Willamette Law Online

(28 summaries)

Logan Leichtman

9th Circuit Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
United States v. WhittemoreCriminal Law: Under 2 U.S.C. § 441f, the source of conduit contributions is the proper focus of the inquiry regardless of the ownership status of the funds at the time of contribution.(01-26-2015)
Sessoms v. GroundsHabeas Corpus: Statements regarding a request for counsel in a custodial interrogation must be taken as a whole to determine whether an ordinary person would regard them as an unambiguous and unequivocal request to have counsel present.(09-22-2014)
Sandoval v. Las Vegas Metro Police Dep'tCivil Rights § 1983: Police officers executing a warrantless search are not entitled to qualified immunity if the search is not supported by an exception to the warrant requirement; however, separation of father and son for forty minutes and killing of family dog during execution of the search does not constitute deprivation of a familial relationship.(07-01-2014)
In Re: Zynga Privacy LitigationCivil Procedure: A claim under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act must make an allegation that the contents of a communication were disclosed in order to survive a motion for dismissal.(05-08-2014)
Tobeler v. ColvinAttorney Fees: Under the Equal Access to Justice Act, an award of attorney’s fees is appropriate where the government’s underlying position was not substantially justified, despite justification for their litigation position.(04-18-2014)
Courthouse News Service v. PlanetCivil Rights § 1983: It is incorrect for a district court to abstain from hearing a case where the plaintiff’s claim presents an important constitutional question and the relief sought would not excessively intrude on sensitive state interests.(04-07-2014)
Peruta v. County of San DiegoConstitutional Law: San Diego’s “good cause” policy allowing concealed public carry of firearms, which does not allow permits for those with ordinary self-defense concerns, is an impermissible abridgment of the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense.(02-13-2014)
Experience Hendrix v. Hendrixlicensing.comTrademarks: The Washington Publicity Rights Act can grant post-mortem publicity rights even when the person was not domiciled in Washington at the time of death, provided that the action sued on is premised with sufficient relation to the state of Washington.(01-29-2014)
Inhale, Inc. v. Starbuzz Tobacco, Inc.Copyright: Under “useful articles” doctrine of copyright law, the manufacturer of a hookah is not entitled to copyright protection where sculptural elements of design cannot exist independently, or be separately identified, from utilitarian aspects of design.(01-09-2014)
United States v. AndersonCriminal Law: When a defendant fails to timely object to a challenged jury instruction, the flawed instruction will be upheld when it does not rise to the level of plain error; a district court errs when it fails to award restitution based on the victim’s actual loss.(12-19-2013)
United States v. ChovanConstitutional Law: 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), barring a person convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor from possessing a firearm, does not violate the Second Amendment on its face; a defendant is not entitled to the “civil rights restored” exception if the triggering misdemeanor did not divest defendant of other fundamental rights.(11-18-2013)
Jones v. RyanHabeas Corpus: When new claims not present in the original habeas corpus petition are asserted in a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment, the motion can be construed as a second petition subject to denial for lack of authorization.(10-18-2013)
United States v. FirstIndian Law: A tribal court misdemeanor conviction can serve as a predicate offense for unlawful possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) when the defendant was provided the right to counsel that was required in the misdemeanor trial, even if that right as given in a tribal court does not meet the constitutional federal minimum.(10-01-2013)
United States v. Arqueta-RamosCriminal Procedure: When taking pleas en masse as part of an “Operation Streamline” proceeding, a court must still confirm individually with each defendant that the defendant is aware of her rights.(09-20-2013)
C.B. v. City of SonoraCivil Rights § 1983: A jury verdict obtained after re-deliberation and long, unscripted, and potentially misleading or confusion discussions between the district judge and the jurors warrants a new trial.(09-12-2013)
Detrich v. RyanHabeas Corpus: Under Martinez v. Ryan, a court reviewing a Habeas Corpus petition can apply an exception to the “cause” and “prejudice” rule to excuse procedural default when a defendant makes a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.(09-03-2013)
United States v. ReedCriminal Law: Assimilation of state’s drugged driving law with federal DUI regulation is proper where there is a gap in the federal law relating to drugged driving and the defendant was driving on a federal road within that state.(08-22-2013)
United States v. LeeCriminal Law: A district court must use sentencing guidelines as a starting point rather than using a predetermined sentence and working backwards to make their desired sentence fit within the guidelines.(08-07-2013)
Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe v. NevadaWater Rights: Diversion of water to wetlands to support growth of plants used by wildlife in a waterfowl habitat is not “irrigation” for purposes of compliance with the federal court decree concerning water rights in the Newlands Project area in Nevada.(07-30-2013)
United States v. GarciaCriminal Law: A jury instruction for involuntary manslaughter is improper where it fails to require the jury to find that the defendant acted with gross negligence and that omission is harmful to the defendant.(07-19-2013)
In the Matter of: MarshallBankruptcy Law: When assigned for the interest of efficiency, a bankruptcy court judge presiding over a Chapter 11 case acts within his discretion when denying a motion for recusal after having presided over a case with a similar factual background and same principal parties.(06-28-2013)
Fournier v. SebeliusAdministrative Law: Denial of dental coverage for Medicare beneficiaries does not constitute a violation of beneficiaries’ right to equal protection under the Fifth Amendment when denial is based on reasonable interpretation by the Secretary of Health and Human Services of an ambiguous statute.(05-31-2013)
Labatad v. Corrections Corp. of AmericaCivil Rights § 1983: Summary judgment is properly granted for prison officials when a prisoner fails to show deliberate indifference to the substantial risk of attack stemming from temporarily housing him with an inmate belonging to a rival prison gang.(05-01-2013)
Blum v. Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & SmithCivil Procedure: A motion to intervene in a long-concluded case is not untimely when the purpose of the motion is to seek modification of a protective order; the order can be modified to prevent the destruction of documents relevant to pending litigation.(04-11-2013)

Oregon Supreme Court

TitleExcerptFilling Date
McCann v. RosenblumBallot Titles: Inaccurate phrasing in Initiative Petition 47, which seeks to change current system of state-licensed liquor stores, is subject to modification to enhance precision and to reduce negative perception. (04-24-2014)

Oregon Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Ramirez v. Northwest Renal ClinicCivil Procedure: Notice of voluntary dismissal does not require a court ruling to be effective, and is thus sufficient to dismiss an action without prejudice despite pendency of the grant of a motion for summary judgment.(04-16-2014)
Dept. of Human Services v. R.S.Juvenile Law: An agency's initial jurisdiction in juvenile court is not subject to collateral attack in a later proceeding; the only proper jurisdictional challenge is to the court's continuing jurisdiction.(03-26-2014)
Barkers Five, LLC v. LCDCLand Use: LCDC order acknowledging designation of urban and rural reserves in the Metro area was unlawful in substance because it (1) approved Washington County’s misapplication of rural reserve factors, (2) incorrectly found Multnomah County’s consideration of rural reserve factors sufficient, and (3) failed to review designation of Stafford as urban reserve for substantial evidence.(02-20-2014)