Willamette Law Online

(16 summaries)

Evan Barrickman

9th Circuit Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Pizzuto v. BladesHabeas Corpus: Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2), a second or successive habeas petition, including petitioners sentenced to death, the petitioner must show by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder could have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.(03-08-2012)
Haskell v. HarrisConstitutional Law: California Penal Code statute requiring DNA samples to be taken from all felony arrestees does not violate the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution given the diminished expectation of privacy in a felony arrestee and the compelling governmental interests in identification, solving crimes, preventing crimes, and exoneration.(02-23-2012)
McOmie-Gray v. Bank of AmericaCivil Procedure: Under U.S.C. § 1635(f), regardless of whether the parties have notice or agreed otherwise, suits for rescission must be filed within three years of signing the loan agreement.(02-08-2012)
United States v. Noriega-PerezEvidence: Whenever alienage is an element of a crime, the alleged alien who was the subject of the offense does not need to testify, and a jury can make an inference that the alleged alien was not allowed to enter the country legally based upon the non-availability of the non-testifying witness.(02-01-2012)
United States v. SolorioEvidence: Under FRE 604, a party must show inaccuracy or illegal conduct from a nonsworn interpreter’s interpretation during trial in order to have a claim of prejudice and get a reversal.(01-19-2012)
United States v. Alcala-SanchezSentencing: When a prosecutor agrees to a stipulated plea agreement, then subsequently changes the recommended sentence to a greater sentence than agreed, it is a breach of the plea agreement and the case must be remanded for resentencing before a different judge.(01-10-2012)
UMG Recordings v. Shelter Capital PartnersCopyright: Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act “safe harbor” provision, a website provider is not liable for copyright infringement if the provider is not aware of infringement or removes access to copyrighted material once the provider becomes aware of infringement, and actual knowledge of infringement is required for a provider to be liable.(12-20-2011)
United States v. TadioSentencing: A Circuit Court has no jurisdiction to review the district court’s exercise of discretion in a sentencing reduction when the district court properly considers a defendant’s relative culpability, capacity for abiding by the law, and threat to society along with cooperation with authorities.(11-21-2011)
Schultz v. TiltonHabeas Corpus: A jury instruction which allows a jury to consider a defendant’s prior bad acts if found by a preponderance of the evidence, does not misstate the prosecutor’s burden of proof.(10-27-2011)
Fossen v. Blue Cross and Blue ShieldInsurance Law: ERISA preempts state HIPPA laws for the purpose of subject matter jurisdiction and state law causes of action on the merits. Federal ERISA does not preempt state law claims for relief under separate state unfair insurance practice laws that prohibits charging different policy premiums to similarly situated individuals.(10-18-2011)
United States v. KingCivil Law: False statements made to a state agent while investigating violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act may fall within 18 USC 1001(a)(2) “making materially false statements in a matter within the jurisdiction of the United States”.(10-03-2011)
In the Matter of Roman Catholic ArchbishopCivil Procedure: Public safety concerns can mandate that private information of a priest, not party to the lawsuit, may be released to the public, but “scandalous” portions must be redacted.(09-21-2011)
United States v. SantiniEvidence: A psychological expert witness cannot form an opinion on data that requires interpretation by an expert in law enforcement record keeping if no interpretation was previously performed.(09-08-2011)
Diaz v. BrewerConstitutional Law: A statute limiting public employee benefits to spouses of heterosexual couples and eliminating coverage for domestic partners violates equal protection.(09-06-2011)
Harlick v. Blue Shield of CaliforniaInsurance Law: California’s Mental Health Parity Act requires that a plan within the scope of the Act cover medically necessary residential treatment for mental disorders including anorexia nervosa.(08-26-2011)
Delgado v. HolderImmigration: The Board of Immigration Appeals has the authority to consider DUI convictions as a “particularly serious crime” for the purposes of withholding removal and asylum.(08-19-2011)