Willamette Law Online

(16 summaries)

Chad Krepps

9th Circuit Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
State of Nevada v. Bank of America Corp.Civil Procedure: For purposes of the minimal diversity requirement under the Class Action Fairness Act, the court will examine “the essential nature and effect of the proceeding as it appears from the entire record” in determining whether the state is the real party in interest in a state Attorney General [italics]parens patriae[/italics] action.(03-02-2012)
Mardesich v. CateHabeas Corpus: The statute of limitations on claims under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) is calculated on a claim-by-claim basis, and the AEDPA statute of limitations on a challenge to an administrative decision begins when the administrative decision is final.(02-21-2012)
Pacific Rivers Council v. USFSAdministrative Law: The United States Forest Service failed to take the requisite “hard look” at environmental consequences in an Environmental Impact Statement because they failed to show why it was not reasonably possible to perform any analysis of those consequences.(02-03-2012)
Montana Sulpher & Chemical Co. v. EPAEnvironmental Law: The EPA may rely on modeling to predict SO2 violation under the Clean Air Act when existing sampling data is limited or insufficient.(01-19-2012)
United States v. Valenzuela-EspinozaCriminal Procedure: The [italics]McNabb-Mallory[/italics] Rule is an important procedural safeguard and necessary to provide a remedy for violations of Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 5(a). Any delay in presentment to a magistrate must be reasonable and necessary.(12-28-2011)
Red Lion Hotels Franchising Inc. v. MAK, LLCCivil Law: The “Bill of Rights” contained in Washington’s Franchise Investment Protection Act is applicable as to a franchisor in Washington State and a Franchisee outside Washington State.(12-07-2011)
Stein v. RyanPost-Conviction Relief: It is the province of the courts, and not of state agencies, to determine the legality of prison sentences. An interim judicial decision may give a convict a right to have his sentence vacated, but it is the court hearing his case that gives him the right to be released.(11-18-2011)
United States v. SanchezCriminal Procedure: A closing argument which asks the jury to consider the social ramifications of a nonguilty verdict may create an overly prejudicial effect and result in reversal, if there are not proper steps taken to mitigate the effect.(11-01-2011)
United States v. Gregory ReyesCriminal Law: When a defendant signs off on granting stock options to himself, evidence of fraud presented to the jury was not false because the jury was informed that the defendant was not the one who ultimately approved granting stock options.(10-13-2011)
Earl v. Nielsen Media ResearchEmployment Law: When analyzing whether someone is similarly situated in an age discrimination case, the proper inquiry is not whether he or she are outside the protected class, but whether the comparable employees are significantly younger then the claimant.(09-26-2011)
Ellis v. Costco WholesaleCivil Procedure: 28 U.S.C. § 1453(b), created by The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (The Act), allows only original defendants to remove an action to federal court.(09-16-2011)
Michael P. v. Department of EducationCivil Law: By relying solely on a “severe discrepancy” model and not allowing for other factors to be considered, Hawaii DOE procedurally violated the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.(09-08-2011)
McCants v. BetlachAdministrative Law: In order to be protected by cost-sharing restrictions of the Medicaid Act, plaintiffs must be both eligible for Medicaid coverage and part of the State’s plan.(08-24-2011)
Hershel Rosenbaum v. Washoe CountyCriminal Law: The crime for which there is probable cause need not be related to the crime for which an individual is arrested without a warrant. However, the crime which does provide probable cause must be reasonably within the arsenal of crimes that officers enforce in the state. (Modifying Davenport)(08-22-2011)
Howard v. Criminal Information ServicesCivil Law: Bulk purchase of personal information from Department of Motor Vehicle records is not, in and of itself, a violation of the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (“DPPA”), 18. U.S.C. §§ 2721-2725.(08-15-2011)
CollegeSource v. AcademyOneCivil Procedure: Misappropriation of material by an agent, not in the forum, on behalf of a defendant, also not in the forum, may still provide sufficient grounds for a court to find specific personal jurisdiction in the forum.(08-08-2011)