Willamette Law Online

(17 summaries)

Jason Juran

9th Circuit Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
United States v. IMMCriminal Law: (1) The competency of a child witness is a matter within the discretion of the trial judge and not to be disturbed unless clearly erroneous. (2) Inculpatory statements made by a juvenile defendant in custody must be suppressed if the defendant was not properly read his Miranda rights.(03-31-2014)
Coronado v. HolderImmigration: California Health & Safety Code § 11377(a) is a divisible statute and convictions for possessing methamphetamine in violation of the statute are not categorical removable offenses. (03-14-2014)
Dariano v. Morgan Hill Unified Sch. Dist. First Amendment: School officials do not violate students' right to freedom of expression, due process, and equal protection when they ask students to remove clothing bearing the American flag if it is reasonable for the officials “to proceed as though the threat of potentially violent disturbance [i]s real.”(02-27-2014)
Aguilar-Turcios v. HolderImmigration: A conviction under the Uniform Code of Military Justice Article 92 for violating a Department of Defense Directive by using an official government computer to view pornography does not constitute an aggravated felony.(01-23-2014)
United States v. LinCriminal Law: 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a) does not “criminalize the mere possession of an unlawfully obtained…driver's license.”(12-24-2013)
Murillo-Prado v. HolderImmigration: When determining eligibility for cancellation of removal, a conviction for racketeering under Arizona law constitutes an aggravated felony as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(J).(11-20-2013)
Valle del Sol V. WhitingConstitutional Law: Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-2929 is void for vagueness and the section criminalizing the harboring and transporting of unauthorized aliens is invalid under the Supremacy Clause as it violates federal law. (10-08-2013)
Rock River Commc'n v. Universal Music GroupTort Law: A claim of intentional interference with prospective economic advantage cannot be defeated on the alleged illegality of the expectancy unless the illegality is affirmatively established. (09-18-2013)
Abdisalan v. HolderImmigration: A Board of Immigration Appeals order of removal may not be reviewed by the Court of Appeals if a petition for review is not filed within 30 days of the BIA decision. (09-06-2013)
Anderson Bros. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.Insurance Law: Letters that put the recipient on notice of liability and the sender's intent to pursue compensation qualify as "suits" and can trigger an insurer's duty to defend.(08-30-2013)
United States v. ErmoianCriminal Law: Under the federal statute criminalizing obstruction of justice, 18 U.S.C. § 1512, a Federal Bureau of Investigation criminal investigation is not an “official proceeding.”(08-14-2013)
Montana Wilderness Ass'n v. ConnellAdministrative Law: A Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) Resource Management Plan does not violate the Federal Land Policy and Management Act or the National Environmental Policy Act as degrading wilderness values absent a showing of evidence that its mapping and designation are fundamentally different from existing methods, but the BLM may violate the National Historic Preservation Act if it is not conducting its required Class III surveys.(07-31-2013)
United States v. TeagueCriminal Law: Separate convictions of receipt and possession of child pornography must be based on some assurance that the convictions were based on separate conduct. (07-18-2013)
Varghese v. Uribe Habeas Corpus: When a state court has no specific legal rule to apply, its decision is not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.(06-26-2013)
Jesse Engebretson v. Mike MahoneyCivil Rights § 1983: Prison officials are immune from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for executing conduct prescribed by facially valid court orders.(05-30-2013)
Clevo Co. v. Hecny Transp., Inc.Admiralty: Guarantees with no express statute of limitations can place a seller and freight forwarder in direct contractual privity however, a statute of limitations in the bills of lading may bar recovery. (04-26-2013)
U.S. v. TrujilloCriminal Procedure: District courts are not jurisdictionally barred from hearing 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) motions; however in denying such a motion under § 3553(a) the court must give sufficient explanation; and the Ex Post Facto Clause does not prohibit an upward departure in sentencing so long as the original sentence is not exceeded.(04-16-2013)