Willamette Law Online

(33 summaries)

Jamee Asher

9th Circuit Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Bylsma v. Burger King Corp.Tort Law: The plaintiff is entitled to amend his complaint in light of a Washington Supreme Court decision issued in response to the certified question of whether “the Washington Product Liability Act permit[s] relief for emotional distress damages, in the absence of physical injury, caused to the direct purchaser by being served and touching, but not consuming, a contaminated product.”(02-12-2013)
United States v. HardemanCriminal Law: The application of 18 U.S.C. § 2260A, which criminalizes committing certain federal offenses while under a legal duty to register as a sex offender, does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause, even if the defendant’s registration duty arose retroactively.(01-14-2013)
Rojas v. HolderImmigration: In determining whether to grant or deny a request for voluntary departure, the Immigration Judge may consider “evidence of bad character or undesirability” in making that discretionary determination. (12-28-2012)
Rojas v. HolderImmigration: In determining whether to grant or deny a request for voluntary departure, the Immigration Judge may consider “evidence of bad character or undesirability” in making that discretionary determination.(12-28-2012)
Cabantac v. HolderEvidence: Evidence that a defendant pleaded guilty to a count of possession of methamphetamine is sufficient to prove that the defendant was convicted of a controlled substance offense under 21 U.S.C. § 802, and not a general state offense.(08-23-2012)
Peter-Palican v. Northern Mariana IslandsCivil Rights § 1983: The Special Assistant to the Governor of Women’s Affairs possesses a protected property interest in continued employment only during the term of the appointing governor under Article III, section 2 of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Constitution. Thus, the Special Assistant has no due process claim against the Commonwealth when she is terminated without cause under a new governor.(08-22-2012)
Mojica v. HolderImmigration: The years of residency of a petitioner’s relative will not be imputed to the petitioner for purposes of satisfying the five-year lawful permanent residence requirement of 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(1).(08-10-2012)
United States v. Flores-MejiaSentencing: A conviction of robbery under California Penal Code § 211 is a categorical crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2.(08-09-2012)
United States v. TurnerParole and Post-Prison Supervision: A civil detention under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act does not amount to a term of “imprisonment” so as to preclude and toll the commencement of a sex offender’s supervised release term.(08-07-2012)
Sawyers v. HolderImmigration: The years of residency of a petitioner’s relative will not be imputed to the petitioner for purposes of satisfying the seven-year continuous residence requirement under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(2).(06-29-2012)
Marrero v. IvesHabeas Corpus: For purposes of applying the “escape hatch” under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, “[a] petitioner cannot be actually innocent of a noncapital sentence under the escape hatch.”(06-19-2012)
United States v. BeckerCriminal Law: For purposes of ordering a defendant to register as a sex offender, knowingly taking or receiving obscene matters from an interactive computer service, a crime that does not amount to a categorical “sex offense” under SORNA, constitutes a “sex offense” where the defendant pleads guilty to the offense.(06-19-2012)
Nordyke v. KingConstitutional Law: With respect to a gun show on county property, an ordinance may impose a restriction requiring firearms to be affixed to a table without violating the Second Amendment.(06-01-2012)
Beltran v. AstrueDisability Law: For purposes of determining whether a claimant is “disabled” and thus qualified for benefits under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act, “a significant number” of jobs does not exist “where the jobs were ‘very rare’ or generally unavailable to the claimant due to [her] limitations.”(05-02-2012)
Meras v. SistoHabeas Corpus: A state court’s admission of a non-testifying expert’s lab report into evidence on the basis that it is not “testimonial” under [italics]Crawford[/italics] is not “an unreasonable application of Federal law,” and therefore does not trigger a defendant’s right to confrontation under the Sixth Amendment.(04-23-2012)
Wentzell v. NevenHabeas Corpus: Under § 2244(b) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, when a defendant files two petitions for writ of habeas corpus, the latter petition is not “second or successive” where an amended judgment intervenes between the filing of the two habeas petitions.(04-02-2012)
Farmer v. McDanielCriminal Procedure: Where an initial capital sentence imposes the death penalty and the basis for the initial sentence is later invalidated, the state can seek to reimpose the death penalty on different grounds without violating the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment.(02-07-2012)
Tyson v. HolderImmigration: The repeal of § 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act imposes an impermissible retroactive effect on a lawful permanent resident, who was “convicted pursuant to a stipulated facts agreement based on a reasonable expectation that it would not negatively affect her immigration status.”(01-27-2012)
Mazza v. American HondaCivil Procedure: Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), no common issue of law exists in a consumer protection class action stemming from automobile sales in 44 different jurisdictions, because the foreign states’ interest in applying its own consumer protection laws to achieve an optimal balance between protecting consumers and fostering commerce, outweighs one state’s interest in regulating those who do business and commit wrongdoing within its borders.(01-12-2012)
K.D. v. Department of Education, State of HawaiiDisability Law: For purposes of the “stay put” provision under the Individual with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. § 1415(j)), a settlement agreement that merely requires tuition reimbursement and fails to call for “placement” lacks “the same legal effect as an affirmative agency decision to define a student’s ‘current educational placement.’”(12-27-2011)
Kwong v. HolderImmigration: A state court’s abstract of judgment is sufficient to establish the crime for which a defendant was convicted for purposes of finding a lawful permanent resident removable.(12-07-2011)
Steven Levin v. United StatesTort Law: Section 1089(e) of the Gonzalez Act does not waive the government’s sovereign immunity for common law battery claims.(11-23-2011)
Ditullio v. BoehmCivil Law: Under the civil remedy provision of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1595, a victim may recover punitive damages since the provision “creates a cause of action that sounds in tort and punitive damages are available in tort actions under common law.” However, § 1595 does not apply retroactively to a perpetrator's conduct that occurs before § 1595's effective date.(11-07-2011)
United States v. RizkCriminal Procedure: Where an indictment alleges a conspiracy, summary evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 1006 that includes acts not specified in the indictment, does not constitute “other acts” evidence under Rule 404(b), as such evidence is offered to show the full scope of that conspiracy.(10-19-2011)
Log Cabin Republicans v. United StatesConstitutional Law: Where a statute is repealed while an appeal challenging the constitutionality of that statute is pending, the suit is moot on appeal because “there is no longer a present, live controversy of the kind that must exist” for a reviewing federal court to reach the merits.(09-29-2011)
Silva v. Di VittorioConstitutional Law: A prisoner’s right to access the court under the First and Fourteenth Amendments includes a right “to litigate claims challenging their sentences or the conditions of their confinement to conclusion without active interferences by prison officials.”(09-26-2011)
In re: Brenda Marie JonesBankruptcy Law: The statutory suspension provision under 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(8) does not apply to a tax debt, which would otherwise be discharged in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding, where the debtor’s estate property re-vested after a prior bankruptcy proceeding and before the tax debt came due.(09-14-2011)
Li v. HolderImmigration: Where the BIA denies relief and remands pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(6) for background checks required for alternative relief, the Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction to consider an appeal of the final order denying relief.(09-01-2011)
Flexible Lifeline Systems v. Precision LiftCopyright: In a copyright infringement case, the plaintiff must prove a likelihood of irreparable harm to obtain injunctive relief; the long-standing presumption of irreparable harm upon a showing of likelihood of success on the merits in a copyright infringement case is now impermissible.(08-22-2011)
Brandt v. American Bankers InsuranceCivil Procedure: Where the court finds that a defendant acted culpably when the defendant failed to respond to the complaint, the court is not precluded, as a matter of law, from setting aside the default judgment for excusable neglect under Federal Rule of Procedure 60(b)(1).(08-10-2011)
Ginsberg v. Northwest, Inc.Civil Procedure: The Airline Deregulation Act (“ADA”) does not preempt a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, because state enforcement of the covenant does not “force the Airlines to adopt or change their prices, routes or services – the prerequisite for ADA preemption.”(08-05-2011)
Greenway v. SchriroCriminal Procedure: Under AEDPA, a federal habeas petitioner must exhaust their claims in state court before petitioning a federal court by “fully and fairly presenting” the factual and legal basis for the claim to the state court. It is enough to satisfy the fair presentation requirement when the petitioner includes the operative facts and legal basis for the claim in an amended post-conviction relief petition.(07-28-2011)

Intellectual Property

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Wax v. Amazon Techs., Inc.Trademarks: Using a mark for a variety of services preserves a priority for the mark's use.(01-14-2013)