Wesley Garcia

United States Supreme Court (4 summaries)

Millbrook v. United States

Under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) the law enforcement proviso in 28 U.S.C. §2680(h) for intentional torts extends to officers’ acts or omissions arising within the scope of their duty and is not limited to conduct during an arrest, search, or seizure.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc.

Since Georgia has not clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed a policy in which hospital authorities can substantially lessen competition by acquiring additional hospitals, state-action immunity does not apply to the hospital authorities.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Antitrust

Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak & Salazar v. Patchak

The United States waived sovereign immunity under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) when it took land in trust for tribal use, and the Quiet Title Act (QTA) does not provide an exception for a suit that does not seek title of the land. Further, because the Indian Reorganization Act addresses land use, Respondent’s claims are entitled to prudential standing because they are within the Act’s “zone of interest.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Standing

Holder v. Gutierrez

The Board of Immigration Appeals' decision to reject imputation of parental residency is reasonable and entitled to Chevron deference because it is “based on a permissible construction” of the statute.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted (6 summaries)

U.S. Forest Service v. Pacific Rivers Council

(1) Whether a plaintiff has Article III standing if it failed to establish a specific imminent threatened injury from its contact with the forest area affected by United States Forest Service proposals; (2) whether a plaintiff's claim is ripe if it can still object once it identified a specific injurious project; and (3) whether the National Environmental Policy Act requires the United States Forest Service to analyze all potential environmental effects as soon as reasonably possible.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Walden v. Fiore

(1) Whether knowledge that Plaintiff has connections to the forum State constitute “express aiming” for specific personal jurisdiction; and (2) whether venue is established under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) when the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in a judicial district other than the forum state.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Hillman v. Maretta

Whether the Federal Employees’ Group Life Insurance Act (FEGLIA) preempts Virginia’s omitted spouse statute that allows a third party to recover death benefits from the named beneficiary.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Preemption

Sebelius v. Cloer

Whether a person who untimely files a claim under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is eligible for an award of attorneys’ fees when the claim was brought in good faith and with a reasonable basis.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

Millbrook v. United States

Whether 28 U.S.C. §§1346(b) and 2680(h) waive the sovereign immunity of the United States for intentional torts committed by prison guards who are acting within the scope of their employment but are not exercising authority to "execute searches, to seize evidence or to make arrests for violations of Federal law."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc.

(1) Whether the Georgia legislature “clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed [a] state policy to displace competition” when it vested powers to acquire and lease hospitals; if so (2) whether such policy is sufficient to validate anticompetitive conduct given minimal state involvement with a leased hospital.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Corporations

9th Circuit Court of Appeals (17 summaries)

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

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

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

Jones v. Nat'l Marine Fisheries

The Army Corps of Engineers’ Environmental Assessment and finding of no significant impact was neither deficient nor arbitrary or capricious, and therefore the Oregon Resources Corporation did not need to submit an additional environmental impact statement in order to receive a permit to mine mineral sands.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Environmental Law

United States v. Arreguin

Under the apparent authority doctrine, it is not objectively reasonable to believe a houseguest has authority to consent to the search of a house when officers know virtually nothing about the houseguest, the rooms in the residence, or the houseguest’s connection to those rooms.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Wong v. Beebe

28 U.S.C. § 2401(b) of the Federal Tort Claims Act is not a “jurisdictional” statute and is therefore entitled to presumptions of equitable tolling.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

Nuveen Municipal v. City of Alameda

Failure to establish loss causation for securities fraud is fatal for a claim alleging loss due to misrepresentations.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

Dow v. Virga

The standard to be used by state courts in reviewing prosecutorial misconduct is one of materiality, per Napue v. Illinois, not harmlessness.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Drakes Bay Oyster Co. v. Jewell

The Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction to review an agency decision for abuse of discretion in allowing a mariculture permit to expire, but it does not have jurisdiction over the ultimate discretionary decision; the Secretary of the Interior did not abuse its discretion by not renewing the permit.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

United States v. Acosta-Chavez

Illinois’s Aggravated Criminal Sexual Abuse statute does not categorically qualify as a “forcible sex offense” to warrant a sixteen-level sentencing enhancement because the statute’s definition of a minor is broader than the generic federal analogue.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

United States v. Gomez

Admitting a defendant’s post-arrest statement does not violate Miranda v. Arizona where the statement was voluntary and inconsistent with the defendant’s testimony and where the prosecution uses the statement only for impeachment purposes.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Murphy v. DirecTV, Inc.

The Federal Arbitration Act preempts California’s rule that renders class arbitration waivers unenforceable, and Best Buy, as a non-signatory to a contract, cannot be compelled to arbitrate because no relevant California law allows it.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Arbitration

Kimble v. Marvel Enter., Inc.

A “hybrid” license agreement with inseparable patent and non-patent rights that includes royalty payments beyond the patent’s expiration is unenforceable after expiration unless the agreement includes a discount rate for the non-patent rights.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents

Cardenas-Delgado v. Holder

Immigration Nationality Act § 212(c) does not apply retroactively to waiver applications for convictions prior to the statute’s repeal.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Harris v. Amgen

The fiduciary duty of care and loyalty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") is breached when a fiduciary continues to offer company stock as an investment alternative when it knew or should have known the stock's artificially inflated value; appointment of a trustee is not a clear delegation of exclusive authority by the fiduciary for purposes of defeating ERISA fiduciary status.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Corporations

Acosta v. City of Costa Mesa

A California city ordinance prohibiting disruptive public behavior at city council meetings is constitutionally overbroad and not severable when it fails to “limit proscribed activity to only actual disturbances” and instead includes a significant amount of “non-disruptive, protected speech.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Radcliffe_v._Experian Info. Solutions

An incentive award for class representatives conditioned on support of settlement makes the class representatives inadequate and creates a conflict of interest for class counsel between the class representatives and the class.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law