Willamette Law Online

(20 summaries)

Tucker Kraght

9th Circuit Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
United States v. Guillen-CervantesCriminal Law: A criminal forfeiture judgment for conviction for conspiracy to transport and harbor illegal aliens pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 982 does not violate the Fifth Amendment because there is no constitutionally protected liberty or property interest being deprived because there is no implied right to contribution.(03-28-2014)
Baumann v. Chase Investment ServicesCivil Procedure: The district court does not have jurisdiction over cases brought initially under the California Labor Code Private Attorney General Act of 2004 ("PAGA") and then removed to federal district court under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 because the PAGA is not sufficiently similar to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 class actions.(03-13-2014)
United States v. Perez-ValenciaCriminal Law: The panel qualified its use of the word "all" regarding the delegation of duties in the event of the District Attorney's absence to refer to “the routine standard daily functions of a prosecutor's office, which does not include administrative matters involving budgets, personnel,” or certain unique matters.(03-03-2014)
Vosgien v. PerssonHabeas Corpus: A finding of actual innocence will excuse the untimeliness of a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition.(02-13-2014)
Berger v. Home DepotCivil Procedure: Absent a settlement, a stipulated dismissal does not destroy adversity sufficient to bar appellate jurisdiction. (02-03-2014)
Patel v. City of Los AngelesCriminal Procedure: Los Angeles Municipal Code § 41.49, which authorizes non-consensual police searches of hotel guest records, is facially invalid under the Fourth Amendment because it does not afford an opportunity to obtain prior judicial review.(12-24-2013)
Petronas v. GoDaddy.comTrademarks: The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act does not incorporate the common law of trademark and therefore does not provide a cause of action for contributory cybersquatting.(12-04-2013)
United States v. HorobSentencing: When a district court does not impose a more severe overall sentence on remand, the presumption of vindictiveness does not apply. (11-07-2013)
Prudential Locations LLC v. HUDAdministrative Law: Exemption 6 of the Freedom of Information Act allows an agency to protect the identity of someone who has complained to a federal agency about a violation of law.(10-09-2013)
Yakima Valley Mem'l Hosp. v. Dep't of HealthConstitutional Law: Regulations allowing hospitals without on-site cardiac surgical facilities to perform elective percutaneous coronary interventions so long as they obtained a Certificate of Need “demonstrating sufficient need in the region” does not violate the dormant commerce clause because the “impact on interstate commerce, if any, was highly attenuated, and did not outweigh the safety benefits of the regulation[].”(09-23-2013)
United States v. Lopez-CruzCriminal Procedure: A peace officer exceeds the scope of consent to "look in" or "search" a cellular phone when the officer answers incoming calls, and it is not an abuse of discretion for a district court to deny a motion for reconsideration to “consider an argument, raised for the first time in that motion, that exigent circumstances justified answering the calls.”(09-12-2013)
Wynar v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist.Civil Rights § 1983: hen faced with an identifiable threat of school violence, a school’s disciplinary action does not violate a student's First Amendment rights or due process so long as the off-campus messages that threaten the safety of the school and its students interfere with the rights of other students and make it reasonable for school officials to “forecast a substantial disruption” of school activities.(08-29-2013)
Rodriguez v. AT&T Mobility ServicesCivil Procedure: A lead plaintiff of a putative class action may not reduce the amount-in-controversy on behalf of absent class members.(08-27-2013)
United States v. LivingstonCriminal Law: The location of an establishment is not an element of theft by an officer of a gaming establishment on Indian lands.(08-07-2013)
Sumolang v. HolderImmigration: For the purposes of withholding of removal, harm to a child can amount to past persecution of a parent when the harm is directed against the parent on the basis of the parent's race, religion, nationality, membership in particular social group, or political opinion.(07-25-2013)
Tista v. HolderImmigration: Based on the plain language of the statute, the Child Status Protection Act does not apply to Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act applicants; such a distinction between different classification of aliens is reviewed for rational basis, and therefore must be “wholly irrational” to violate Due Process and Equal Protection.(07-08-2013)
United States v. Sanchez-AguilarCriminal Law: Proof of defendant’s second departure from the United States was not an element of the § 1326 offense since the first departure was undisputed, but was necessary to avoid double jeopardy concerns; additionally, aliens are not entitled to be informed of potentially available avenues of relief in expedited removal proceedings.(06-19-2013)
Biggs v. Sec'y of Cal. Dep't of Corr. & Rehab.Habeas Corpus: Application of state Supreme Court precedent over United States Supreme Court precedent is not an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law when there is no United States Supreme Court holding clearly establishing a requirement of as-applied analysis.(05-29-2013)
Conservation Northwest v. ShermanAdministrative Law: A district court abuses its discretion when it enters a consent decree that amends an agency rule which is permanent, substantial, and would have otherwise been subject to statutory rulemaking procedures(04-25-2013)
McDaniel v. Wells Fargo InvestmentsPreemption: The federal Securities Exchange Act and related “self-regulatory organizations” rules preempt the enforcement of California Labor Code § 450(a) against brokerage houses that forbid their employees from opening outside trading accounts where the state restriction imposed is a significant federal regulatory objective.(04-09-2013)