Willamette Law Online

(31 summaries)

Colin McMahon

9th Circuit Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Ortega v. HolderImmigration: Individuals must take actual action to establish expectation of vested rights to defeat reinstatement of a deportation order. (03-31-2014)
Minority Television Project v. FCCFirst Amendment: First Amendment challenges of 47 U.S.C. § 399b are determined by applying intermediate scrutiny. The statute is narrowly tailored to achieve the substantial government interest of maintaining quality educational programming on public broadcasting networks. (12-02-2013)
Lujan v. GarciaHabeas Corpus: When testimony is induced by erroneous admission of confession evidence, it cannot be used to support the conviction as harmless error because it would perpetuate the initial constitutional violation.(10-29-2013)
United States v. ZepedaCriminal Law: Providing a certified degree of Indian blood, by itself, is not sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant is an Indian for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 1153.(09-19-2013)
Joffe v. Google, Inc.Civil Law: Payload data transferred over unencrypted Wi-Fi networks is neither radio communication nor electronic communication that is readily accessible by the general public for the purposes of the Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2511.(09-10-2013)
United States v. SedaghatyCriminal Law: Under Brady, the government is obligated to disclose significant impeachment evidence relevant to a critical witness; CIPA provides the government protection of classified documents used as evidence, but requires the government provide an adequate and neutral summary of any information relevant to the defense.(08-23-2013)
Sully v. AyersHabeas Corpus: To obtain federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, a petitioner must show that the state court unreasonably applied clearly established federal law.(08-06-2013)
Quin v. County of Kauai Dep't of Transp.Bankruptcy Law: When an omission on a bankruptcy schedule of a pending claim is “mistaken” or “inadvertent,” using the common meaning of those terms, that omission shall not be grounds for applying judicial estoppel to the pending claim.(07-24-2013)
John v. Alaska Fish & Wildlife Conservation FundAdministrative Law: The Secretaries of the Interior and of Agriculture were reasonable in their methods of notice and comment rulemaking to determine which of Alaska's navigable waters constituted "public lands" for the purposes of compliance with ANILCA.(07-05-2013)
United States v. Hernandez-MezaCriminal Law: Brief continuance proceedings are not automatically excluded from Speedy Trial Act time limitations; it is an abuse of discretion to reopen a case based on surprise when no surprise exists and to not hear well-made objections to admission of evidence. (06-21-2013)
United States v. Cabrera-GutierrezCriminal Law: Congress has the authority under the Commerce Clause to require convicted sex offenders to register under SORPA and a defendant's guilty plea statement can be used to determine the offender's sentencing level. (06-03-2013)
United States v. GarridoCriminal Law: Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Skilling v. United States, 18 U.S.C. § 1346 applies only to honest services fraud cases involving bribery or kickbacks, failure to disclose material conflict of interest does not apply; additionally bribery convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 666 do not require an official act.(04-15-2013)
Columbia Pictures Industries v. FungCopyright: The [italics]Grokster[/italics] test for copyright infringement extends to websites even though the wording of the test’s first element applies to “devices” and “products.”(03-21-2013)
Gilstrap v. United Air LinesTort Law: The Air Carrier Access Act does not preempt state law personal injury tort claims but, instead, can describe the duty element of a negligence claim. Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act does not include terminals for transportation by aircraft within the definition of "places of public accommodation."(03-12-2013)
Multistar Industries, Inc. vs. USDOTAdministrative Law: Under the Hobbs Act and the Administrative Procedure Act, where the basis of an appeal from an administrative decision and order was not a factor in the agency's final decision, the Court of Appeals can not review the decision or order. A petitioner is not denied due process when an agency declines to review findings that were not the basis of the agency's final action.(02-07-2013)
United States v. Juvenile MaleCriminal Procedure: The Ninth Circuit joined its sister circuits in not requiring a psychological evaluation for determining whether transfer from juvenile proceedings to adult prosecution is "in the interest of justice." Presuming guilt for the purposes of a transfer decision is not a violation of due process rights. (01-09-2013)
United States v. Juvenile MaleCriminal Procedure: The Ninth Circuit joined its sister circuits in not requiring a psychological evaluation for determining whether transfer from juvenile proceedings to adult prosecution is "in the interest of justice." Presuming guilt for the purposes of a transfer decision is not a violation of due process rights.(01-09-2013)
Washington Shoe v. A-Z Sporting GoodsCivil Procedure: Under the Calder test, personal jurisdiction is established against a non-resident defendant where the defendant knowingly engaged in copyright infringement knowing that the harm would impact a plaintiff in Washington State.(12-17-2012)
United States v. WigganEvidence: A Grand Juror may testify to the materiality of a defendant's testimony and to the physical arrangement of the Grand Jury room. However, if the testimony addresses the Grand Jury's opinion on the defendant's credibility, its probative value is outweighed by its prejudicial effect and it must not be admitted under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 analysis.(11-20-2012)
United States v. NungaraySentencing: At a sentencing hearing, a district court may find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that an individual had constructive possession of firearms when that individual organized, facilitated, and was present at the sale of those firearms. Such a finding will result in an increased sentencing level per U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(1)(A).(10-05-2012)
United States v. LukashovCriminal Procedure: When the jury receives a proper instruction on venue but only reaches a verdict on the substantive aspects of the case, the trial court may decide venue as a matter of law if the jury could not have reached its verdict without concluding that venue exists by a preponderance of the evidence.(09-18-2012)
Price v. Stevedoring ServicesWorkers Compensation: The litigating position of the Director of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, which interprets the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, is not entitled to [italics]Chevron[/italics] deference.(09-04-2012)
Meruelo v. CIRTax Law: The IRS has authority to issue a valid Notice of Deficiency on a partner of an LLC if there are no pending partnership-level proceedings. The mere consideration of future partnership-level proceedings does not invalidate a Notice of Deficiency.(08-16-2012)
Drew v. EquifaxCivil Law: A credit reporting agency’s notification of a fraudulent account triggers the creditor’s duty under the Fair Credit Reporting Act to investigate and react to the fraudulent account, even if the notification does not specifically state that the creditor is required to act.(08-07-2012)
Baughman v. Walt Disney World Co.Disability Law: Without proof that Segways cannot be operated safely within its theme parks, Disney might be required under the ADA to allow disabled persons to use Segways.(07-18-2012)
United States v. Castillo-MarinSentencing: Courts may not simply rely on a Presentence Investigation Report in determining the sentencing level under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 for an individual with a prior conviction. Such reliance results in clear and obvious error.(07-03-2012)
United States v. SuarezSentencing: Mandatory minimum sentencing under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) does not apply when the prior conviction did not result from a final judgment or a legally cognizable sentence resulting in a final judgment. A guilty plea with entry in a deferral program requiring treatment, but without a probation or imprisonment, does not qualify as a final judgment or a legally cognizable sentence.(06-22-2012)
United States v. GrantCriminal Procedure: The good faith reliance doctrine under [italics]United States v. Leon[/italics] is inapplicable to an affidavit that does not “establish at least a colorable argument for probable cause.”(06-11-2012)
Fenenbock v. Director of CorrectionsHabeas Corpus: A defendant is not denied sufficient pretrial access to the prosecution’s primary witness where the witness is a minor, and an agency unrelated to the prosecution acts in the minor’s best interest and restricts the defendant’s access to the minor.(05-24-2012)
United States v. ZhouCriminal Law: 42 U.S.C. § 1320d-6(a)(2) contains two separate elements necessary for a violation: a person must (1) knowingly obtain individually identifiable health information relating to an individual and (2) use that information in a manner inconsistent with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.(05-10-2012)
Noble v. AdamsHabeas Corpus: For purposes of tolling the statute of limitations, a district court must determine what is a reasonable time to appeal a petition for writ of habeas corpus or whether a delay is excusable, under applicable state law.(04-19-2012)