Stephanie Case

9th Circuit Court of Appeals (27 summaries)

Taylor v. Beard

A felony murder conviction may be upheld even when there is evidence proving the individual did not commit the crime actually convicted of, if the prosecutor presented multiple theories of guilt from which a jury determination could lead to the same conviction based on a different charge.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

United States v. Spangler

An exclusion of an expert witness may be found to be harmless error if the expert’s testimony is deemed irrelevant to the charges, and the proponent had the opportunity to present evidence of the same substance.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

United States v. Swisher

A statute containing a content-based restriction, with the purpose of stopping a particular message from being conveyed, is a restriction on speech and analyzed under the First Amendment.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

McKinney v. Ryan

A sentencer in a capital case may not refuse to consider, as a matter of law, any relevant mitigating evidence offered by the defendant, including nonstatutory mitigating factors not causally connected to the crime.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

State of California v. FERC

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission may apply the Mobile-Sierra presumption of justness and reasonableness in the context of short-term spot sale contracts whenever a contracted rate is involved.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Mondaca-Vega v. Holder

When important individual interests are at stake, the court applies the intermediate standard of proof, which may be articulated as either “clear and convincing” or “clear, unequivocal, and convincing.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

SEIU v. Los Robles Reg'l Med Ctr.

In order for the statute of limitations to begin running under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, the employer must communicate an “unequivocal, express rejection of the union’s request for arbitration.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Labor Law

Shirley v. Yates

Where a prosecutor cannot remember the reason why he struck certain venirememebers, if he/she testifies both to his/her general jury selection approach and that he/she is confident that a race-neutral preference was the actual reason for the strike, it is sufficient circumstantial evidence to satisfy Batson Step Two.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

United States v. Dreyer

The Posse Comitatus Act’s prohibitions against the use of the military to directly assist civil law enforcement activities applies to the Naval Criminal Investigative Service and its civilian agents.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

EEOC v. McLane Co.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has broad powers to investigate potential violations of Title VII, and need only establish that the evidence it seeks is relevant and material, not that it is necessary, to the investigation.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

In the Matter of: Tower Park Props.

In order for an individual to have standing in bankruptcy court, the individual must satisfy three requirements: (1) qualify as a party of interest under 11 U.S.C. § 1109(b); (2) meet Article III standing; and (3) meet federal court prudential standing.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Bankruptcy Law

Idaho Bld. & Constr. Trades Council v. Inland Pac. Chapter of Assoc’d Builders & Contractors

If a state regulation of employee collecting bargaining activities and a regulation detailed in the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) conflict, the National Labor Relations Board's interpretation of the NLRA governs if rational and consistent with the statute.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Labor Law

Pollinator Stewardship Council v. U.S.E.P.A.

When applying an agency generated standard, the court must apply the standard set out by the agency and determine if the conclusion of the matter is supported by the agency standard, as well as substantial evidence.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

United States v. Sanchez-Gomez

The adoption of a generalized policy of shackling defendants during pretrial appearances before judges must have adequate justification.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Acevedo v. Lynch

The definition of “child” in the Immigration and Nationality Act § 1101(c)(1) does not include stepchildren, and Congress did not intend § 1101(b)’s definition to apply to derivative citizenship under 8 U.S.C. § 1431(a).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Asarco v. Celanese Chemical Co.

Settlements between private parties following claims for contribution and cost-recovery under § 113(f)(3)(B) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, fall within the three-year statute of limitations.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Environmental Law

United States v. Salman

A breach of a fiduciary duty occurs when an insider makes a gift of confidential information to a trading relative or friend; the personal benefit the individual receives does not have to be pecuniary, but may also include the benefit the person obtains from making the gift of information to the friend or relative.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

In Re Transwest Resort Properties

In considering if an appeal from bankruptcy court is equitably moot, the court considers: (1) whether a stay was sought, (2) whether the plan has been substantially consummated, (3) the burden on third parties, and (4) whether relief can be granted without dismantling the plan.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Bankruptcy Law

Angelotti Chiropractor v. Baker

In order for a taking to occur, a plaintiff must suffer a sufficiently severe economic interference with his expectations regarding a vested right; economic substantive due process claims are evaluated with rational basis review, and may survive as long as the legislature’s means are rationally related to the goal.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Ward v. Apple, Inc.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19, an alleged joint tortfeasor is a required party and must be joined when the alleging party claims an interest relating to the subject of the action, and the absence of the alleged tortfeasor could have negative a consequence on the plaintiff.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

McCormack v. Herzog

An individual may have standing to challenge an abortion statute if the individual could be prosecuted in the future based on a past violation of the statute, or when the individual intends to perform abortions that would violate the statute.

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

Garcia v. Lynch

An individual’s waiver of a right to appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals must be considered and intelligently made in order to be valid.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Ryan v. Editions Ltd. West

The Copyright Act’s preemption of state law only includes preemption of laws falling within the scope of the Act, or those that conflict with its purpose.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Copyright

Davis v. Guam

Unequal treatment under the law is a judicially cognizable personal injury, even without tangible consequences, which satisfies Article III’s case and controversy requirement.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Sam Francis Found. v. Christies

State regulations of wholly out of state commerce with no connection to in-state activity violate the Dormant Commerce Clause, but the violating provision may be severed from the statute as a whole, if allowed by state law, when the invalid provision is grammatically, functionally, and volitionally severable.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Allen v. The Boeing Co.

The term “event or occurrence” as used in the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(11)(B)(ii)(I), refers to a single event or occurrence that gives rise to the plaintiffs’ claims.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

United States v. Gonzalez Becerra

The term “victim,” as shown in the United States Sentencing Guidelines § 2B1.1, is not just limited to fraud victims suffering from a pecuniary harm, but also includes those suffering from physical, financial, dignitary, and proprietary harms.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Land Use Board of Appeals (11 summaries)

Graser-Lindsey v. City of Oregon City

Under Metro Code 3.07.1120(c)(1), the city’s plan must be “derived from and generally consistent with the boundaries of design type designations assigned by the Metro Council in the ordinance adding the area to the UGB,” as that ordinance is amended by Metro under MC 3.07.450.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Municipal Law

Benson v. Jackson County

Under OAR 661-010-0030(1) a petition for review must be filed with LUBA within 21 days after the date that the record is received or settled by the Board, and failure to do so, or receive an extension under OAR 661-010-0067(2), will lead to dismissal of the appeal.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Pinnacle Alliance Group LLC v. City of Sisters

Sisters Development Code 4.3.400.F only allows two one-year extensions of tentative subdivision plan approvals for multi-phase subdivision proposals.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Municipal Law

Land Watch Lane County v. Lane County and the City of Coburg

Directive 4, Goal 9 of Oregon's Statewide Planning Goals, which requires that local governments “[l]imit uses on or near sites zoned for specific industrial and commercial uses to those which are compatible with proposed uses,” is restricted to “specific commercial or industrial uses with special site requirements,” and in order for directive 4 of Goal 9 to be applicable, it must be demonstrated that the relevant zoning requirements apply.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Tokarski et al v. City of Salem

The standards contained in Salem Revised Code (SRC) 210.035 apply only when evaluating applications for planned urban development (PUD) modifications; simple lot replats and subdivisions are reviewed under SRC 205.010.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Mann v. Marion County

When a petitioner fails to properly serve notice of intent to appeal on the governing body, the governing body’s legal counsel, and all persons identified in the notice, pursuant to OAR 661-010-0015(2), and fails to advise LUBA that it has done so, LUBA lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Mintz et al v. City of Beaverton

When a local government withdraws its decision for reconsideration, the petitioner must either refile its original notice of intent to appeal in the matter, or file an amended notice of intent to appeal; if neither is filed, the appeal will be dismissed under OAR 661-010-0021(5)(e).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Balsly v. Benton County

When a local government interprets the provisions of its land use development code and exercises legal judgment, the decision does not fall within ORS 197.015(10)(b)(A).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Jacobs v. Clackamas County

Clackamas County Zoning and Development Ordinance (ZDO) 822.05 (home occupation standards and limitations) applies to any space, equipment or vehicle even when the space, equipment or vehicle is similarly used under an approved conditional use permit, and when the same activity is subject to multiple permit approval standards, the more restrictive ZDO standard controls.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Lennar Northwest, Inc. v. Clackamas County

When a hearings officer evaluates factors in considering a zone change application, the factors must be evaluated in accordance with the comprehensive plan of the location, and the hearings officer may not give dispositive weight to one factor when different weights are not delineated in the Clackamas County Zoning and Land Development Ordinance (ZDO).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Municipal Law

Rogue Advocates v. Josephine County

Pursuant to OAR 661-010-0010(3), and unless a local rule or ordinance provides for a later date, a local government decision becomes final when it is reduced to writing and bears the necessary signatures of decision maker(s); therefore, when a local rule or ordinance additionally provides that a written decision must be prepared and approved by a majority vote of the participating members of the hearing body, the local government’s decision will not be deemed “final” for the purposes of administrative and local rules until it is at least reduced to writing, notwithstanding other criteria.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use