Willamette Law Online

(31 summaries)

Emily Guildner

9th Circuit Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Lim v. HolderImmigration: The “continuous presence exception” available to aliens who served in active duty in the United States Armed Forces is a limited exception to cancellation of removal and does not extend to another country’s military.(03-26-2013)
United States v. BrizanCriminal Procedure: Criminal Procedure: A waiver of appeal in a plea agreement will be upheld as long the district court conducts a thorough Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 colloquy and the sentence does not contradict any plea agreement or exceed a statutory limit.(03-05-2013)
Smith v. HedgpethHabeas Corpus: For purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause, “[c]learly established federal law does not require the consideration of sentencing enhancements when determining if one offense is a lesser-included offense of another under the ‘same elements’ test.”(02-05-2013)
United States v. Sideman & Bancroft, LLPTax Law: A taxpayer's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is not violated where it is established that, before issuing an administrative summons relating to a criminal investigation of that taxpayer, the IRS had independent knowledge of the summonsed documents’ existence and authenticity, and of the respondent’s possession of the documents.(01-08-2013)
Medrano v. Flagstar BankCivil Law: A mortgage-loan servicer's duty to respond under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. § 2605, is not triggered unless the borrower includes her name and account information, the reasons the borrower believes the account is in error, and a request for information regarding the service of the loan.(12-11-2012)
Akhtar v. MesaCivil Rights § 1983: In a civil rights case, a prisoner's pro se status requires courts to explain deficiencies in the prisoner's complaint and allow leave to amend before dismissal with prejudice.(11-05-2012)
Western Watersheds Project v. EllisAttorney Fees: Denial of attorney fees is not an abuse of discretion if the court considered both the reasonableness of the administrative decision and the reasonableness of the litigation.(10-09-2012)
Maxwell v. County of San DiegoConstitutional Law: Law enforcement officials can be held liable for constitutional violations if they leave a victim in a more dangerous situation than that in which they found her and if the detention of witnesses is more than minimally intrusive.(09-13-2012)
Greene Archives v. Marilyn MonroeCivil Procedure: Judicial estoppel precludes a party from asserting California’s posthumous right of publicity where that party “consistently represented during probate proceedings and elsewhere that [the celebrity] was domiciled in New York to avoid payment of California estate taxes.”(08-30-2012)
FTC v. EDebitPayContract Law: A party who stipulated to terms in a contract may not later attack those terms as overly broad or vague.(08-28-2012)
Rodriguez v. DisnerAttorney Fees: Under long standing equitable principles, a district court has broad discretion to deny fees to an attorney who commits an ethical violation, such as representing clients with conflicting interests, regardless of whether or not the clients are harmed by the ethical violation.(08-10-2012)
In Re ATM Fee Antitrust LitigationStanding: Plaintiffs alleging price fixing of ATM fees may not bring an antitrust lawsuit when they are not direct payers of the fee.(07-12-2012)
CGI Technologies and Solutions v. RoseCivil Law: Courts cannot be limited by contract terms in their ability to act as a court of equity, and may consider traditional equitable defenses under § 502(a)(3) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.(06-20-2012)
Brewers v. Commissioner SSAAdministrative Law: Materials reviewed by the appeals council for the first time are accepted into the administrative record even if the appeals council denied a review of the administrative law judges' opinion.(06-14-2012)
Flournoy v. SmallConstitutional Law: Federal law does not clearly establish a Confrontation Clause violation where the trial court allows a forensic expert to testify based on reports prepared by other analysts.(05-30-2012)
Wood v. San DiegoConstitutional Law: A pension plan that has a disparate impact with respect to sex does not violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, so long as the pension plan is facially neutral.(05-09-2012)
In Re JacobsonBankruptcy Law: The homestead exemption requirement of reinvestment of proceeds applies to homestead sales that occur after a bankruptcy judgment has already been entered.(04-23-2012)
Ben-Sholom v. AyersHabeas Corpus: A defendant who fails to show prejudice by counsel’s failure to present a state of mind defense does not establish a right to habeas relief, and therefore is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel during the guilt-phase of trial.(04-02-2012)
Kilgore v. KeyBank, Nat'l Ass'nPreemption: The Federal Arbitration Act preempts state law when enforcing arbitration agreements in contracts; unless there is some reason to revoke the contract.(03-07-2012)
Towery v. RyanHabeas Corpus: An attorney did not abandon his client by failing to raise a colorable claim on a habeas corpus petition when considering all the circumstances the attorney's behavior did not breach the duty of loyalty.(02-27-2012)
Gomez Zarate v. HolderImmigration: Removal from the United States after a criminal proceeding, even if not in front of a Immigration Judge, is enough to break the continuous and uninterrupted presence requirement on an application for cancellation of removal.(02-09-2012)
Perry v. BrownConstitutional Law: Proposition 8, which defines marriage in California as between a man and a woman, is an unconstitutional violation of Equal Protection.(02-07-2012)
Farris v. SeabrookConstitutional Law: Washington campaign contribution restrictions to committees in recall elections are an impermissible restriction on Free Speech.(01-19-2012)
Family PAC v. McKennaConstitutional Law: Ballot measure disclosure requirements do not violate the first amendment when they are substantially related to important government interests.(12-29-2011)
United States v. Leal-FelixCriminal Procedure: Traffic citations are not arrests under the traditional definition and therefore should not be included in calculating a sentence based on the Sentencing Guidelines.(11-30-2011)
Rhodes v. BladesHabeas Corpus: Motion for stay of execution based on a pending Supreme Court case is not granted if the petitioner waits until the deadline and is unable to demonstrate why the pending case would change the outcome for the petitioner.(11-17-2011)
Glenn v. Washington CountyCivil Procedure: Summary judgment is appropriate only when there is no genuine issue of material fact. In the case of qualified immunity for police officers the actions of the officer should be objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances.(11-04-2011)
Russell Country Sportsmen v. USFSEnvironmental Law: The Montana Wilderness Study Act of 1977 provides for a minimum standard for maintaining wilderness character. A final environmental impact statement will not violate the National Environmental Policy Act if the adopted plan falls within a range of alternatives and does not make any substantial changes.(10-12-2011)
Gonzales v. Arrow Financial ServicesCivil Law: Debt collection practice will be judged by the least sophisticated debtor standard, which protects those of below average intelligence but presumes a basic level of understanding. Unfair collection practices may also be compensated under both federal and state law.(09-23-2011)
United States v. Ayala-NicanorCriminal Procedure: A categorical crime of violence warrants an increased offense level during the sentencing phase if the statutory definition complies with the federal definition and no state cases have applied the statute more broadly than the federal definition.(09-14-2011)
Sivak v. HardisonCriminal Procedure: Prosecutors, that knew or should have known that given material information was false or material information was withheld, violate a defendant’s due process rights according to the Brady and Napue standards.(09-07-2011)