Willamette Law Online

(35 summaries)

Brandon Campbell

9th Circuit Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Albino v. BacaAdministrative Law: If a defendant in litigation subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act believes a plaintiff has not met the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s exhaustion requirements, the issue of “exhaustion should be decided, if feasible, before reaching the merits of a prisoner’s claim [via a motion for summary judgment]”; a courts’ decision regarding disputed factual question(s) relevant to exhaustion at the beginning of litigation does not bind the jury, if considering the same disputed fact(s) is necessary for deciding the merits of the case.(04-03-2014)
HonoluluTraffic.com v. FTAEnvironmental Law: In considering alternatives to a proposed transportation plan, a party may rely on findings and studies that precede the proposed plan when determining that certain alternative proposals are imprudent.(02-18-2014)
SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Abbott LaboratoriesConstitutional Law: “Equal protection prohibits peremptory strikes based on sexual orientation.” (01-21-2014)
United States v. ShortyCriminal Procedure: Where the waiver to a jury trial is unwritten and there is evidence the defendant has a diminished mental capacity, a court must engage in an in-depth colloquy to ensure the defendant understands the importance and effect of his waiver of a jury trial. (12-20-2013)
Hagen v. City of EugeneConstitutional Law: Where a public employee reports departmental-safety concerns to his or her supervisors pursuant to a duty to do so, that employee does not speak as a private citizen and is not entitled to First Amendment Protection.(12-03-2013)
APAC v. BPAAdministrative Law: Bonneville Power Administration has the authority to enter into settlement agreements that pay certain funds in lump sums, waive BPA's authority to purchase power through in lieu purchases, modify "rate ceiling" calculations intended to protect preference customers, and set costs; these actions do not require BPA to provide power illegitimately, do not improperly bind non-signatories to a settlement, are not adverse to Ninth Circuit precedent, and were not arbitrarily or capriciously applied in this case.(10-28-2013)
Smith v. LopezHabeas Corpus: A defendant initially provided sufficient notice of the charges against them, may have their constitutional right to this notice violated if a prosecutor "affirmatively" leads a defendant to believe the prosecutor won't seek to prove the defendant's guilt by some specific theory and the prosecutor subsequently does so.(09-23-2013)
Gravelet-Blondin v. SheltonCivil Rights § 1983: The right to be free from the application of non-trivial force, such as the use of tasers, for engaging in mere passive resistance has been clearly established in the Ninth Circuit since at least 2008.(09-06-2013)
Pickup v. BrownConstitutional Law: California’s Senate Bill 1172, which bans mental health providers from using “sexual orientation change efforts” on minors, is not unconstitutional because it is not vague or overbroad, it does not infringe on parents’ fundamental rights, and it does not violate First Amendment free speech rights.(08-29-2013)
Seltzer v. Green Day, Inc.Copyright: Where an allegedly infringing work imbues some “new expressive content” or a new “message is apparent,” this work will usually be found transformative and thus covered under the Fair Use Doctrine; even when few physical changes to the original work have been made and the new work fails to comment on the original.(08-07-2013)
Johnson v. BARTQualified Immunity: When resolving qualified immunity questions, the appellate court will not attempt to weigh facts and resolve issues in favor of one party, but will instead construe the facts most favorable to the plaintiffs to allow the defendants to stand trial for their alleged constitutional violations.(07-30-2013)
Cal. Ass'n of Rural Health Clinics v. DouglasAdministrative Law: A private right of action exists to enforce an individual's rights created under 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(bb).(07-05-2013)
Dubrin v. State of CaliforniaHabeas Corpus: When a defendant is faultless in obtaining timely constitutional review of an expired prior conviction, they may challenge a later sentence which is enhanced by a conviction obtained on an unconstitutional basis.(06-20-2013)
Managed Pharmacy Care v. SebeliusAdministrative Law: The Department of Health and Human Services’ interpretation of 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(30)(A), allowing individualized state procedures for Medicaid rate reimbursement reductions resulting from a State Plan Amendment review, is due deference under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.(05-24-2013)
United States v. Stanfill ElConstitutional Law: The Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial is not triggered by any amount of potential restitution; and the Seventh Amendment right to a civil jury trial is not implicated by the potential award of restitution as a result of a criminal prosecution.(04-30-2013)
Castro v. TerhuneEvidence: Because the “some evidence” analysis is an “evidentiary standard,” procedural due process guarantees a California inmate’s administrative "validation" as a gang "associate" be reviewed under the “some evidence” standard. (04-05-2013)
UMG Recordings v. Shelter Capital PartnersCopyright: For the purposes of the “safe harbor” affirmative defense under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act §512(c) website owners are “service providers” and the defense encompasses certain “access-facilitating automatic functions;” additionally, the “red flag” knowledge test was adopted; and [italics]Napster[/italics] liability does not invalidate a §512(c) defense unless the “service provider” has the “right and ability to control” users infringing activity via an exertion of “substantial influence.”(03-14-2013)
Sonoma Cnty. Ass'n of Retired Emp. v. Sonoma Cnty.Contract Law: “[U]nder California law, a vested right to health benefits for retired county employees can be implied under certain circumstances from a county ordinance or resolution.”(02-25-2013)
Sonoma Cnty. Ass'n of Retired Emp. v. Sonoma Cnty.Contract Law: “[U]nder California law, a vested right to health benefits for retired county employees can be implied under certain circumstances from a county ordinance or resolution.”(02-25-2013)
Dichter-Mad Family Partners v. United StatesSovereign Immunity: “[D]ecisions of whether and how to conduct investigations and enforcement actions are firmly lodged in the Securities and Exchange Commission’s discretion,” and are exempted from judicial review under the "discretionary function exception" (28 U.S.C. § 2680(a)) to the Federal Tort Claims Act. (01-28-2013)
United States v. PhillipsParole and Post-Prison Supervision: The prohibition on “frequent[ing] places” utilized in the trade or use of illegal drugs prohibits a person from “knowingly going to a specific place where drugs are illegally used or sold,” but not incidental contact with a “neighborhood simply because a person is selling drugs somewhere within that neighborhood.”(12-26-2012)
Slater v. ClarkeSovereign Immunity: Government officials are entitled to absolute immunity for their participation in extradition decisions as these decisions are, “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.”(11-19-2012)
Meyers v. Portfolio RecoveryCivil Law: Consumers who provide creditors with cellular telephone numbers subsequent to the original transaction that resulted in the debt at issue have not consented to be contacted at those numbers by creditors per the requirements of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227.(10-12-2012)
Earth Island Institute v. USFSEnvironmental Law: The “1982 Rule,” requiring monitoring of species viability, was not incorporated into the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Forest Plan (“LTBMU”) at the project level; therefore, the Forest Service is not required to conduct a project level analysis of the “quantity and quality of habitat necessary” to support specific species in the LTBMU, as this analysis is habitat monitoring.(09-20-2012)
Lavan v. City of Los AngelesCivil Rights § 1983: The Fourth Amendment does not require a party have a "legitimate expectation of privacy" in their property to protect that property from governmental seizure.(09-05-2012)
Autotel v. Nevada Bell Telephone CompanyCivil Law: Interim digital interconnection and symmetrical pricing is only required to be provided during negotiations between telecommunications companies that lack a prior interconnectivity agreement, because 47 C.F.R. § 20.11(e) fully incorporates 47 C.F.R. § 51.715.(09-04-2012)
United States v. DuenasCriminal Procedure: Evidence developed during a police search tainted by media presence need not be excluded so long as the media did not “discover or develop any evidence later used at trial.”(08-16-2012)
Nijjar v. HolderImmigration: Congress authorized both the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice to grant asylum, but conferred the authority to terminate asylum only upon the Department of Justice.(08-01-2012)
In re Midland National Life Insurance CoEvidence: A [italics]Daubert[/italics] motion filed in connection with a pending summary judgment motion may be dispositive and require continuing compelling reasons be shown to maintain a sealed record. The Ninth Circuit exception for records attached to a non-dispositive motion, requiring only "good cause" to maintain a sealed record, is not automatically applied to [italics]Daubert[/italics] motions.(07-25-2012)
Gale v. First Franklin Loan ServicesCivil Law: The Truth in Lending Act 15 U.S.C. § 1641(f)(2) applies a duty to provide notice only upon a servicer-assignee. Servicers, that are not assignees, have no duty to respond to an obligor's written request for information regarding the obligor's obligation under 15 U.S.C. § 1641(f)(2).(07-12-2012)
United States v. CollinsParole and Post-Prison Supervision: To impose a lifetime term of supervised release, the government must prove that the “condition of supervised release involves no greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary to serve the goals of supervised release." The heightened burden of clear and convincing evidence does not apply.(06-22-2012)
United States v. JinglesCriminal Procedure: An indictment found to be constructively amended does not require automatic reversal of a defendant's conviction under plain error review. A defendant's conviction only requires reversal if the constructive amendment seriously affects "the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings."(06-08-2012)
United States v. Romo-ChavezEvidence: The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment does not prohibit the introduction of a defendant's translated admissions to a police officer even if the translator would not qualify as a court interpreter.(05-23-2012)
Gonzalez v. ArizonaConstitutional Law: The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 preempts a state law requirement that proof of citizenship be presented for voter registration. Under the U.S. Constitution and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, a state law may require voters provide identification at the polls in order to vote.(04-17-2012)
R & R Sails, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of PennsylvaniaCivil Procedure: Where a court precludes evidence as a sanction for discovery requirement violations and such preclusion amounts to the dismissal of the party’s claim, a court must consider whether the failure to comply involved willfulness, fault, or bad faith, and also the availability of lesser sanctions.(03-21-2012)