Willamette Law Online

(25 summaries)

Gabrielle Hansen

9th Circuit Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Hendricks & Lewis PLLC v. Clinton Copyright: Under Washington law copyrights in the masters are subject to execution to satisfy a debt.(06-23-2014)
Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum Civil Procedure: The state action doctrine is implicated when a court must decide a matter that is determined by the effect of a foreign sovereign’s original action; if the state action doctrine is implicated it is then relevant to determine if there are any applicable exceptions. (06-06-2014)
United States v. Arreola Criminal Law: When determining if a particular crime fits within a categorical definition outlined by another statute, it is appropriate to look at the definition of the crime itself and not at the particular circumstances surrounding the offense. (05-22-2014)
Yeh v. Martel Habeas Corpus: Neither limited mental ability nor limited knowledge of the English language are per se extraordinary circumstances that entitle a petitioner to an equitable tolling of the limitations period on a petition for Habeas Corpus. (05-13-2014)
Lindsay v. BowenConstitutional Law: It is not a violation of constitutional rights for a state to exclude a person from the ballot who is constitutionally ineligible to be president, even if their stated goal is not to actually become president but only to run. (05-06-2014)
Messick v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. Evidence: Under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, an expert’s testimony may only identify a substantial factor contributing to a condition and need not identify the cause of a condition to be reliable, also given the liberal thrust favoring admission the testimony is relevant if it based in knowledge with a valid connection to the condition at issue.(04-04-2014)
United States v. Garcia-SantanaCriminal Law: Under the Immigration and Nationality Act the definition of conspiracy requires proof of an overt act in furtherance of said conspiracy. (02-20-2014)
United States v. CarterCriminal Law: There is no future obligation of restitution when the sentencing court orders that the restitution shall be paid by forfeiture of the assets and does not make restitution part of post release conditions in the judgment. (02-07-2014)
Native Village of Point Hope v. Jewell Environmental Law: When preparing a Final Environmental Impact statement, although it is recognized that different levels of information will be required at each stage of the development process, one cannot base their conclusions on arbitrary or ill-founded estimates that do not represent the most plausible outcome.(01-22-2014)
Joffe v. Google, Inc.Civil Law: A radio communication as defined under 18 U.S.C. § 2511, the Wiretap Act, does not include data transmitted over a Wi-Fi network. (12-27-2013)
In Re: Wal-MartArbitration: Non-appealability clauses that eliminate all potential federal court review of arbitration awards, including review under § 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act, are not enforceable. (12-17-2013)
Valenzuela v. MichelFamily Law: Habitual residence under the Hauge Convention’s Article 3 is determined by a shared intent to abandon the prior habitual residence and an actual change in location along with a period of time; when there is more than one potential habitual residence under this test, the habitual residence is the one in which the children are physically in at a given time. (11-15-2013)
Ferguson v. Corinthian Colleges Arbitration: The Federal Arbitration Act preempts the “Broughton-Cruz rule that claims for public injunctive relief cannot be arbitrated.” (10-28-2013)
Hamad v. GatesConstitutional Law: Under United States v. Boumediene, only 28 U.S.C. § 2241(e)(1) was ruled unconstitutional, § 2241(e)(2) functioned independently and was not a bill of attainder because there was no punitive intent.(10-07-2013)
United States v. SchessoCriminal Law: Warrants for electronic devices and media, which describe generic categories of items are not necessarily invalid nor do they necessarily require a special search protocol, when a more precise description of the items subject to seizure is not possible.(09-18-2013)
Los Coyotes Band of Cahulla & Cupeño Indians v. Jewell Indian Law: It is proper for the Secretary of the Interior to deny a self-determination contract when no federal funds have been spent on the program; the Administrative Procedure Act is not a proper way to review an agency’s decision without a statutory constraint on the agency’s discretion; and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment is not violated when there is a rational basis for the difference in treatment. (09-04-2013)
Planned Parenthood v. Betlach Civil Rights § 1983: It is a violation of Medicaid’s Free Choice of Provider requirement, to eliminate a patient’s ability to choose a physician based on the fact that the physician provides privately funded abortions in cases other than rape, incest and medical necessity. (08-22-2013)
Moore v. BiterSentencing: The Supreme Court's decision in Graham v. Florida, which prohibits life without parole for juvenile non-homicide offenders, may be applied retroactively to similar sentences on collateral review.(08-07-2013)
United States v. Valenzuela-ArisquetaCriminal Procedure: A judge may enhance a sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) for a prior conviction, even if it is not cited on the indictment; it is improper to accept a plea under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 if the defendant is not aware of the maximum sentence at the time of the plea, and double jeopardy does not apply if a plea is rejected. (08-01-2013)
Cal. Sportfishing v. Chico Scrap Metal Environmental Law: In order to bar an action under 33 U.S.C. § 1365(b)(1)(B), the prior state claim must have been brought against the defendant to “require compliance” with the Clean Water Act, being comparable is not sufficient; additionally, criminal and civil proceedings are not administrative penalty actions so as to bar a claim under 33 U.S.C. § 1319(g)(6)(A)(ii).(07-22-2013)
Air Control Tech. v. Pre Con Indus. Civil Procedure: The Miller Act’s one year statute of limitations is a claim-processing rule, not a jurisdictional requirement as previously decided in United States ex rel. Celanese Coatings Co. v. Gullard. (06-28-2013)
United States v. Muniz-Jaquez Criminal Procedure: When a defendant requests production of Border Patrol dispatch Tapes to present a defense of official restraint and to potentially impeach a witness, it is an abuse of discretion by the district court to deny the production of those tapes under Fed. R. Crim. P. 16, given this rule’s broad definition of discoverable materials.(06-10-2013)
Goldstein v. City of Long Beach Civil Rights § 1983: When a district attorney implements procedures related to inmate informants they are acting as a final policy maker for the county and can therefore be held liable to 42 U.S.C.§ 1983. (05-08-2013)
Sexton v. NDEX West, LLCCivil Procedure: After a matter has been removed to federal court, the doctrine of prior exclusive jurisdiction in inapplicable when a state court does not retain jurisdiction over the appellants’ property and the Colorado River abstention doctrine is inapplicable when appellants do not have concurrently proceeding actions relating to their property in both state and federal court.(04-12-2013)
Westendorf v. West Coast ContractorsLabor Law: A prima facie case of employment discrimination requires a showing that the conduct is so severe or pervasive that a reasonable person would find it hostile or abusive; a claim for retaliation, however, only requires a showing the plaintiff engaged in a protected activity and was treated adversely for it.(04-01-2013)