Willamette Law Online

(26 summaries)

Amanda Harmon

9th Circuit Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
United States v. JinianCriminal Law: Interstate wire transfer of money under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 “furthers a fraudulent scheme” where the interstate wiring allows the fraud to continue over time and is essential to making the transferred funds permanently available to the perpetrator of the fraud.(03-26-2013)
Carrillo de Palacios v. HolderImmigration: "Aliens who are inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(I)-(II) are ineligible for adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i)."(01-28-2013)
United States v. HOSJuvenile Law: Upon remand from the appeal of a transfer to adult criminal court, a district court may re-litigate the issue of a defendant's age.(09-28-2012)
Reynoso v. United StatesTax Law: "A taxpayer's claim for credit of an overpayment is limited to the amount of the overpayment made within of the applicable look-back period in § 6511(b)(2)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code." "Any claim for refund based on an amount claimed as a credit but paid outside of the § 6511(b)(2)(A) look-back period is time barred and uncollectible."(08-28-2012)
Marsh v. County of San DiegoConstitutional Law: "The Constitution protects a parent's rights to control the physical remains, memory and images of a deceased child against unwarranted public exploitation by the government."(05-29-2012)
Henry A. v. WilldenJuvenile Law: The 2 exceptions--"special relationship" and "state-created danger"--to the general rule that Due Process does not impose affirmative duties on the government should not be read too narrowly when evaluating claims that a state failed to provide basic rights of safety and proper medical care to foster children.(05-04-2012)
Schneider v. McDanielHabeas Corpus: Claims in amended habeas petitions must "arise out of a common core of operative facts" from the original petition's claims.(04-04-2012)
Wagner v. County of MaricopaEvidence: The Court reviews evidentiary rulings and allows out of court statements where they are introduced to show the declarant's state of mind.(03-07-2012)
Klestadt & Winters v. CangelosiBankruptcy Law: A "sanctions order issued by the district court sitting in bankruptcy, whether supported by the district court's inherent powers or Rule 9011 [of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure], [is] not an appealable collateral order."(03-06-2012)
Range Road Music v. East Coast FoodsCopyright: Observation of public performance of copyrighted songs is within the acceptable purview of lay opinion and will alone suffice as evidence of copyright infringement because there need not be a showing of "'substantial similarity; between the publicly performed compositions and the copyrighted works" where such evidence is available to show "that the public performances entailed direct copying."(02-16-2012)
Mendoza-Pablo v. HolderImmigration: "Where a pregnant mother is persecuted in a manner that materially impedes her ability to provide for the basic needs of her child, where that child's family has undisputedly suffered severe persecution, and where the newborn child suffers serious deprivations directly attributable not only to those facts, but also to the material ongoing threat of continued persecution of the child and the child's family, that child may be said to have suffered persecution and therefore be eligible for asylum under the INA."(02-07-2012)
Oshodi v. HolderImmigration: The BIA sufficiently complies with a Court mandate when its analysis does not "run counter to 'the spirit' of [the] mandate." An immigration judge's adverse credibility determination will be affirmed where "the IJ considered the totality of the circumstances," and not merely "rank speculation and conjecture and inconsequential factors." Lastly, a petitioner carries the burden of proving due process violations and Convention Against Torture claims.(01-26-2012)
United States v. KuokCriminal Law: The Arms Export Control Act does not violate the nondelegation principle; "attempting to cause an export of a defense article is not a federal crime"; 18 U.S.C. § 1956 convictions will be vacated where the government fails to satisfy the amount-in controversy requirement of § 1956(f)(2); and district courts must allow a defendant to present a duress defense to a jury where "he has alleged facts sufficient" to support such defense.(01-17-2012)
Plaza Auto Center v. NLRBEmployment Law: In evaluating "the nature of the employee's outburst" as a factor of whether an employee has forfeited protection under National Labor Relations Act § 8(a)(1), a Court need not find evidence of physical conduct or threat in order to find this factor weighing against protection. In fact, language alone indicating that the nature of the outburst weighs against protection may be enough to counterbalance the other three factors even when those other factors favor continuing protection.(12-19-2011)
Developmental Services Network v. DouglasDisability Law: The State must gain federal approval for State Plan Amendments. However, injunctions against enforcement of unapproved plans may not be granted where plaintiffs fail to assert an unambiguous federal right under § 1983.(11-30-2011)
Roberts v. McAfeeTort Law: In malicious prosecution cases, the plaintiff carries a burden of showing that undisputed facts underlying criminal charges do not amount to probable cause. Also, California Civil Code § 3425.3 precludes claims that a failure to remove a defamatory post constitutes a republication of the defamatory statement.(11-07-2011)
James v. SchriroHabeas Corpus: The Court reviews petitioner's claims for habeas corpus relief, finding ineffective assistance of counsel to exist where a defendant's counsel fails to investigate and present clear mitigating factors at a penalty phase trial when there is a "reasonable probability" that effective presentation of those factors could have overcome the aggravating factors that instead resulted in the imposition of a death sentence.(10-12-2011)
Degelmann v. Advanced Medical OpticsStanding: Injury in fact under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204 is satisfied when “the consumer has purchased a product that he or she paid more for that he or she otherwise might have been willing to pay if the product had been labeled accurately.”(09-28-2011)
United States v. PerelmanConstitutional Law: The statute 18 U.S.C. § 704(a) applies to the “unauthorized wearing of medals only where the wearer intends to deceive.” By only outlawing “legitimately criminal conduct,” the statute is not overbroad, nor does it infringe on the constitutionally protected “pure speech” ways in which such medals may be worn.(09-26-2011)
Intermountain Fair Housing Council v. Boise Rescue Mission MinistriesCivil Law: Faith-based homeless shelters and rehabilitation facilities are permitted to demonstrate preference based on religion because of the religious exemption 42 U.S.C. § 3607(a) provides to §3604's anti-discrimination provisions.(09-19-2011)
Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Akanoc SolutionsCivil Procedure: When determining statutory damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c) and 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c) against defendants found joint and severally liable, the court may only award once for each contributory infringement, such that the plaintiff's damages for each infringement will not be multiplied by the number of defendants.(09-09-2011)
Ybarra v. McDanielHabeas Corpus: The Court reviews and affirms the denials of multiple habeas corpus petitions by a man sentenced to death for a “1979 kidnapping, rape and murder.”(09-06-2011)
Napoliello v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueTax Law: When deficiency requires a partner-level determination, an affected item notice of deficiency will be sufficient. And, “determination as to a partnership's validity...falls within the definition of a partnership item” as it pertains to the Tax Court's jurisdiction to review FPAA determinations.(08-23-2011)
Nevada Department of Corrections v. CohenConstitutional Law: The Nevada Department of Corrections does not violate 14th Amendment Due Process of inmates when it provides notice of and opportunity to comply with a typewriter ban that reasonably advances a legitimate security goal.(08-15-2011)
K2 America Corp. v. Roland Oil & GasCivil Procedure: Federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over cases involving lands held in trust by the United States for Indian allottees where the Indian allottees are not party to the case and the precise dispute at issue does not arise under federal law.(08-05-2011)
Hoye v. City of OaklandConstitutional Law: Laws requiring consent to speak to patients approaching abortion clinics are valid if they do not discriminate based on speech content; discriminatory enforcement of such laws is not constitutional and must be remedied by the district court.(07-28-2011)