Willamette Law Online

(30 summaries)

Trevor Findley

9th Circuit Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Chubb Custom Ins. v. Space Systems/LoralEnvironmental Law: An insurer cannot make a subrogation claim under §107(a) of CERCLA, and must allege the insured is a “claimant” in order to make a claim under §112(c) of CERCLA.(03-15-2013)
Henriquez-Rivas v. HolderImmigration: For purposes of seeking asylum, the "social visibility" requirement of “membership in a social group” refers to "perception" and does not require "on-sight" visibility, and those who have publicly testified against gang members in court meet the social visibility requirement.(02-13-2013)
Hurles v. RyanHabeas Corpus: A petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing in a state court post-conviction relief (PCR) claim of judicial bias when the judge who presided over the trial, sentencing, and PCR hearing "makes factual findings [in the PCR case] without an evidentiary hearing or other opportunity for the petitioner to present evidence."(01-18-2013)
United States v. Valdavinos-TorresCriminal Law: Possession of a controlled substance for sale under state law is a deportable offense under federal law where the conviction record, including the indictment, the plea agreement, the transcript of the plea proceeding, minute entry, or the judgment, indicates the substance is a controlled substance under federal law.(12-20-2012)
In re: ScholzBankruptcy Law: The use of “anticipated” in the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 has a trust law meaning, and annuities under such act are included in calculating projected disposable income for purposes of Chapter 13 bankruptcy plans.(11-15-2012)
Lair v. BullockCivil Procedure: A stay of a district court order is appropriate under the four [italics]Nken[/italics] factors when an appellate court has previously ruled on a “virtually indistinguishable” challenge to the constitutionality of a state statute, and the only intervening circumstance is a Supreme Court opinion that lacks both a majority opinion and concurring opinions decided under a consistent rationale.(10-16-2012)
Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobilCivil Procedure: Where Congress has displaced a cause of action under the federal common law, displacement extends to all potential remedies. The Clean Air Act displaces the federal common law cause of action for nuisance caused by the emission of green house gases.(09-21-2012)
United States v. WilliamsSentencing: At sentencing, charges may be grouped under § 3D1.2 if they involve substantially the same harm directed at the same victim. "Indirect or secondary victims are not meant to be included in the term 'victim.'"(09-07-2012)
In re FloresBankruptcy Law: In a Chapter 13 plan, the reorganization period for an above-median-income debtor may be less than five years when projected disposable income is zero or negative. The Supreme Court's decision in [italics]Lanning[/italics] did not overrule Ninth Circuit precedent in [italics]Kagenveama[/italics] as it pertains to determining the applicable commitment period in Chapter 13 plans.(08-31-2012)
Grand Canyon Trust v. U.S. Bureau of ReclamationEnvironmental Law: The Bureau of Reclamation's annual operating plan for a dam is not a discretionary act or a "major Federal action" and does not require consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species Act, nor an environmental impact statement or an environmental analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act.(08-13-2012)
Patel v. City of Los AngelesConstitutional Law: A municipal code requiring hotel operators to retain and make available certain guest information is not facially unconstitutional under the 4th Amendment.(07-17-2012)
United States v. CB & I Constructors, Inc.Tort Law: Intangible environmental damages caused by a negligently set wildfire are included in property damage under California law.(06-29-2012)
United States v. ElkinsCriminal Law: Sex offender registration requirements based on an offense committed by a juvenile before the passage of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) do not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause when state registration requirements at the time of the conviction require substantially similar disclosures.(06-14-2012)
Wilhelm v. RotmanCivil Procedure: A party’s written consent to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge continues when a new magistrate is substituted for the initial magistrate assigned to the case.(05-25-2012)
Padilla v. YooCivil Law: A government official is entitled to qualified immunity unless, at the time of their actions, the law is "sufficiently clear that every reasonable government official would have understood that what he was doing violated the plaintiff's rights."(05-02-2012)
Brown v. AhernHabeas Corpus: A federal district court shall abstain from exercising jurisdiction over a pre-conviction habeas petition asserting a Speedy Trial claim as an affirmative defense to state prosecution, except in “cases of extraordinary circumstances.”(04-12-2012)
Phillips v. OrnoskiHabeas Corpus: A prosecutor violates his or her duty to correct false testimony under Napue when he or she makes a deal with the attorney of a key witness, asks the attorney not to disclose the deal to the witness, then use the witness’s testimony and lack of direct knowledge of the deal as evidence that the prosecution made no promise in exchange for their testimony.(03-16-2012)
United States v. LoughnerCriminal Procedure: A pre-trial detainee, while under commitment to try and render him competent to stand trial, may be forcibly medicated under [italics]Harper[/italics] because he is dangerous to himself or others.(03-05-2012)
Turtle Island Restoration Network v. US Dep't of StateCivil Procedure: A certification process that gives rise to an allegation on an annual basis does not defeat claim preclusion each year when a party has already had an opportunity to litigate the issue.(02-17-2012)
United States v. KimseyCriminal Procedure: Title 18 U.S.C. § 402 creates a statutory right to a jury trial in a criminal contempt proceeding, and a violation of local court rules, “cannot serve as a predicate for criminal convictions under that statute.”(02-08-2012)
In Matter of Thorpe Insulation Co.Bankruptcy Law: When a bankruptcy court finds a contract dispute to be a “core proceeding” in a bankruptcy case, the bankruptcy court may use its discretion to find an arbitration agreement in that contract unenforceable.(01-30-2012)
United States v. HavelockCriminal Law: Under 18 USC § 867(c), a mailed communication containing a threat must be directed to a natural person; a court may look beyond the outside of the parcel to the contents of the letter or package to determine to whom, if anybody, such a threat is addressed.(01-06-2012)
Romero-Mendoza v. HolderImmigration: The 1983 Salvadoran constitutional amendment "eliminating legitimacy distinctions served to legitimate any child born out of wedlock."(12-19-2011)
Flynn v. HolderCriminal Law: Compensation for “hematopoietic stems cells” is not a violation of the National Organ Transplant Act.(12-01-2011)
Garcia v. HolderImmigration: Immigrants paroled into the United States as a "Special Immigrant Juvenile, under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(h), qualif[y] as [admitted] ‘in any status’ for the purposes of 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(2)."(11-02-2011)
Doe v. BusbyHabeas Corpus: A jury instruction that “impermissibly lowers the burden of proof” requires structural error review.(10-24-2011)
United States v. Alvarez-MorenoConstitutional Law: An issue of double jeopardy arises when, after a guilty verdict in a bench trial, a judge orders a new trial after recognition that the defendant did not properly waive his right to a trial by jury.(09-13-2011)
United States v. LafleyConstitutional Law: A supervised release condition that prohibits the use of a controlled substance by a convicted drug felon does not violate the Religious Freedom Reformation Act because it serves a compelling government interest using the least restrictive means.(09-01-2011)
Barnes v. USDOTEnvironmental Law: The addition of an airport runway raises "substantial questions [ ] as to whether a project [ ] may cause significant degradation of some human environmental factor," including indirect effects from increased demand.(08-25-2011)
United States v. Della PortaCriminal Procedure: A judge does not abuse his discretion or unduly influence a jury when he allows supplemental closing arguments without identifying specific issues that have deadlocked a jury.(08-08-2011)