Mckenna Krueger

9th Circuit Court of Appeals (13 summaries)

In the Matter of SK Foods

A bankruptcy court's order denying the removal of a trustee and return of records is not a final order, and the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear issues on appeal involving interlocutory orders.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Bankruptcy Law

United States v. Harvey

In an order finding defendant in violation of his supervised release conditions based upon his use of marijuana, the Circuit Court held that "[w]hatever else 'order' might mean under § 844(a) of the Controlled Substances Act, it does not include a mere recommendation from a physician pursuant to the Compassionate Use Act."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Parole and Post-Prison Supervision

Meza-Vallejos v. Holder

When an alien’s sixty-day voluntary departure period falls on a day in which an immigrant would be unable to “file a motion for affirmative relief with the BIA, that day does not count in the voluntary departure period if . . . the immigrant files on the first available day a motion that would either have tolled, automatically withdrawn, or otherwise affected his request for voluntary departure.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Jiang v. Holder

The IJ erred in not allowing the petitioner to authenticate documents through his own testimony, when such documents would be substantial evidence in demonstrating his eligibility for adjustment of status. The IJ and BIA also erred in denying a reasonable short continuance when petitioner was not given adequate notice that documents would require authentication through a United States consulate in China.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

United State v. Rivera

Defendant’s judicially-noticeable documents clearly and unequivocally established that his petty theft conviction “was based upon his plea of guilty to conduct that constitutes a generic theft offense.” As the term of imprisonment was at least one year for the theft offense conviction, the defendant’s “offense level was correctly increased by eight levels, under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C).”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

Prellwitz v. Sisto

A district court did not reach a final decision when it adopted a magistrate’s recommendation on a habeas corpus petition that failed to stipulate a specified time of release for a prisoner.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Fiore v. Walden

Personal jurisdiction in Nevada was found over a Georgia state DEA agent using the three-part Schwarzenegger test and the Calder-effects test, after he knowingly seized plaintiffs funds through falsified probable cause, claiming their legitimate gambling winnings was money used in the drug trade.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

SEC V. Gewerter

On an issue of first impression the Ninth Circuit held that “on the basis of the clear language of Rule 45, we must hold that the court the issued the subpoena, and not the court where the underlying action is pending, can entertain a motion to quash or modify a subpoena.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Khoshfahm v. Holder

The government has the burden to demonstrate by clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence that Legal Permanent Resident parents lacked the intent to return to the United States in order to impute such intention to their children.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Baldwin v. Sebelius

A generalized grievance, without a genuine threat of prosecution, fails to show an injury in fact and is not sufficient to give plaintiffs standing.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

United States v. Aguilar-Reyes

FRCP 35(a), which allows a district court to modify a sentence of imprisonment within fourteen days after sentencing, is jurisdictional and not merely a time-related directive. Thus, the district court lacked jurisdiction when it resentenced the defendant fourteen days after the original sentence ruling.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Perfect 10 v. Google

In a case for preliminary injunction relief, a plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits does not create a presumption that there will be a likelihood of irreparable harm if an injunction is not granted.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Copyright

Walls v. Central Contra Costa Transit Auth.

After the signing of a Last Chance Agreement, an employee may not be considered an at-will employee and thus requires notice prior to dismissal.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law