Willamette Law Online

(16 summaries)

Christian Brown

9th Circuit Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Shannahan v. Internal Revenue ServiceCivil Law: The IRS properly denied a Freedom of Information Act request from an attorney, representing fugitives, who was seeking information related to his client's civil case because disclosure would seriously undermine the Federal Tax Administration and would interfere with law enforcement purposes.(03-13-2012)
United States v. LequireCriminal Law: Under Arizona law, a contract between an insurance agency and insurance company that “permitted agency commingling, required monthly agency payments whether premiums were collected or not, and created a right to interest on late payments” results in a creditor-debtor relationship, not a trust. Thus, if no trust property exists, there can be no crime of embezzlement since the alleged victim did not own the funds allegedly embezzled.(03-05-2012)
United States v. YeungSentencing: It is insufficient to rely upon the outstanding principal balance as the basis for restitution in calculating a restitution award under the Mandatory Victims Restitution of Act of 1996, when the victim is a loan purchaser and not the loan originator. In addition, the proper valuation for returned collateral is the market value at time the victim takes possession, not the amount the victim is able to sell the property for at a later date.(02-13-2012)
United States v. CasasolaImmigration: The statute 8 U.S.C. § 1432(a), in effect prior to February 27, 2001, does not violate the equal protection clause by denying derivative citizenship to foreign-born children when only one married parent is a naturalized citizen.(01-30-2012)
Hydrick v. HunterCivil Law: In order to seek monetary damages under a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must overcome qualified immunity by alleging factual allegations that are sufficient to establish a plausible claim against a defendant.(01-12-2012)
McMurray v. Verizon CommunicationsConstitutional Law: For takings claims related to action that has already taken place, plaintiffs must follow the procedure set out in the Tucker Act prior to filing suit for takings.(12-29-2011)
Bravo v. City of Santa MariaCivil Law: An officer's omission that a person of interest was incarcerated is sufficient to raise the issue of judicial deception in relation to a 1983 claim challenging the validity of a search warrant authorizing a search of the person of interest's home.(12-09-2011)
Durand v. U.S. Department of LaborLabor Law: A FECA beneficiary must deduct litigation costs from the gross recovery of a judgment received under 5 U.S.C. § 8132.(11-17-2011)
Small v. Avanti Health Systems, LLCLabor Law: A successor employer's failure to negotiate with a union is at least as harmful as an employer who negotiates in bad faith and is grounds for an injunctive relief.(10-31-2011)
United States v. GilchristSentencing: To qualify for a sentencing guidelines enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 a defendant need only willfully engage in conduct to obstruct a potential investigation and need not know that an investigation is pending.(10-03-2011)
Al Haramain Islamic v. U.S. Dept of TreasuryConstitutional Law: The use of confidential information does not violate due process, however the government must attempt to mitigate the impact caused by using confidential information. (09-23-2011)
Carrico v. City of San FranciscoConstitutional Law: In order to establish standing for a claim of violation of the First Amendment based upon free speech, there must be some description of the restricted speech or conduct.(09-06-2011)
United States v. Barajas-AlvaradoImmigration: An expedited removal proceeding order is valid as a predicate element under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 so long as the proceeding was fundamentally fair.(08-24-2011)
C.F. v. Capistrano Unified School DistrictConstitutional Law: The law regarding violations of the Establishment Clause by a teacher’s comments is not clearly established and broad claims that such comments were hostile to religion are not particularized enough to deny qualified immunity to teachers.(08-19-2011)
Lee v. Corinthian CollegesCivil Procedure: Reliance on a safe harbor provision is not sufficient to negate the requisite scienter of the Federal False Claims Act.(08-12-2011)
Payne v. Peninsula School DistrictCivil Procedure: The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires remedy exhaustion under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(l) when (1) there is an IDEA claim or a functional equivalent, (2) if plaintiff seeks prospective injunctive relief to alter their Individual Education Program, or (3) if plaintiff is seeking to enforce rights that arise as a result of a denial of public education. In addition the exhaustion requirement is a claims processing provision and not a jurisdictional requirement.(07-29-2011)