Willamette Law Online

(30 summaries)

Anastasiya Krotoff

9th Circuit Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Mann v. RyanHabeas Corpus: Professional assistance of counsel is ineffective if it is unreasonable under all of the circumstances, and counsel’s professional assistance during the sentencing phase of the trial is constitutionally deficient if reasonably available mitigating evidence is not adequately investigated or presented. (12-29-2014)
Flor Saldana v. Occidental Petroleum Corp. Tort Law: A complaint under the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350, is nonjusticiable if it is inextricably bound to a political question, and in order to sever a political question from a negligence or liability claim, a factual basis of operational control must be established.(12-15-2014)
Taylor v. CateHabeas Corpus: A state trial court may not resentence a petitioner based on new evidence that was not heard by the jury in the original trial proceeding, and, in which case, a petitioner is entitled to a new trial.(11-19-2014)
Luis Mujica v. AirScan, Inc.Civil Procedure: A corporation has no liability for claims under the Torture Victim Protection Act, and an Alien Torture Statute claim must “touch and concern the United States with sufficient force to displace the presumption against extraterritorial application”; also, the doctrine of international comity will bar state law claims where the federal government has a strong interest in respecting the judicial processes of other sovereigns and the foreign forum is adequate.(11-12-2014)
Fresno Motors, LLC. v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLCTax Law: Under the California's Vehicle Code section 11713.3(t)(2), a manufacturer cannot be sued for exercising its right of first refusal (“ROFR”) in a timely and lawful manner and is not required to provide proper notice of its intent to exercise ROFR to a proposed transferee of a franchise; Furthermore, section 11713.3(t)(6) allows a proposed transferee to recover incurred expenses resulting from a franchisor usurping its contractual right by exercising a ROFR. (11-05-2014)
Harris v. Amgen, Inc.Civil Law: An employer has a fiduciary duty to employer-sponsored pension plan participants under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and the employer violates the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by failing to provide material information about the investment fund.(10-30-2014)
Verdugo v. Target Corporation Tort Law: Commercial property owners do not owe customers a common law duty of reasonable care to maintain an Automatic External Defibrillator (“AED”) in cases of a medical emergency.(10-28-2014)
Medina-Lara v. HolderImmigration: In determining eligibility for removal pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act, the modified categorical approach will be applied to determine whether the charging documents and the judgment abstract establish through clear and convincing evidence a guilty plea to the elements of a qualifying crime.(10-10-2014)
Friends of the Wild Swan v. WeberEnvironmental Law: In order to obtain a preliminary injunction against an agency, a party must demonstrate (1) a likelihood of success on the merits of a claim, and (2) that irreparable harm will ensue in the absence of preliminary relief; Also, an agency’s findings will be set aside only where particular actions are arbitrary and capricious.(09-24-2014)
Ollier v. Sweetwater Union High Sch. Dist. Civil Rights § 1983: Under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, unlawful sex discrimination in high school athletics occurs if the “interest and abilities of female athletes” are not “fully and effectively” accommodated, with “substantially proportionate participation opportunities for male and female students” as compared to each respective group’s enrollment; however, the substantial proportion requirement can be circumvented by past and ongoing efforts to expand an athletic program; additionally, a student athlete has standing to bring a retaliation claim if there is a “judicially cognizable” injury.(09-19-2014)
C.M. v. Lafayette Sch. Dist.Disability Law: Pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), a variety of assessment tools must be implemented when conducting an initial evaluation for the purposes of determining whether a child has a disability and when determining what content to include in an individualized education plan (“IEP”); Additionally, a child with disabilities is denied a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) when parents are not granted access to Response-to-Intervention (“RTI”) data because parental informed consent is required for both the initial evaluation and any special education services.(09-16-2014)
United States v. Index NewspapersFirst Amendment: Although the public has no First Amendment right of access to grand jury proceedings, once a grand jury witness has been held in contempt and ordered to confinement, the public has a right of access to public portions of contempt proceedings, including transcripts and relevant filings, subject to government redactions; however, there is no right of public access to closed contempt proceedings because matters and testimony relating to the grand jury investigation are involved. (09-05-2014)
Wharton v. ChappellHabeas Corpus: Occasional sightings by the jury of the petitioner in shackles does not establish prejudice; Also, in an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, both deficient performance and prejudice must be established, which lead to a “reasonable probability” of a different outcome in the proceedings; Further, during the penalty phase of a capital crime, counsel must sufficiently investigate and prepare in order to present and explain the importance of existing extenuating factors.(08-27-2014)
Woods v. SinclairHabeas Corpus: First, waiver of the right to counsel must be unequivocal; second, Confrontation Clause rights are violated if trial error results in actual prejudice; third, to determine whether evidence was withheld at trial in violation of Brady v. Maryland, evidence must be shown to be exculpatory or impeaching, leading to actual prejudice and a reasonable probability that admitting the evidence would have lead to a different result in the trial proceeding; fourth, in order to prevail on an ineffective counsel claim and to excuse a procedurally barred claim under Martinez v. Ryan, substantiality and actual ineffectiveness must be established.(08-25-2014)
American Tower Corp. v. City of San DiegoCorporations: Under the California Code of Streamlining Act, an application will be deemed approved provided an absence of approval or denial from the lead agency after a sixty-day time frame only if landowner rights are not affected, in which case due process requirements must be satisfied; Additionally, to prevail on an unreasonable discrimination claim under the Federal Telecommunications Act, providers of cell coverage services must demonstrate that (1) a significant gap in service coverage is closed by a State or local government; or (2) that the facility in question is the “least intrusive means,” supported by a feasibility of alternative designs analysis. (08-14-2014)
Colwell v. Banister Civil Rights § 1983: To determine whether an inmate’s Eighth Amendment rights have been violated by the denial of medical surgery, the objective and subjective standards will be applied, whereby (1) under the objective standard, there must be a serious medical need, and (2) under the subjective standard, the corrections facility must be deliberately indifferent to an excessive risk to the health and safety of an inmate. (08-14-2014)
USA v. JDT, Juvenile MaleCriminal Law: In order to establish jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 5032, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Act, mere certification is sufficient, subject to circumstances questioning its “accuracy or validity”; in addition, aggravated sexual abuse charges in regards to children pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2241(c) will be applied to anyone charged with a crime therein, which includes juveniles under the age of twelve, requiring only a showing of knowledge of facts underlying the charge.(08-12-2014)
Arizona v. Reytheon Co.Environmental Law: A consent decree may be granted by a district court if a settlement agreement is fair, reasonable, and consistent with Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) objectives, the terms of which must be independently scrutinized and comparatively analyzed to meet CERCLA requirements. (08-01-2014)
Fong v. RyanHabeas Corpus: To determine whether a district court erred in denying a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition based on false statements by a State representative, the Napue v. Illinois standard will be applied, which holds that convictions based on false evidence by representatives of the State must show that a jury’s judgment could have been affected by the mistake; furthermore, in order to determine whether the district court erred in denying an ineffective counsel claim, Strickland v. Washington will be applied, requiring a showing of “both deficient performance and prejudice.”(07-25-2014)
Garrison v. ColvinDisability Law: In determining whether a claimant is entitled to an award of Social Security Disability benefits, the “credit-as-due” analysis will be applied in order to determine whether the case should be remanded to the Administrative Law Judge to determine disability benefits, whereby three elements must all be satisfied: (1) the record must be fully developed that additional proceedings are not useful; (2) lack of “legally sufficient reasons” provided by the Administrative Law Judge for denying evidence; and (3) assuming the discarded evidence were true, on remand, the Administrative Law Judge would be obligated to conclude the claimant is disabled.(07-14-2014)
United States v. RichardsonConstitutional Law: The Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”) does not violate the non-delegation doctrine because each state’s public office must respectively interpret policy in order to protect the public from sex offenders; similarly, SORNA does not violate the Tenth Amendment commandeering principle because Congress conditioned the receipt of federal funds on the implementation of SORNA requirements, whereby states are free to choose whether or not to enact SORNA.(06-19-2014)
Chula Vista Citizens v. NorrisCivil Rights § 1983: Official proponents for ballot initiatives cannot be associations because any official proponent must be a natural person, and requiring an official proponent to identify themselves on the face of the petition for ballot initiative violates the First Amendment.(06-16-2014)
Parsons v. RyanCivil Procedure: Inmates alleging Eighth Amendment violations satisfy the class certification requirements pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, which, in turn, allows the putative class and subclass to seek injunctive and declaratory relief as an appropriate remedy.(06-05-2014)
Planned Parenthood Arizona v. HumbleConstitutional Law: When determining whether a woman’s constitutional right to abortion has been hindered, the undue burden test will apply, whereby it must be shown that a substantial obstacle prevents or defers a woman from accessing preferred methods of abortion.(06-03-2014)
Oliver v. SD-3CCorporations: When seeking injunctive relief pursuant to federal antitrust laws, section 16 of the Clayton Act governs. To determine whether the complaint is filed in a timely manner, the equitable defense of laches applies, subject to both the continuous violations and speculative damages exceptions. (05-14-2014)
Orpiada v. McDanielHabeas Corpus: In states expressly rejecting the prison mailbox rule, tolling of a state habeas corpus petition under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty will not be allowed if filed in an untimely manner. (05-07-2014)
United States v. Hernandez-EstradaCriminal Law: When determining whether certain groups are underrepresented, each case should be assessed based on its particular circumstances; and, in order to establish a prima facie case pursuant to the Jury Selection Act, the evidence must show that underrepresentation of minority groups in jury selection proceedings is due to systemic causes. (04-30-2014)
Ragasa v. HolderImmigration: A foreign-born child, whose biological parents were not U.S. citizens at the time of his birth does not obtain citizenship citizenship through a subsequent adoption by U.S. citizens, however to establish removability under Section 237(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act the government must prove that the drug underlying the state conviction is covered by Section 102 of the federal Controlled Substances Act. (04-28-2014)
Jin v. HolderImmigration: In an adverse credibility determination, substantial evidence must reasonably show that a petitioner is not credible based on the totality of circumstances.(04-19-2014)
Carrion Garcia v. HolderImmigration: An adverse credibility finding will not necessarily preclude a Convention Against Torture claim, unless there is a convincing reason to support such a determination after sufficient consideration has been given to all of the evidence provided by the petitioner.(04-16-2014)