Willamette Law Online

(30 summaries)

Jacqueline Kim

9th Circuit Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Samsung Electronics v. Panasonic Corp. Tort Law: A plaintiff may allege a continuing antitrust violation that allows the plaintiff to bring a claim within four years of a later violation, if there is a new and independent act by the defendant that does more than reaffirm the previous violation, and the new act inflicts some new and accumulating injury upon the plaintiff.(04-04-2014)
United States v. Montes-RuizCriminal Law: A federal sentencing court may not impose a consecutively running sentence to another pending federal sentence that has not been finalized.(03-21-2014)
United States v. BainbridgeCriminal Law: A change in the defendant's circumstances or a new method of rehabilitation is not necessary for a district court to modify a supervised release order.(03-06-2014)
United States v. LyleCriminal Law: Under the Federal Anti-Tampering Act, the removal of prescription drugs and re-gluing of the empty container are facts which may sufficiently allege "tampering with a consumer product."(02-05-2014)
Big Lagoon Rancheria v. State of California Indian Law: A tribe may compel a State to enter into negotiation under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act if it is a federally recognized tribe with jurisdiction over “Indian lands.”(01-21-2014)
Hokto Kinoko Co. v. Concord Farms, Inc. Trademarks: In a gray-market goods case, non-organic produce and certified organic produce sold under the same trademark are considered to be materially different from one another when the methods of production and labeling differ.(12-24-2013)
HRE v. Florida Entertainment Mgmt. Trademarks: When seeking preliminary injunctive relief in an infringement of trademark case, a plaintiff must make sufficient showing that a likelihood of irreparable harm exists rather than rely on the presumption of irreparable harm.(12-02-2013)
Chavarria v. RalphsArbitration: The Federal Arbitration Act does not preempt a finding under California state law that an arbitration agreement is unconscionable where the allocation of arbitration costs effectively forecloses pursuit of a claim. (10-28-2013)
Phoenix Trading, Inc. v. Loops LLC Tort Law: Under Washington State law, the complainant in a defamation claim must show a likelihood of satisfying the elements of defamation: a false statement, publication, fault, and damages.(10-04-2013)
Liebsack v. United StatesEvidence: In a medical malpractice claim brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act, a state rule regarding an expert witness’ competency will apply if the state rule is intertwined with substantive state law. (09-23-2013)
Tapley v. Locals 302 and 612Workers Compensation: When reviewing trustees’ construction of a retirement plan term that frustrates the availability of earned retirement benefits, courts may “identify and reject any interpretation that is arbitrary, misfocused and contrary to the intent of those responsible for its terms.”(09-06-2013)
United States v. FloresSentencing: A “missile” under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(3)(A) and 26 U.S.C. § 5845(f) is “a self-propelled device designed to deliver an explosive,” which does not include 40-mm cartridges.(08-30-2013)
United States v. GrantCriminal Law: Probation tolls when a defendant is in “fugitive status,” and a defendant assumes fugitive status when she fails to comply with the terms of her supervised release.(08-15-2013)
United States v. StargellCriminal Law: Under 18 U.S.C. § 1343, a “new or increased risk of loss” is sufficient to establish that wire fraud “affects” a financial institution within the meaning of the statute, regardless of whether the financial institution ultimately suffers actual loss.(08-02-2013)
Bassene v. HolderImmigration: An immigration judge may not rely on speculation based on the lack detailed information related to an asylum claim that was provided in a non-asylum proceeding to support an adverse credibility finding especially where the applicant has acted without counsel.(07-23-2013)
Tritz v. United States Postal ServiceCivil Procedure: Under the "Postal Reorganization Act" 39 U.S.C. §§ 401 and 409, and the "The Tucker Act" 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1), district courts and the Court of Federal Claims have concurrent jurisdiction over claims against the United States Postal Service in which more than $10,000 is in controversy. (07-09-2013)
Henry v. RyanHabeas Corpus: The elements of a Brady claim that establish 'suppression and materiality' may also show ‘cause and prejudice’ as required by the exception in Coleman', only when the state’s suppression is the reason for the defendant’s procedural default at trial.(06-19-2013)
Deere v. CullenSentencing: In a penalty hearing, a prisoner is competent to plead guilty if, first, he has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding, and second, has a rational and factual understanding of the proceedings against him; in appealing a trial court findings regarding competency to plead guilty, mental illness must be shown to substantially affect the prisoner's 'capacity to appreciate' her 'options and make a rational choice' by clear and convincing evidence. (06-03-2013)
Olivas-Motta v. HolderImmigration: “Involving moral turpitude” is an element of a “crime involving moral turpitude,” and an Immigration Judge's determination of whether a conviction qualifies as such a crime should be confined to the formal record of the conviction.(05-17-2013)
Kilgore v. Keybank, Nat’l Ass’nArbitration: Under California state law, an arbitration clause that also prohibits claims from being brought as a class action may be overcome only if it is both procedurally and substantively unconscionable.(04-11-2013)
Kealoha v. Office of Workers Comp. ProgramsWorkers Compensation: A suicide or suicide attempt, even when planned, may be compensable under the Longshore Workers’ Compensation Act using the proper test, which requires a “direct and unbroken chain of causation between a work-related injury and the suicide attempt.”(04-09-2013)

Intellectual Property

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Psihoyos v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Copyright: Copyright infringement claims accrue upon actual or constructive discovery of the harm. (04-04-2014)
Lovely Skin, Inc. v. Istar Skin Care Prods., LLCTrademarks: To overcome the strong presumption of validity that Lovely Skin's registered trademark had not acquired distinctiveness at the time of registration required Ishtar to show more than evidence of third parties with similar business names and marks. (03-13-2014)
StorageCraft Tech. Corp. v. KirbyTrade Secrets: Even though Mr. Kirby did not personally profit from disclosure of a trade secret, under Utah trade secret law, damages for the use or disclosure of trade secret may be measured by the defendant’s unjust enrichment, actual loss suffered by the plaintiff, or a reasonable royalty based on the price that the parties would have agreed upon for a license. (03-11-2014)
Jordan v. Jewel Food Stores, Inc.Trademarks: An image advertisement congratulating Michael Jordan was commercial speech and not subject to constitutional protections. (02-19-2014)
Brownstein v. LindsayCopyright: A plaintiff’s joint authorship claim began to accrue when the plaintiff-author discovered her authorship had been expressly repudiated by a co-author.(01-29-2014)
Bright House Networks, LLC v. CassidyTrade Secrets: Where a party objects to the disclosure of information on the grounds that it is a trade secret, the trial court must determine if the information is in fact a trade secret, and secondly, if the information is protected the requesting party must show a reasonable necessity for the information.(01-10-2014)
Aerotek, Inc. v. Johnson Group Staffing Company, Inc. (UNPUBLISHED)Trade Secrets: Announcing new employment to a former employer's customers is not an impermissible solicitation in violation of the UTSA unless the former employee asks for the customer's business.(07-30-2013)
H&R Block Eastern Enters. v. Intuit, Inc., Trademarks: The "confusion" element in determining infringement of a registered trademark only includes “confusion as to source, origin, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of a good or service.”(05-22-2013)
Gen. Motors, LLC v. Rapp Chevrolet, Inc.Trademarks: In trademark infringement cases under the Eighth Circuit’s jurisdiction, ‘likelihood of confusion’ need not be shown exclusively through incidents of ‘actual confusion’ by consumers.(05-21-2013)