Willamette Law Online

(39 summaries)

Casondra Albrecht

9th Circuit Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Block v. eBayCivil Procedure: In order to state a claim for violations under California’s False Advertising Law, a private plaintiff must prove actual, reasonable reliance on the misrepresentations, and those misrepresentations must be material. (04-01-2014)
Block v. eBayCivil Procedure: In order to state a claim for violations under California’s False Advertising Law, a private plaintiff must prove actual, reasonable reliance on the misrepresentations, and those misrepresentations must be material.(04-01-2014)
Haro v. City of Los Angeles Labor Law: Fire department employees whose job duties do not included fire suppression are entitled to standard overtime pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act because they do not fall within the “engaged in fire protection” exemption.(03-18-2014)
Brewster v. Sun Trust MortgageCivil Law: The attempted collection of fees incurred during a foreclosure proceeding, even if the foreclosure is rescinded, violates the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act if the collection efforts occur while the servicemember is on active duty; and a complaint alleging as much is sufficient to state a claim under the SCRA. (02-07-2014)
Obsidian Finance Group v. CoxFirst Amendment: In defamation suits, the matter at issue must be of public concern and a plaintiff must show that the defendant acted negligently in publishing an assertion of fact, regardless of whether the writer is a member of the institutional media. (01-17-2014)
United States v. DeJarnetteCriminal Law: The initial registration requirement under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, under which an offender must register in the jurisdiction of conviction regardless of jurisdiction of residence, does not currently apply to pre-Act offenders already subject to other registration obligations.(12-20-2013)
Rivera v. Peri & Sons Farms, Inc.Labor Law: Expenses incurred by foreign workers in order to obtain employment through the H-2A program are covered under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the employer is required to reimburse such expenses because they primarily benefit the employer, not the workers.(11-13-2013)
Wash. Envtl. Council v. BellonEnvironmental Law: While the failure to regulate greenhouse gas emissions in compliance with the Clean Air Act may create an injury in fact to meet the first test for standing, the causation and redressability prongs of the test cannot be met because a multitude of other factors may cause the injuries and cannot be appropriate redressed by the courts. (10-17-2013)
Heinemann v. SatterbergCivil Procedure: A local rule may not allow for a default grant of a motion summary judgment if the motion is unopposed; and though a lack of response may be interpreted as an undisputed fact under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, the motion may not be granted absent an assessment by the court of the motion and supporting materials.(09-24-2013)
Ayala v. WongHabeas Corpus: Excluding defense counsel during a proceeding to determine whether a peremptory challenge is racially motivated, absent compelling reasons, violates the Constitution because the defense is unable to respond to the prosecution’s justifications and preserve any errors on the record.(09-13-2013)
E.R.K. v. State of Hawaii Dep’t of Educ.Disability Law: Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, a state may not prevent disabled students aged 18 to 21 from attending public school if that state provides free public education to nondisabled students in that same age range.(08-28-2013)
United States v. EvansCriminal Law: A district court may not exclude a critical element of a defense based only upon Fed. R. Evid. 104, as excluding that evidence without a substantive basis violates a defendant’s right to present a defense.(08-27-2013)
Salameh v. Tarsadia HotelContract Law: A securities investment contract will not be found without facts pleading the investment of money, a common enterprise, and an expectation of profits. (08-13-2013)
George v. MorrisQualified Immunity: In cases where objective provocation cannot be shown, police officers may not be entitled to qualified immunity for claims of excessive force. (07-30-2013)
United States v. Board of DirectorsWater Rights: A court mandate may be corrected in extraordinary circumstances where the panel erred in an earlier decision to the detriment of a body of water, and failure to correct the mandate would result in a decision contrary to the purpose of the enacted irrigation limitations. (07-22-2013)
Ohno v. YasumaConstitutional Law: Domestic enforcement of a foreign money damages award under California law does not violate constitutional principles of free exercise of religion if the domestic court does not retry the case on its merits and the foreign judgment does not meet the high bar of the “repugnant to public policy" exception. (07-02-2013)
Fourth Investment LP v. United StatesTax Law: When determining the enforceability of a nominee lien as a matter of federal law, questions of nominee status first require an evaluation of state law as applied to the specific facts of the case. (06-13-2013)
United States v. Rojas-PedrozaImmigration: An immigration judge's failure to inform a defendant of the available forms of relief is not an abuse of discretion if the error was harmless, and documents from an immigration file are not testimonial because of the mere possibility they may be used in later criminal proceedings. (05-28-2013)
United States v. RamirezCriminal Procedure: A judge may not preclude jurors from drawing legitimate inferences with the use of instructions that effectively put such inferences off-limits; additionally, prior convictions as sentencing enhancements under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b) are evaluated by a judge under the preponderance of the evidence standard. (04-29-2013)
Knappe v. United StatesTax Law: An executor of an estate has a duty to ascertain filing deadlines and will not be excused for reasonable cause by relying on erroneous advice about nonsubstantive tax issues, such as extended filing deadlines.(04-04-2013)
Allen v. FDICCivil Procedure: In order to remove a case to federal court under 12 U.S.C. § 1819(b)(2), the FDIC must be a real party in interest, and not merely an intervenor; however such restriction may be overcome if the FDIC can show a “threat to federal interests.”(03-15-2013)
Maxwell v. County of San DiegoConstitutional Law: Where a police officer impedes a gunshot victim’s access to medical care and, thus, places the victim in a worse position than she was in, the police officer is liable for a due process violation because, under the “danger creation” exception, the officer is not entitled to qualified immunity.(02-14-2013)
Thompson v. RunnelsHabeas Corpus: For habeas petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the correct law to be applied is the “clearly established Federal law” at the time of the final state adjudication, and not law created after the state decision.(01-24-2013)
Redoil v. EPAEnvironmental Law: The Clean Air Act is ambiguous regarding whether best available control technology applies to support vessels; as a result, an Environmental Appeals Board interpretation of the statute deserves deference under Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, Inc.(12-26-2012)
United States v. MaloneyCriminal Procedure: Deference is given to trial courts in determining a juror's impartiality and the jury instructions, and a high level of deference is given to a court's decision whether or not closing arguments are proper.(11-14-2012)
Dex Media West, Inc. v. SeattleFirst Amendment: Mixed-content publications like phone books are entitled to the full protection of the First Amendment; the commercial aspect and underlying financial motive of the publishers is not enough to classify such publications as strictly commercial speech and subject them to a lesser level of protection.(10-15-2012)
Albino v. BacaAdministrative Law: In order for an inmate to claim unawareness of a grievance procedure, which would render the procedure effectively unavailable, the inmate must make an objective showing the procedure was unknown or could not be known with reasonable effort.(09-21-2012)
Mueller v. City of BoiseFamily Law: A police officer may remove a child from parental care without a court order in situations where the child is in “imminent danger,” and that danger is determined from an objectively reasonable standpoint, which may be based on the opinion of a physician.(09-10-2012)
U.S. Auto Parts Network v. Parts GeekCopyright: In determining whether work by an employee is “work for hire,” the employer must prove that (1) it is the kind of work the employee is employed to perform (2) it occurred substantially within the authorized time and space limits, and (3) it was actuated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve the employer.(08-31-2012)
United States v. McTiernanCriminal Procedure: To merit suppression of a recording under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2511(2)(d) and 2515, a defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a recording was made for criminal or tortious purposes, and not merely for recordkeeping or other non-criminal reasons.(08-20-2012)
United States v. Golden Valley ElectricAdministrative Law: Compliance with a subpoena issued by an administrative agency does not render an appeal of the subpoena moot. However, the subpoena is valid if it is relevant to a current investigation, is not overly broad, is procedurally proper and does not violate the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement.(08-07-2012)
United States v. RangelSentencing: A district court may vary, but not depart from, a sentence under the advisory Sentencing Guidelines without notice, and may consider a defendant's inability to pay restitution as a factor to vary the sentence.(07-20-2012)
Rearden LLC v. Rearden Commerce, Inc.Trademarks: Summary judgment is generally disfavored due to the fact-intensive nature of trademark cases, and many such cases must be evaluated according to multiple-prong tests that require full development of the record.(06-27-2012)
Peck v. ThomasAdministrative Law: Under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), agency decisions excluding inmates from early release carry a presumption of validity, and will be upheld if there is a reasonable basis for the decision.(06-19-2012)
Xiong v. FelkerHabeas Corpus: Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), a denial of a writ of habeas corpus challenging a state court conviction will only be reversed if the decision is contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, federal law; or if the decision was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts.(06-05-2012)
United States v. CervantesConstitutional Law: Under the Fourth Amendment, the automobile and the community care exceptions to the warrant requirement for a search only apply if there is: (1) probable cause not based on conclusory observations and (2) the government sustains the heavy burden of demonstrating a valid caretaking reason for a vehicle to be impounded and searched.(05-16-2012)
Crosby v. SchwartzHabeas Corpus: Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), a denial of a writ of habeas corpus is reviewed under an extremely deferential standard and the denial will only be reversed if: the decision is contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, federal law; or if the decision was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts.(05-04-2012)
Oklevueha Native American v. HolderConstitutional Law: When asserting a claim for prospective relief, a plaintiff has a justiciable case and controversy for constitutional and statutory entitlement to use marijuana in religious practice if enforcement or prosecution has already occurred, regardless of whether criminal charges resulted from that enforcement action.(04-09-2012)
Otay Land Co. v. United EnterprisesCivil Procedure: Under 28 U.S.C. § 1919, when a case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, a court may award “just costs,” which are to be determined by an analysis of what is fair and equitable under the totality of the circumstances.(03-14-2012)