Willamette Law Online

(16 summaries)

Haley Bury

9th Circuit Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Oyeniran v. HolderImmigration: The Board of Immigration Appeals is bound to its prior determinations of past incidents of government-sponsored violence under collateral estoppel, and it abuses its discretion when it fails to reopen a proceeding when the petitioner presents new evidence that is sufficient, dramatic, and compelling.(03-06-2012)
Beets v. County of Los AngelesCivil Law: Under [italics]Heck v. Humphrey[/italics] , 512 U.S. 477 (1994), a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim is barred where the issue has already been considered and decided in another proceeding with a sufficient community of interest to the current proceeding.(02-10-2012)
United States v. Juvenile MaleJuvenile Law: Both the statutory text and legislative history of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification ACT ("SORNA") show that the registration requirements for juveniles convicted of aggravated sex offenses do not violate the confidentiality provisions of the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act ("FJDA").(01-25-2012)
Chettiar v. HolderImmigration: Under the Marriage Fraud Amendments of 1986, the Citizenship and Immigration Services does not lose jurisdiction of a petition to remove conditions placed on residence pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(3)(A) if it fails adjudicate the petition within ninety days.(01-17-2012)
Estrella v. OllisonSentencing: Sentencing errors under [italics]Apprendi v. New Jersey[/italics] , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), are harmless if the reviewing court can ascertain that the sentencing judge was presented with sufficient evidence to conclude that a jury would have found the aggravating factors beyond a reasonable doubt.(12-29-2011)
Merolillo v. YatesHabeas Corpus: Under Brecht v. Abrahamson, habeas relief is warranted only if the error has a “substantial and injurious effect” in determining the jury’s verdict and that determination is guided by five non-exclusive factors articulated in Delaware v. Van Arsdall.(12-12-2011)
Rock Creek Alliance v. USF & WAdministrative Law: Reviewing a challenge to biological opinions issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, the opinions will be upheld so long as they are not arbitrary, capricious, or in violation of the Endangered Species Act.(11-16-2011)
Boyer v. BellequeHabeas Corpus: In reviewing the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the court looks first to state law to determine the elements of the crime and then to the federal question of whether the state court was objectively unreasonable in concluding the evidence was sufficient to support its decision.(10-28-2011)
United States v. KrupaCriminal Procedure: A reviewing court should give a magistrate’s determination of probable cause great deference when determining whether, under the totality of the circumstances, the information provided to the magistrates created a fair probability that contraband or evidence would be found.(09-30-2011)
Trigueros v. AdamsHabeas Corpus: Compelling factual circumstances can indicate that a court denied a petition on the merits instead of as untimely when the court is silent on the issue.(09-14-2011)
Chevron U.S.A. v. M & M Petroleum ServicesCivil Law: Under 15 U.S.C. § 2805(d), a franchisee can open itself up to liability for attorney’s fees by filing a frivolous counterclaim.(09-12-2011)
United States v. HuntSentencing: To sustain an increased penalty beyond the statutory maximum for intent to distribute cocaine, either the defendant must admit his or her intent to possess cocaine or the government must prove the intent to possess cocaine to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.(09-01-2011)
United States v. ClementsCriminal Law: For persons convicted of sex offenses prior to the Sex Offender Registration Notification Act, the registration requirements were not effective until August 1, 2008.(08-22-2011)
In Defense of Animals v. U.S. Dept. of the InteriorCivil Law: An interlocutory appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction is moot when the event the injunction was filed to stop has already occurred.(08-15-2011)
United States v. Espinoza-BazaImmigration: The defense of derivative citizenship is not appropriate where the theory is not supported in the record by a factual foundation and the proffered evidence is no more than a mere “scintilla of evidence.”(08-04-2011)
United States v. StanleyCriminal Procedure: Consent to search a computer by an individual thought to be a co-owner will survive Fourth Amendment scrutiny when the searching officer believed, based on the totality of the circumstances, that the consenting individual had authority.(08-02-2011)