Willamette Law Online

(11 summaries)

Lauren Bowers

9th Circuit Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Flores v. County of Los AngelesCivil Rights § 1983: Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must show that the lack of training is the proximate cause of an assault. (07-14-2014)
In re: IcenhowerBankruptcy Law: An Amended Consolidated Judgment is sufficiently specific if it orders a party to take “a specific and definite course of conduct.”(06-26-2014)
United States v. Aguilera-RiosCriminal Law: A conviction under a state statute that is not a categorical match for the federal aggravated felony firearms offense is not grounds for a removal order.(06-17-2014)
United States v. OsingerConstitutional Law: Prohibiting conduct under 18 U.S.C.§§ 2261A(2)(A) is not facially invalid under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.(06-04-2014)
Plata v. BrownCivil Rights § 1983: A district court’s order is consistent with the Prison Litigation Reform Act if it is “a sensible scheduling order designed to provide the court and Plaintiffs with adequate notice of the evidence the State intends to rely upon in a motion to terminate.”(05-28-2014)
People of the State of Cal. v. U.S. D.O.I.Environmental Law: The Secretary of the Interior does not abuse his or her discretion when electing to not create an Environmental Impact Statement when redistributing a water allotment.(05-19-2014)
Chandra v. Holder Immigration: The panel may hear a petitioner’s untimely motion to reopen even if the changed country conditions are made relevant solely by the petitioner’s personal circumstances. (05-12-2014)
Butler v. LongCivil Procedure: A party is entitled to equitable tolling if a district court has dismissed the initial habeas petition before allowing a party to amend the petition. (05-02-2014)
Hernandez v. HollandCriminal Law: A mid-trial conversation between a defendant and a court bailiff does not constitute an interrogation under Miranda. (04-24-2014)
United States v. EmmettCriminal Law: When denying a petitioner’s motion based on 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), a district court must provide an adequate reason for denying the motion; and, it is not an abuse of discretion for a court to require a defendant to demonstrate that he suffered an undue hardship as one of the factors for a 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) claim.(04-17-2014)
Yokeno v. SekiguchiCivil Procedure: Organic Act of Guam granted the District Court of Guam the same privileges other courts possess regarding diversity jurisdiction that have been set forth in Article III., but because the Constitution does not confer Article III courts diversity jurisdiction involving aliens, the Organic Act must also be limited by the Constitution and diversity jurisdiction involving aliens is not permitted. (04-15-2014)