Willamette Law Online

(16 summaries)

Lee Adams

9th Circuit Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
United States v. JuanCivil Procedure: For a defendant to show a violation of due process under the Fifth Amendment for prosecutorial intimidation of a witness, defendant must show a causal link between the statements and the witness's decision to change her decision. (01-07-2013)
Ortiz v. YatesEvidence: The trial court's ruling that denied the petitioner the opportunity to cross-examine his wife regarding what she perceived to be a threat from the prosecutor violated the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.(12-06-2012)
Laurel Park Community v. City of TumwaterConstitutional Law: A zoning ordinance limiting the uses of manufactured home parks that has a negligible effect on property values and provides owners with reasonable alternative uses does not constitute a taking, nor does it violate substantive due process.(10-29-2012)
United States v. BudziakCriminal Law: Allowing other users of a peer-to-peer network to access a shared file that contains child pornography is sufficient evidence to constitute distribution of child pornography under 18 U.S.C § 2252(a)(2).(10-05-2012)
Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-MayerCopyright: The equitable defense of laches bars recovery of copyright claims where the plaintiff delays for 18 years, the reasons for delay are only inconveniences, and defendant expends considerable resources in the copyrighted work, even when the defendant receives profit during the plaintiff's delay.(08-29-2012)
United States v. BaileyEvidence: Under Rule 404(b), proof of guilt cannot be demonstrated by the fact that defendant settled because a defendant might settle for any number of reasons, and a complaint only proves that plaintiff alleges conduct, not that defendant was guilty of that conduct.(08-27-2012)
United States v. HenryConstitutional Law: Second Amendment rights do not extend to machine guns and Congress has the power to regulate possession and modification of “dangerous and unusual” weapons.(08-09-2012)
United States v. Valdes-VegaCriminal Procedure: Under the totality of the circumstances, reasonable suspicion of illegal immigration or drug activity must be based on a more particularized profile than geographical proximity to a border and driving erratically.(07-25-2012)
Michelman v. Lincoln National LifeInsurance Law: Interpleader is appropriate, even if competing stakeholders' claims are frivolous, as long as the interpleader has a good faith belief that its claims are colorable.(07-12-2012)
Chavez v. United StatesCivil Procedure: To state a claim against a supervisor for a subordinate's alleged violation of the Fourth Amendment, the plaintiff must plausibly allege facts tending to show that a reasonable supervisor would find that the defendant's conduct was clearly "unlawful in the situation he confronted."(06-20-2012)
Harris v. RandCivil Procedure:  [italics]Hertz[/italics] does not raise the pleading standard, it simply establishes that the "nerve center" is a corporation's principal place of business and sufficient allegations, not proof, are required to meet the minimum pleading requirements under [italics]Twombly[/italics] and [italics]Iqbal[/italics] .(06-13-2012)
Karuk Tribe of California v. USFSEnvironmental Law: Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, the Forest Service has a duty to consult a designated agency before approving a Notice of Intent for mining activity that could potentially affect a listed species.(06-01-2012)
United States v. HiengEvidence: A defendant’s failure to object to the admission of statements made during a proffer meeting “may be reasonably interpreted as indicating that the defendant previously waived his rights under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(f) and Federal Rule of Evidence 410,” and a defendant has no right to confront an interpreter where the interpreted statement “may be fairly attributed directly to the [original] speaker.”(05-11-2012)
United States v. AustinSentencing: To qualify for sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), the (C) agreement must either explicitly allow the court to apply sentencing guideline ranges or clearly show that the specific term of the agreement was based on sentencing ranges.(04-18-2012)
In re: Kekauoha-AlisaCivil Law: Under Hawaii state law, strict compliance with foreclosure procedure is required to not void foreclosure sale. Even where a violation of strict compliance establishes unfair business practices, a claimant must establish a causal connection between the procedural violations and her injuries.(03-26-2012)

Oregon Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
State v. LewallenPost-Conviction Relief: Under ORS 138.083, a court is not required to grant a motion to correct an alleged error with a hearing, rather, the court has discretionary authority to grant or deny such relief. (04-02-2014)