Willamette Law Online

(16 summaries)

Ryan Krametbauer

9th Circuit Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Skydive Arizona v. QuattrocchiCivil Law: A district court, in its discretion, can enter judgment for any sum above the amount found as actual damages, not exceeding three times such amount, however, such sum shall constitute compensation and not a penalty.(03-12-2012)
Naify Revocable Trust v. United StatesTax Law: The value of a California income tax claim becomes certain when the parties settle the claim and the amount of the settlement is the value of the claim against the estate of a decedent.(02-15-2012)
Tri-Valley CARE v. United State Department of EnergyAdministrative Law: Under the National Environmental Policy Act analysis, analogizing triggering events, comparing critical distinctions, and considering uniquely different circumstances satisfy the requisite "hard look" the Department of Energy must make at the environmental consequences of their actions.(02-07-2012)
CRM Collateral II v. TriCounty Metropolitan Trans.Contract Law: TriMet's draw on a Letter of Credit was proper and did not violate the statutory warranty of ORS section 75.1100(1)(b), therefore Collateral II cannot be characterized as a surety and is not entitled discharge.(01-20-2012)
Northern Plains Resource v. Tongue River RRAdministrative Law: By not providing adequate baseline data regarding wildlife and sensitive plants to assess the impacts of a proposed railroad in application documents, violates the National Environmental Policy Act's procedural requirement on federal agencies to "take a 'hard look' at the potential environmental consequences of the proposed action."(12-29-2011)
Sullivan v. Oracle CorporationLabor Law: The California Labor Code and California Unfair Competition Law apply to overtime work performed in California by nonresidents.(12-13-2011)
Lopez-Cardona v. HolderImmigration: A conviction for residential burglary under California Penal Code § 459 constitutes a crime of violence because it is a felony "that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense," making it a "particularly serious crime" for the purposes of denying withholding of removal.(11-18-2011)
United States v. WilsonStanding: Under U.S.C. § 853(n)(2) any person may petition the court for the property seized as a result of a fraudulent investment investigation, with the exception of the defendant, based on Congressional negation of the zone of interests test.(10-28-2011)
Washington State v. Chimei Innolux Corp.Civil Procedure: Parens Patriae suits filed by state Attorneys General may not be removed to federal court because the suits are not "class actions" within the plain meaning of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.(10-03-2011)
Haile v. HolderImmigration: In denying a Convention Against Torture deferral, the Board of Immigration Appeals must base its decisions on substantial evidence, not factual inaccuracies or hypothesized assumptions not grounded in the record.(09-26-2011)
Maronyan v. Toyota Motor SalesCivil Procedure: The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act’s exhaustion requirement does not use sweeping and direct language demonstrating clear congressional intent to mandate loss of subject matter jurisdiction.(09-20-2011)
Lockett v. EricksonConstitutional Law: Heck v. Humphrey does not bar a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim when a defendant pled nolo contendere after the superior court denied his suppression motion and no evidence was introduced against him, therefore his conviction “derive[d] from [his] plea, not from [a] verdict obtained with supposedly illegal evidence.”(08-31-2011)
Manufactured Home v. San Diego CountyCivil Law: A California state-law claim of trade libel must contain a prima facie case that the “substance” of the statement(s) is false.(08-26-2011)
Torres v. City of MaderaCivil Law: The standard for judging the objective reasonableness of an officer’s conduct when she mistakenly using her firearm rather than Taser on an individual already arrested, handcuffed, and in the back seat of a patrol car, still remains the “totality of the circumstances.”(08-22-2011)
Wood v. SinclairHabeas Corpus: Under Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), the statement, “[he] will be prepared to proceed without counsel,” is not “an expression of an unequivocal desire to represent himself” and does not entitle appellants to relief under an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.(08-10-2011)
Lee v. LampertCriminal Law: A credible claim of actual innocence constitutes an equitable exception to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s (1996) limitations period, and a petitioner who makes such a showing may pass through to Schlup gateway.(08-02-2011)