Lauren Bowers

9th Circuit Court of Appeals (48 summaries)

Pensinger v. Chappell

A kidnap-murder special circumstance requires proof that the kidnapping was committed for an independent felonious purpose, meaning that the kidnapping was not merely incidental to the murder.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Riley v. McDaniel

If a state statute states that three different elements of a crime need three separate definitions to prove mens rea, then it is a due process violation if two of the elements are coupled together under the same definition.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

United States v. Gonzalez

A court does not abuse its discretion by providing an additional instruction to ensure juror unanimity on all of the elements of conspiracy.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Ctr. for Competitive Politics v. Harris

Disclosure requirements by the Internal Revenue Service for a non-profit organization’s significant donors do not violate the First Amendment when the disclosures further a compelling governmental purpose, and present no actual burden to the organization or the donors.

Area(s) of Law:
  • First Amendment

United States v. Alvarez-Ulloa

A court’s supplemental answer to a jury question is valid if it does not coerce the jury to make a certain determination.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Astiana v. Hain Celestial Group

A state cause of action, based on federal cosmetic labeling laws, is not preempted by the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and therefore, the primary jurisdiction doctrine should be utilized.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Preemption

Barboza v. Cal. Ass’n of Prof. Firefighters

Using the common law of trusts, parties do not need to use express language to create a trust between a trustee and a beneficiary.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Disability Law

United States v. Tamman

The dual application of the Broker-Dealer enhancement and the Special Skill enhancement does not amount to double counting at sentencing when the enhancements reflect separate and distinct behavior of the principal defendant from the defendant-accessory.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Munns v. Kerry

In order for a claim of relief to be granted, a plaintiff must show the potential for future harm they are likely to suffer if their claim is not granted.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Standing

Kohler v. Flava Enterprises, Inc.

Even though the Americans with Disabilities Act restricts dressing room benches to not be longer than forty-eight inches, a store can still comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act as an "equivalent facilitation” where a disabled individual could make a parallel transfer, while also being grandfathered in under previous standards.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Disability Law

Bank of Manhattan v. FDIC

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, in its role as a receiver of a closed bank, will face consequences when breaching underlying asset contractual obligations.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

Nigro V. Sears, Roebuck and Co.

A plaintiff in a disability discrimination case need not provide an extraordinary amount of evidence to survive summary judgment at the district court level.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Disability Law

Davis v. U.S. Bank, N.A.

Portions of discharged debt in bankruptcy proceedings remain a part of “aggregate debt” and include both the secured and unsecured portions of a creditor’s claims against a debtor, whether enforceable against the debtor or the debtor’s property.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Bankruptcy Law

McClellan v. I-Flow Corporation

Because there is no conflict with the Medical Device Amendment of 1976, preemption of state law does not apply to failure-to-warn theory jury instructions.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Preemption

United States v. Hertler

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h), "any terms of imprisonment" refers to the imprisonment in connection with the offense of the conviction and does not aggregate all counts of the conviction.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Ibarra v. Manheim Investments

In order for a class action lawsuit to abide by the Class Action Fairness Act, definitive evidence of the amount in controversy must be submitted to the court for review.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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