Evan Barrickman

9th Circuit Court of Appeals (16 summaries)

Pizzuto v. Blades

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2), a second or successive habeas petition, including petitioners sentenced to death, the petitioner must show by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder could have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Haskell v. Harris

California Penal Code statute requiring DNA samples to be taken from all felony arrestees does not violate the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution given the diminished expectation of privacy in a felony arrestee and the compelling governmental interests in identification, solving crimes, preventing crimes, and exoneration.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

McOmie-Gray v. Bank of America

Under U.S.C. § 1635(f), regardless of whether the parties have notice or agreed otherwise, suits for rescission must be filed within three years of signing the loan agreement.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

United States v. Noriega-Perez

Whenever alienage is an element of a crime, the alleged alien who was the subject of the offense does not need to testify, and a jury can make an inference that the alleged alien was not allowed to enter the country legally based upon the non-availability of the non-testifying witness.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

United States v. Solorio

Under FRE 604, a party must show inaccuracy or illegal conduct from a nonsworn interpreter’s interpretation during trial in order to have a claim of prejudice and get a reversal.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

United States v. Alcala-Sanchez

When a prosecutor agrees to a stipulated plea agreement, then subsequently changes the recommended sentence to a greater sentence than agreed, it is a breach of the plea agreement and the case must be remanded for resentencing before a different judge.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

UMG Recordings v. Shelter Capital Partners

Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act “safe harbor” provision, a website provider is not liable for copyright infringement if the provider is not aware of infringement or removes access to copyrighted material once the provider becomes aware of infringement, and actual knowledge of infringement is required for a provider to be liable.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Copyright

United States v. Tadio

A Circuit Court has no jurisdiction to review the district court’s exercise of discretion in a sentencing reduction when the district court properly considers a defendant’s relative culpability, capacity for abiding by the law, and threat to society along with cooperation with authorities.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

Schultz v. Tilton

A jury instruction which allows a jury to consider a defendant’s prior bad acts if found by a preponderance of the evidence, does not misstate the prosecutor’s burden of proof.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Fossen v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield

ERISA preempts state HIPPA laws for the purpose of subject matter jurisdiction and state law causes of action on the merits. Federal ERISA does not preempt state law claims for relief under separate state unfair insurance practice laws that prohibits charging different policy premiums to similarly situated individuals.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Insurance Law

United States v. King

False statements made to a state agent while investigating violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act may fall within 18 USC 1001(a)(2) “making materially false statements in a matter within the jurisdiction of the United States”.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

In the Matter of Roman Catholic Archbishop

Public safety concerns can mandate that private information of a priest, not party to the lawsuit, may be released to the public, but “scandalous” portions must be redacted.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

United States v. Santini

A psychological expert witness cannot form an opinion on data that requires interpretation by an expert in law enforcement record keeping if no interpretation was previously performed.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Diaz v. Brewer

A statute limiting public employee benefits to spouses of heterosexual couples and eliminating coverage for domestic partners violates equal protection.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Harlick v. Blue Shield of California

California’s Mental Health Parity Act requires that a plan within the scope of the Act cover medically necessary residential treatment for mental disorders including anorexia nervosa.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Insurance Law

Delgado v. Holder

The Board of Immigration Appeals has the authority to consider DUI convictions as a “particularly serious crime” for the purposes of withholding removal and asylum.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration