.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Campion v. Old Republic Protection Co.

After the putative class representative voluntarily settles his individual claims, an appeal is moot if the class representative does not retain a personal stake in the case.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

United States v. Gladding

When an individual has pleaded guilty, the burden falls on the government to demonstrate a legitimate reason for retaining the individuals property.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law