Willamette Law Online

(29 summaries)

Lauren Bowers

9th Circuit Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
United States v. AgrontCriminal Procedure: The Department of Veterans Affairs regulation prohibiting disorderly conduct that creates loud, boisterous, and unusual noise is not unconstitutionally vague when the facts show a defendants’ conduct would tend to disturb the normal operation of the hospital. (11-21-2014)
In the Matter of: Mortgages Ltd.Bankruptcy Law: A bankruptcy court may not disregard statements in a pleading in regards to an agreement made between two parties unless the court finds that the agreement was made in bad faith. (11-12-2014)
United States v. De La Torre JimenezCriminal Law: Section 11351 of the California Health and Safety Code is “divisible” within the meaning of Descamps v. United States. (11-07-2014)
Owino v. HolderImmigration: When a petitioner seeks asylum relief, despite having a felony, the Immigration Judge must take into account the evidence that indicates the possibility of future torture if the petitioner returns to his or her country of origin. (11-04-2014)
Abbott v. Federal Bureau of PrisonsHabeas Corpus: Montana unlawful restraint elements are not equivalent to kidnapping and the conflation of the two is arbitrary and capricious.(10-27-2014)
United States v. RenziCriminal Procedure: If a member of Congress offers evidence of his own legislative acts at trial, the government is entitled to introduce rebuttal evidence narrowly confined to the same legislative acts.(10-09-2014)
Mendia v. GarciaConstitutional Law: In order to have Article III standing, the direct injury does not necessarily need to come from the government and can be from a third party's conduct. (09-29-2014)
Garcia v. Comm’s of Soc. Sec.Administrative Law: In order for there to be no legal error for determining that an individual is entitled to social security benefits, a complete record must be implemented. (09-23-2014)
Doe v. Internet Brands, Inc.Civil Law: The Communications Decency Act does not bar a failure to warn claim between a website provider and an individual who was harmed by a third party user of the website.(09-17-2014)
Butler v. NCRC Civil Procedure: An Appellant's original complaint must sufficiently identify all of the proper defendants in order for a later time-barred complaint to relate back under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c)(1).(09-12-2014)
Kowack v. USFSCivil Law: When redacting documents in a Freedom of Information Act request, a detailed Vaughn index is required to supplement the redacted information.(09-09-2014)
Slayman v. FedExEmployment Law: A Court may use the "Economics Realities Test" as well as the "Right to Control Test" to determine if an individual is an employee or and independent contractor to an employer. (08-27-2014)
Singh v. HolderImmigration: A nexus is established between mistreatment and a political opinion when the mistreatment is due to a suspicion of a crime against the government. (08-26-2014)
Moore v. HellingCriminal Law: A court's failure to retroactively apply a new governing rule for the definition of first degree murder is not contrary to clearly established federal law. (08-15-2014)
Weaving v. City of HillsboroDisability Law: A person is not covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act simply because they lack interpersonal skills. (08-15-2014)
Coons v. LewConstitutional Law: The Affordable Care Act does not preempt the Arizona Act, nor does it violate an individual's substantial due process rights. (08-07-2014)
Smith v. Mylan, Inc.Civil Procedure: Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1446, a state court action may be removed to federal court over one year after the initial action was filed if diversity jurisdiction is present and no party objects to the removal. (08-04-2014)
Rundgren v. Washington MutualCivil Procedure: Under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, a party must exhaust all remedies under the statute before addressing the matter in court. (07-29-2014)
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)