Willamette Law Online

(48 summaries)

Lauren Bowers

9th Circuit Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Pensinger v. ChappellCriminal Procedure: A kidnap-murder special circumstance requires proof that the kidnapping was committed for an independent felonious purpose, meaning that the kidnapping was not merely incidental to the murder.(06-02-2015)
Riley v. McDanielHabeas Corpus: If a state statute states that three different elements of a crime need three separate definitions to prove mens rea, then it is a due process violation if two of the elements are coupled together under the same definition.(05-15-2015)
United States v. GonzalezCriminal Procedure: A court does not abuse its discretion by providing an additional instruction to ensure juror unanimity on all of the elements of conspiracy.(05-13-2015)
Ctr. for Competitive Politics v. HarrisFirst Amendment: Disclosure requirements by the Internal Revenue Service for a non-profit organization’s significant donors do not violate the First Amendment when the disclosures further a compelling governmental purpose, and present no actual burden to the organization or the donors.(05-01-2015)
United States v. Alvarez-UlloaCivil Procedure: A court’s supplemental answer to a jury question is valid if it does not coerce the jury to make a certain determination.(04-21-2015)
Astiana v. Hain Celestial GroupPreemption: A state cause of action, based on federal cosmetic labeling laws, is not preempted by the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and therefore, the primary jurisdiction doctrine should be utilized.(04-10-2015)
Barboza v. Cal. Ass’n of Prof. FirefightersDisability Law: Using the common law of trusts, parties do not need to use express language to create a trust between a trustee and a beneficiary.(04-07-2015)
United States v. TammanCriminal Procedure: The dual application of the Broker-Dealer enhancement and the Special Skill enhancement does not amount to double counting at sentencing when the enhancements reflect separate and distinct behavior of the principal defendant from the defendant-accessory.(04-03-2015)
Munns v. KerryStanding: In order for a claim of relief to be granted, a plaintiff must show the potential for future harm they are likely to suffer if their claim is not granted.(03-20-2015)
Kohler v. Flava Enterprises, Inc.Disability Law: Even though the Americans with Disabilities Act restricts dressing room benches to not be longer than forty-eight inches, a store can still comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act as an "equivalent facilitation” where a disabled individual could make a parallel transfer, while also being grandfathered in under previous standards. (03-06-2015)
Bank of Manhattan v. FDICCivil Law: The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, in its role as a receiver of a closed bank, will face consequences when breaching underlying asset contractual obligations.(03-04-2015)
Nigro V. Sears, Roebuck and Co. Disability Law: A plaintiff in a disability discrimination case need not provide an extraordinary amount of evidence to survive summary judgment at the district court level. (02-25-2015)
Davis v. U.S. Bank, N.A.Bankruptcy Law: Portions of discharged debt in bankruptcy proceedings remain a part of “aggregate debt” and include both the secured and unsecured portions of a creditor’s claims against a debtor, whether enforceable against the debtor or the debtor’s property.(02-17-2015)
McClellan v. I-Flow CorporationPreemption: Because there is no conflict with the Medical Device Amendment of 1976, preemption of state law does not apply to failure-to-warn theory jury instructions. (01-23-2015)
United States v. HertlerCriminal Law: Under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h), "any terms of imprisonment" refers to the imprisonment in connection with the offense of the conviction and does not aggregate all counts of the conviction.(01-15-2015)
Ibarra v. Manheim InvestmentsCivil Law: In order for a class action lawsuit to abide by the Class Action Fairness Act, definitive evidence of the amount in controversy must be submitted to the court for review. (01-08-2015)
Treichler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.Administrative Law: When denying an applicant receipt of disability insurance benefits, the Administrative Law Judge must give proper reasoning.(12-24-2014)
OPERF v. Apollo GroupCivil Procedure: Businesses may make statements about their overall revenue to investors if the statements fall into the category of lawful "business puffery."(12-16-2014)
Shirk v. United StatesTort Law: Under the Federal Torts Claim Act, the United States government may be found liable of a government employee's action if the "action is encompassed by a relevant federal contract or agreement" and if the act fell under the scope of employment. (12-08-2014)
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)