Willamette Law Online

(14 summaries)

Byron Lee

9th Circuit Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
United States v. BolivarCriminal Procedure:  [italics]Motley v. Parks[/italics] did not overrule [italics]United States v. Davis[/italics] , which requires reasonable suspicion, not probable cause, that property is “owned, controlled, or possessed by probationer, in order for the item to fall within the permissible bounds of a probation search.”(02-29-2012)
Putnam Family Partnership v. YucaipaMunicipal Law: The requisite intent to provide housing for seniors under the “senior exemption” exception to prohibitions on discriminatory housing policies in the Fair Housing Amendments Act and Housing for Older Persons Act can be that of a city in passing a zoning ordinance, and is not limited to the intent of a housing provider.(02-17-2012)
ACLU v. MastoConstitutional Law: Sex offender regulation schemes expanding the scope of notice and registration and applying retroactively, do not necessarily offend the Double Jeopardy or Ex Post Facto clauses of the Constitution.(02-10-2012)
In Matter of Meruelo Maddux Properties, Inc.Bankruptcy Law: There is no basis in the plain language of the single asset real estate provisions of the Bankruptcy Code § 101(51)(b) for a “whole business enterprise” exception.(01-27-2012)
Leeson v. Transamerica DisabilityCivil Procedure: ERISA plan participant status under § 1132(a)(1)(B) is an element of a claim, not an issue of subject matter jurisdiction.(01-23-2012)
United States v. Keith RussellCriminal Procedure: An officer can assume that the scope of a general consent search of the person, in a drug investigation, includes a pat-down of the groin area.(01-05-2012)
Pagayon v. HolderImmigration: A pleading stage admission of an allegation supporting removal in an immigration removal proceeding, can be relied on by the IJ for determining removal, but removal is not supported if the admission is made in an evidentiary stage of the proceeding; a court could not sustain removal if there is insufficient proof of a conviction or allegation in the documentary evidence coupled with an evidentiary stage admission.(12-08-2011)
Nachshin v. AOLCivil Procedure: The principle of [italics]cy pres[/italics] distributions in a class action lawsuit requires a relationship between the recipient of [italics]cy pres[/italics] distribution and the underlying causes of action or the interests of the class; [italics]cy pres[/italics] distributions to a Legal Aid Foundation and local chapters of the Boys and Girls Club of America do not necessarily meet the standards, and geographic representation of the class is part of the interests of the class.(11-21-2011)
Seeboth v. MaybergCivil Commitment: Despite changes to California’s Sexually Violent Predators Act (“SVPA”) brought about by Proposition 83, a properly filed renewal petition and the final resolution to a jury proceeding to commit a sexually violent predator under the SVPA renders moot an appeal from a denial of a federal habeas petition seeking release from custody.(10-27-2011)
Smallwood v. Allied Van LinesAlternative Dispute Resolution: The Carmack Amendment does not necessarily fail for foreign arbitration clauses, and a shipper may agree to arbitrate the claim after the dispute arises with an interstate motor carrier but may not be forced to at the time of contracting; Congress intended Carmack to be a minor exception to the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) by enacting provisions of the Amendment after the passage of the FAA.(10-18-2011)
Suzlon Energy v. Microsoft CorporationEvidence: A foreign citizen is a “person” whose emails are protected by the statutory framework of §§ 2702(a)(1), 2510(15), § 2510(13) of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, therefore an email service provider is not compelled to produce documents under a § 1782 order (an order to obtain evidence for use in a foreign or international tribunal).(10-03-2011)
GoPets Ltd v. HiseCivil Law: Re-registration by a new registrant of an internet domain name is not a “registration” under § 1125(d)(1) of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (“ACPA”).(09-22-2011)
United States v. Cristopher Ibarra-PinoCriminal Law: When asserting a duress defense, a defendant’s failure to offer evidence that he or she could not have safely contacted law enforcement authorities goes to the third element of the defense, a reasonable opportunity to escape the threatened harm, and a lack of a prima facie showing precludes the defense and the jury instruction.(09-20-2011)
Johnson v. Poway Unified School DistrictConstitutional Law: Restrictions by a public school on a teacher’s classroom speech in his or her role as a teacher before a captive audience of students, is subject to the “sequential five-step” inquiry under Pickering, not a forum-based analysis.(09-13-2011)