Eric Robertson

9th Circuit Court of Appeals (35 summaries)

Daire v. Lattimore

For a claim to meet the standard review of the the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act it must show that a ruling was so lacking in justification that there was an error beyond any possibility for fair-minded disagreement.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Ministry of Defense v. Frym

Judgments consummated after the Algiers Accord are not in violation of the Accord and are permitted to be attached.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Remedies

United States v. Johnson

Application of the obstruction enhancement under United States Sentencing Guidelines § 3C1.1 to trial testimony does not impermissibly penalize a defendant twice for the same conduct, assuming the district court found the trial testimony was false, willful, and material.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

Wolfson v. Concannon

Restrictions placed on a candidate's ability to solicit for his own campaign and endorse other candidate's campaigns does not violate freedom of association and speech if the regulations are narrowly tailored to the legitimate state interest of safeguarding public confidence in elected officials.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Davis v. United States

A breach of a closing agreement by the Internal Revenue Service does not remove the statutory obligation of an individual to pay taxes.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tax Law

United States v. James

When interpreting the meaning of words or phrases in federal statutes, it is improper to derive the meaning of the word or phrase from closely related state statutes.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Correo-Ruiz v. Lynch

The five-factor balancing test from Garfias-Rodriguez v. Holder is used to determine whether the Briones rule may be applied retroactively in a given case.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Lyall v. City of Los Angeles

Attendees who lack current possessory interest in a venue and do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy lack standing to challenge a warrantless search of the venue.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Transbay Auto Service v. Chevron USA

When a party is vaguely aware of the contents of a writing, the party can adopt the writing as the party’s own statement under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(B), and is therefore not hearsay.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

United States v. Galan

When calculating the amount of restitution charged to a defendant who was convicted of distribution or possession of child pornography, the losses caused by the original abuse of the victim should be disaggregated from the losses caused by the ongoing distribution and possession of images of that original abuse.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Moscoso-Castellanos v. Lynch

When served with notice to appear, an immigrant’s time of physical presence stops accruing upon notice, so long as the notice is full.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Chavez-Solis v. Lynch

When a convicting statute is categorically broader than the federal statute, and there is a realistic probability that the convicting statute would be applied to conduct not in the federal statute, the conduct is not an aggregated felony.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Bobbitt v. Milberg LLP

When deciding what forum absent class member’s claims should be held using the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 145, domicile of the plaintiffs should carry little weight compared to other § 145 factors if the plaintiffs are from all 50 states.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Miles v. Wesley

Federal court abstention is appropriate when intervention into state court proceedings would be intrusive and unworkable.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Bakestrieri v. Menlo Park Fire Prot. Dist.

Preliminary and postliminary acts are compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act if they are principal activities.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Labor Law

Paeste v. Gov’t of Guam

Taxpayers of territories are citizens under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and have rights to damages.

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

Bridewell-Sledge v. Blue Cross of Cal.

Under the Class Action Fairness Act, when two cases are consolidated they are to be viewed as one under a jurisdiction analysis.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

United States v. Rivera-Constantino

The standard definition of a crime should be used for sentencing when legislative intent informs the court what the definition was meant to be.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

United States v. Chan

Affirmative misrepresentations by defense counsel regarding immigration consequences can support an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Williams v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co.

When using the federal common law, policy terms governed by Employee Retirement Income Security Act are interpreted in the ordinary and popular sense as a person of average intelligence and experience.

Area(s) of Law:
  • ERISA

Mitchell v. Valenzuela

A magistrate judge does not have the authority to deny a motion in which denial leads to ultimate relief sought; the magistrate judge must submit a report and recommendation to the district court for which will be reviewed de novo.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Carlson v. Att’y Gen. of Cal.

A defendant will be unable to confront his accusers if the court finds the defendant’s actions fall under the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing doctrine.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

United States v. Jefferson

Under 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960 the knowledge of the exact quantity and type of substance are not elements of the offense.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Seeboth v. Allenby

On review, when no level of scrutiny is stated, habeas corpus cannot be granted unless the conclusion is shown to be objectively unreasonable.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Walker V. Beard

A court may hold that there was a failure to state a claim where the state, under the RLUIPA, shows they used the least restrictive alternative.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Teamsters Local Union No. 117 v. Wash. Dep’t of Corr.

Facially discriminatory hiring practices may be legal if the characteristic being discriminated against is bona fide occupational qualification and is reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise

Area(s) of Law:
  • Labor Law

Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters v. Allegiant Air

An advocacy group is considered a Railway Labor Act representative when it seeks certification from the National Mediation Board, or voluntary recognition.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Labor Law

United States v. Gonzalez-Flores

To show an immigration order was fundamentally unfair under 8 U.S.C. §1326(d), an alien has the burden to show prejudice, which is decided by using a balancing test of the alien's positive and negative attributes.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Guam Indus. Servs. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co.

Insurance policies with unambiguous terms will be interpreted by their ordinary meaning.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Insurance Law

Comm. for a Better Arvin v. EPA

To comply with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, a State Implementation Plan must include waiver measures if they are needed to comply with federal standards.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Environmental Law

Maldonado v. Lynch

Under the Convention Against Torture, an applicant for deferral of removal does not need to show that relocation within the country of removal is impossible to avoid torture, however, the applicant must show that torture is more likely to occur than not if removed.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Ashbey v. Archstone Prop. Mgmt.

A plaintiff may not waive their right to a judicial forum under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, unless they knowingly waive it.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Contract Law

Patterson v. Wagner

International treaties with permissive language do not mandate a court to block extradition.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Arizona Libertarian Party v. Bennett

A statute that presents only a de minimis burden on a party’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights is subject to rational basis review.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

United States v. Aguilar

A court may deny a motion under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (60)(b)(1) when the Falk factors are met.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure