Edgar Diaz

9th Circuit Court of Appeals (37 summaries)

State of Alaska Dep't of Nat. Res. v United States

Summary judgment may be granted when a suit is brought under the Alaska’s Quiet Title Act, when the United States is not a party, when a claim declaratory relief is the same as a quiet title claim, and when a condemnation claim is improperly pleaded.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Property Law

Rosales Rivera v. Lynch

The two-step framework for determining if a crime involves moral turpitude includes first identifying the elements of the conviction statute, and secondly, comparing those elements to the generic definition of crime involving moral turpitude.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

United States Ex Rel Mateski v Ratheon

A complaint raising fraud based on disclosed information that is different in kind and degree from previously disclosed information is not “substantially similar” under the False Claims Act.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

United States v Lara

An officer may not unreasonably search a probationer's cell phone as a condition of probation.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Gonzalez v United States

Determining whether the FBI is shielded from discretionary functions requires an analysis of: (1) whether the conduct is not discretionary and is not “the product of judgment or choice” and (2) whether government policy allows the discretion to be exercised.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Zachary v. California Bank & Trust

The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 amendments only allow individual chapter 11 debtors to acquire property and earnings acquired after the start of the case that would be excludable under § 541(a)(6) & (7).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Bankruptcy Law

Bozzio v. EMI Group

The incapacity of the promisee to a contract is not an absolute bar to a lawsuit by a third-party beneficiary.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Standing

Fue v. Biter

When a prisoner waits fourteen months to inquire into the status of his or her habeas corpus petition, the prisoner will not be entitled to equitable tolling because he or she did not act with sufficient diligence.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Bravo v. City of Santa Maria

Under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, examining a plaintiff’s success in acquiring a settlement against a defendant arising out of the same facts is appropriate when awarding attorneys' fees.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

Styers v Ryan

It has never been held by the Arizona Supreme Court that a conditional writ of habeas corpus that has been issued necessarily means that a sentence or conviction resulted from a constitutional error.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

United States v Holden

When defining continuing offense, a court will look at either explicit language of the substantive law on point, or the intent of Congress in creating the law coupled with the nature of the crime committed.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Flores-Rios v. Lynch

Under the framework for “membership in a particular social group”, the family is a distinct social group.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

NLRB v. Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Mkt.

A party must file a petition to revoke a subpoena if it wants to make a claim that the subpoena has a defect, and therefore, is insufficient.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Hajro v. USCIS

In order to retain jurisdiction under a settlement agreement, the order dismissing the case with prejudice needs to incorporate the terms of the agreement or expressly retain it.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Glick v Edwards

Under the rule of necessity, a judge may hear a case in which that judge is named a defendant to the case if the case cannot be heard otherwise.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

McMonagle v Meyer

A misdemeanor appeal is immediately final in California once the California court of Appeals makes a final decision on the case.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Sakkab v. Luxottica Retail N. Am.

The Federal Arbitration Act will preempt a state rule that is not a generally applicable contract defense and that conflicts with the purposes of the Federal Arbitration Act.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Arbitration

Cascadia Wildlands v Bureau of Indian Affairs

The National Environmental Policy Act requires preparation of an Environmental Impact Study under circumstances that may affect human living conditions.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Environmental Law

Rodriguez v. Sony Comput. Entm't Am

A private right of action does not exists for unlawful retention of personably identifiable information under 18 U.S.C. § 2710(c)(1).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

City of Oakland v Lynch

Judicial Review under the Administrative Procedure Act is precluded when the government’s decision to file a forfeiture action is committed to agency discretion by law, and when allowing the suit to proceed would impermissibly disrupt the existing forfeiture framework.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Olive v. CIR

A trade or business, defined as the activity entered into with the dominant hope and intent of realizing a profit, trafficking in controlled substances prohibited by Federal law is precluded from deducting any amount of ordinary or necessary business expenses under 26 U.S.C. § 280E.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tax Law

United States v. Zepeda

The Indian Major Crimes Act requires: (1) proof of quantum Indian blood, whether it is from a Federally recognized tribe, and (2) proof or affiliation with a federally recognized tribe. Further, a defendant needs to have been an Indian during the time of the charged conduct, and whether a tribe is Federally recognized is a matter of law.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Bastidas v. Chappell

When a magistrate judge believes to be issuing a nondispositive order, the judge may warn litigants that if they disagree and believe the matter to be dispositive, they have the right to file an objection to the determination with the district judge.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Alaskan Eskimo Whaling Comm'n v. EPA

When the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) makes a contrary determinations of a non-contact cooling water causing unreasonable degradation of marine environments, then a court may allow the EPA to reconsider its decision with regard to issuing permits with the new evidence.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Environmental Law

In Re United States

A court is not categorically precluded from expressing the merits of the mandamus when issuance would no longer be effective.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

Mitchell v. United States

A defense counsel may not be rendered ineffective if they made attempts at a defense strategy.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Marsh v. Colvin

Administrative Law Judges cannot ignore medical opinions and records.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Naffe v. Frey

A government employee acts under the color of law when, while he is performing his duty, he purposefully influences the behavior of others, which thereby inflicts harm on the plaintiff.

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

Garcia-Mendez v. Lynch

An alien does not, by virtue of the alien’s status as an applicant for special rule cancellation of removal, meet the definition of a Violence Against Women Act self-petitioner, nor does an applicant for special rule cancellation, by virtue of that status, become eligible to seek a section 212(h) waiver.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

United States v. Crooked Arm

Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, parts of the migratory bird are distinguishable from the entire migratory bird as a whole, and therefore, selling parts of a migratory bird is not equivalent to selling the actual bird, which is a felony.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Allen v. Bedolla

A district court must comprehensively review all factors to a class action settlement, and must give a reasoned response to all non-frivolous objections when determining the settlement’s substantive fairness.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Lair v. Bullock

Limitations on contributions to political candidates will be upheld if there is adequate evidence that the limitation furthers a sufficiently important state interest, and if the limits are “closely drawn.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Election Law

United States v. Brown

A defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to adequate representation and a right to choose one’s own counsel, when the defendant wants to excuse his current counsel for a public defender.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Sewards v. CIR

Workmen's compensation exclusions do not apply to retirement pensions calculated by reference to the employee's age and length of service, and therefore are taxable under the Internal Revenue Code.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tax Law

United States v. Gardenhire

It is a plain error if the court concludes an act to be reckless when no subjective evidence associated with the risk was presented.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

United States v. Torralba-Mendia

It is considered plain error when a district court fails to provide jury instructions for how to evaluate testimony that is admitted as expert and lay witness testimony, unless it can be shown that the error was not prejudicial.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Prichard v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.

A court reviews denials of insurance benefits de novo when the governing plan document does not contain discretion-granting terms.

Area(s) of Law:
  • ERISA

Oregon Supreme Court (4 summaries)

Kiryuta v. Country Preferred Ins. Co

An insurer is not entitled to a safe harbor for attorney fees under ORS 742.061(3), when an arbitration agreement limits the issues to be arbitrated, and the insurer raises an affirmative defense to the award that exceeds the scope of that agreement.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

Grabhorn v. Washington County

A Land Use Board of Appeal's decision may not lack substantial evidence when the date of lawful nonconforming presence is in dispute, if there would not have been a lawful presence under either date presented by petitioner.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

DCBS v. Muliro

Under ORS 656.210(2)(b)(A), to be eligible for supplemental temporary disability benefits, a claimant must prove that an employee's first employer and insurance company received actual notice of the claimant's secondary employment, and the notice requirement may not be imputed by preexisting knowledge.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

Northwest Natural Gas Co. v. City of Gresham

An increase in licensing fees may be valid if it is a “privilege tax” and the utilities operate “without a franchise” under ORS 221.450.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tax Law

Oregon Court of Appeals (37 summaries)

State v. Alonso

Compensatory fines cannot be imposed if the victim would not have a remedy in a civil action based on the crime.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. V.T.

Under ORS 426.307(6), continued involuntary civil commitment is appropriate if there is clear and convincing evidence of a particularized and highly probable threat to a person's safety.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Commitment

Diesel v. Jackson County

A county's prohibition of marijuana production on lands zoned rural residential may not be inconsistent with the county’s comprehensive plan.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Lizarraga-Regalado v. Premo

Counsel's failure to object to the “natural and probable consequences” uniform jury instruction, similar to State v. Lopez-Minjarez, constitutes a failure to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Post-Conviction Relief

State v. Watts

If a defendant was not given a reasonable opportunity to consent to a search, such as when the defendant is told that a search will inevitable occur, then it may be a warrantless search.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Mendoza

ORS 138.692 and ORS 138.694, regarding DNA testing and appointment of counsel, require supporting affidavits to prove the motion.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

Sloan v. Providence Health System-Oregon

If the jury instructions correctly state the law, a trial court may commit a reversible error by refusing to allow those instructions to be submitted to the jury.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Silsby

A stipulated sentence is “illustrated in” ORS 135.407 and ORS 138.222(2)(d) will prevent review on appeal.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

Ault v. Del Var Properties, LLC

At summary judgment on a premises liability claim, a plaintiff is not required to prove that the injury-causing condition on defendant's property was "unreasonably dangerous."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

State v. Thomas

The state breaches a plea agreement when the state imposes restitution on a plea agreement that does not mention restitution anywhere in the agreement.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

SAIF v. Williams

The Workers’ Compensation Boards order proving compensability of a “new medical or omitted medical condition” under ORS 656.267 by a claimant may be reversed if the Board comes to its own medical conclusion about causation.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

State v. Teagues

The state must choose a particular occurrence, and not raise two theories, to base a conviction for assault in violation of ORS 163.160(1)(a)

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Tena

Evidence of prior assaults may be introduced to show “intent or absence of mistake or accident” and “hostile motive” against the victim.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Code and Code

A trial court's determination of property division is just and proper in all the circumstances based on the courts discretion, unless a legal error has occurred.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

122nd Group, LLC v. DCBS

ORS 646A.620(1)(c)'s phrase "make available to the public" does not include throwing an evicted tenants belongings in the dumpster and thus exposing them to dumpster divers.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Hessel v. Dept. of Corrections

It is within the general statutory policy given to the Department of Corrections to govern, manage, and administer prisons.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

State v. Hawkins

ORS 166.025(1)(f) is intended to apply when a defendant's sensory conduct cause the people exposed to experience unpleasant physical, sensory effects.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Green

Under Article I, section 11 of the Oregon Constitution, it may be a violation of the right to counsel to prevent an individual from consulting with his attorney prior to taking a Intoxilyzer test if the officer is within earshot of the attorney or his receptionist.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Holt

A trail court's failure to conduct an OEC 403 balancing test may result in a Due Process violation under the Unites States Constitution.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Zach v. Chartis Claims, Inc.

Since the Director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services decides both the policy within the rules and resolves vocational disputes, deference must be given to his or her interpretation of the rules.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Lawrence v. Bailey

In confirming an arbitration award, a court lacks authority to grant a credit for advanced payments of medical expenses without an evidentiary basis.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Arbitration

State v. Thomas

OEC 703 does not permit the admission of inadmissible evidence just because it is offered through an expert witness's testimony.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Maxfield v. Nooth

The standard for determining whether counsel's deficient representation prejudiced a defendant is whether "the deficient performance could have affected the outcome of the case."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Post-Conviction Relief

State v. Wade

A second-degree disorderly conduct conviction may be reversed if a rational fact finder would find the elements beyond a reasonable doubt and there was no physical conduct by the defendant.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Anthony

The trial court commits an error if it does not examine the criminal defendant's ability to pay court appointed attorney fees.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

State v. Rinehart

A criminal defendant may not be required to pay attorney fees unless the defendant is or may be able to pay those fees.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

Friends of Yamhill County v. Board of Commissioners

If a declaratory judgment proceeding is exclusively available through the writ of review process under ORS 34.020, and if it is substantially the same relief as a writ of review, the relief may be denied.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

Village at North Pointe Condo. Assn. v. Bloedel Constr.

When calculating attorney fees, insurance coverage issues, if not recoverable, may be separated from those incurred in litigating the claims, if recoverable.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

OHSU v. Oregonian Publishing Co., LLC

Public records may not be disclosed if they contain information about the physical, mental health, psychiatric care, or treatment of a person, when that disclosure can cause an unreasonable invasion of privacy, and the public interest does not demand disclosure.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

LaCasse v. Owen

When opposing a motion for summary judgment, an attorney may submit a declaration that an unidentified expert will testify to certain conclusions at a trial that raise a genuine issue of material fact.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Bundy v. NuStar GP, LLC

Under the workers compensation act, the employer may be sued by an employee for injury that results from the employers deliberate intention to injure that employee.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

State v Smith

Elevating a public indecency misdemeanor to a felony and imposing a life sentence for two prior sexual attempt crimes is not an unconstitutional sentence.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

State v. Padilla

Under Article I, section 16 of the Oregon Constitution, a sentence is dissproportinate if it would shock a reasonable person's moral sense.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

State v. Martine

The State has not met its burden of showing legally sufficient proof that physical evidence was discarded if a jury has to use impermissible speculation to agree with the State.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Butcher

Under ORS 151.505(3) and ORS 161.665(4), it is plain error to require a defendant to pay attorney fees in absence of evidence that he is able to do so, and may be reversed if the amount was “substantial” in light of defendant’s circumstances.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Cline

Under ORS 151.505(3) and ORS 161.665(4), it is plain error to require a defendant to pay attorney fees in absence of evidence that he is able to do so.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v Osborn

Under ORS 151.505(3) and ORS 161.665(4), it is plain error to require a defendant to pay attorney fees absent any evidence he is able to do so. Under ORAP 5.45(1), a reviewing court may examine the gravity of the error, the prison term length, and the lack of financial resources of the defendant in choosing to exercise its discretion to correct the plain error of a trial court when a defendant did not adequately preserve his objection at trial.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure