Colin McMahon

9th Circuit Court of Appeals (31 summaries)

Ortega v. Holder

Individuals must take actual action to establish expectation of vested rights to defeat reinstatement of a deportation order.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Minority Television Project v. FCC

First Amendment challenges of 47 U.S.C. § 399b are determined by applying intermediate scrutiny. The statute is narrowly tailored to achieve the substantial government interest of maintaining quality educational programming on public broadcasting networks.

Area(s) of Law:
  • First Amendment

Lujan v. Garcia

When testimony is induced by erroneous admission of confession evidence, it cannot be used to support the conviction as harmless error because it would perpetuate the initial constitutional violation.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

United States v. Zepeda

Providing a certified degree of Indian blood, by itself, is not sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant is an Indian for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 1153.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Joffe v. Google, Inc.

Payload data transferred over unencrypted Wi-Fi networks is neither radio communication nor electronic communication that is readily accessible by the general public for the purposes of the Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2511.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

United States v. Sedaghaty

Under Brady, the government is obligated to disclose significant impeachment evidence relevant to a critical witness; CIPA provides the government protection of classified documents used as evidence, but requires the government provide an adequate and neutral summary of any information relevant to the defense.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Sully v. Ayers

To obtain federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, a petitioner must show that the state court unreasonably applied clearly established federal law.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Quin v. County of Kauai Dep't of Transp.

When an omission on a bankruptcy schedule of a pending claim is “mistaken” or “inadvertent,” using the common meaning of those terms, that omission shall not be grounds for applying judicial estoppel to the pending claim.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Bankruptcy Law

John v. Alaska Fish & Wildlife Conservation Fund

The Secretaries of the Interior and of Agriculture were reasonable in their methods of notice and comment rulemaking to determine which of Alaska's navigable waters constituted "public lands" for the purposes of compliance with ANILCA.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

United States v. Hernandez-Meza

Brief continuance proceedings are not automatically excluded from Speedy Trial Act time limitations; it is an abuse of discretion to reopen a case based on surprise when no surprise exists and to not hear well-made objections to admission of evidence.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

United States v. Cabrera-Gutierrez

Congress has the authority under the Commerce Clause to require convicted sex offenders to register under SORPA and a defendant's guilty plea statement can be used to determine the offender's sentencing level.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

United States v. Garrido

Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Skilling v. United States, 18 U.S.C. § 1346 applies only to honest services fraud cases involving bribery or kickbacks, failure to disclose material conflict of interest does not apply; additionally bribery convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 666 do not require an official act.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Columbia Pictures Industries v. Fung

The Grokster test for copyright infringement extends to websites even though the wording of the test’s first element applies to “devices” and “products.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Copyright

Gilstrap v. United Air Lines

The Air Carrier Access Act does not preempt state law personal injury tort claims but, instead, can describe the duty element of a negligence claim. Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act does not include terminals for transportation by aircraft within the definition of "places of public accommodation."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

Multistar Industries, Inc. vs. USDOT

Under the Hobbs Act and the Administrative Procedure Act, where the basis of an appeal from an administrative decision and order was not a factor in the agency's final decision, the Court of Appeals can not review the decision or order. A petitioner is not denied due process when an agency declines to review findings that were not the basis of the agency's final action.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

United States v. Juvenile Male

The Ninth Circuit joined its sister circuits in not requiring a psychological evaluation for determining whether transfer from juvenile proceedings to adult prosecution is "in the interest of justice." Presuming guilt for the purposes of a transfer decision is not a violation of due process rights.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

United States v. Juvenile Male

The Ninth Circuit joined its sister circuits in not requiring a psychological evaluation for determining whether transfer from juvenile proceedings to adult prosecution is "in the interest of justice." Presuming guilt for the purposes of a transfer decision is not a violation of due process rights.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Washington Shoe v. A-Z Sporting Goods

Under the Calder test, personal jurisdiction is established against a non-resident defendant where the defendant knowingly engaged in copyright infringement knowing that the harm would impact a plaintiff in Washington State.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

United States v. Wiggan

A Grand Juror may testify to the materiality of a defendant's testimony and to the physical arrangement of the Grand Jury room. However, if the testimony addresses the Grand Jury's opinion on the defendant's credibility, its probative value is outweighed by its prejudicial effect and it must not be admitted under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 analysis.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

United States v. Nungaray

At a sentencing hearing, a district court may find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that an individual had constructive possession of firearms when that individual organized, facilitated, and was present at the sale of those firearms. Such a finding will result in an increased sentencing level per U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(1)(A).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

United States v. Lukashov

When the jury receives a proper instruction on venue but only reaches a verdict on the substantive aspects of the case, the trial court may decide venue as a matter of law if the jury could not have reached its verdict without concluding that venue exists by a preponderance of the evidence.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Price v. Stevedoring Services

The litigating position of the Director of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, which interprets the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, is not entitled to Chevron deference.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

Meruelo v. CIR

The IRS has authority to issue a valid Notice of Deficiency on a partner of an LLC if there are no pending partnership-level proceedings. The mere consideration of future partnership-level proceedings does not invalidate a Notice of Deficiency.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tax Law

Drew v. Equifax

A credit reporting agency’s notification of a fraudulent account triggers the creditor’s duty under the Fair Credit Reporting Act to investigate and react to the fraudulent account, even if the notification does not specifically state that the creditor is required to act.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

Baughman v. Walt Disney World Co.

Without proof that Segways cannot be operated safely within its theme parks, Disney might be required under the ADA to allow disabled persons to use Segways.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Disability Law

United States v. Castillo-Marin

Courts may not simply rely on a Presentence Investigation Report in determining the sentencing level under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 for an individual with a prior conviction. Such reliance results in clear and obvious error.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

United States v. Suarez

Mandatory minimum sentencing under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) does not apply when the prior conviction did not result from a final judgment or a legally cognizable sentence resulting in a final judgment. A guilty plea with entry in a deferral program requiring treatment, but without a probation or imprisonment, does not qualify as a final judgment or a legally cognizable sentence.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

United States v. Grant

The good faith reliance doctrine under United States v. Leon is inapplicable to an affidavit that does not “establish at least a colorable argument for probable cause.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Fenenbock v. Director of Corrections

A defendant is not denied sufficient pretrial access to the prosecution’s primary witness where the witness is a minor, and an agency unrelated to the prosecution acts in the minor’s best interest and restricts the defendant’s access to the minor.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

United States v. Zhou

42 U.S.C. § 1320d-6(a)(2) contains two separate elements necessary for a violation: a person must (1) knowingly obtain individually identifiable health information relating to an individual and (2) use that information in a manner inconsistent with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Noble v. Adams

For purposes of tolling the statute of limitations, a district court must determine what is a reasonable time to appeal a petition for writ of habeas corpus or whether a delay is excusable, under applicable state law.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus