Willamette Law Online

(33 summaries)

Nicole Morrow

9th Circuit Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
United States v. MagenoCriminal Law: A prosecution’s misstatement of fact in closing argument is a sufficient argument to consider a reversal, even though the defendant did not object to the misstatement at trial, did not raise this argument in their opening brief, and did not adopt it as a ground for reversal until oral argument, because it encouraged the jury to convict the defendant on evidence not presented at trial, and there was a reasonable probability that the misstatements affected the outcome.(08-11-2014)
People of the State of Cal. v. U.S. D.O.I.Environmental Law: In an amended opinion the panel affirmed that the Secretary of the Interior does not violate the National Environmental Policy Act when determining that a supplemental environmental impact statement is unnecessary. (08-01-2014)
United States v. HurtadoSentencing: When determining whether a defendant qualifies for a minor role sentence reduction, the comparison is between average participants, not above-average participants for the “substantially less culpable than the average participant” test. (07-29-2014)
Merritt v. Countrywide Financial Corp.Consumer Credit: Pursuant to the Truth in Lending Act a court may only order the statutory sequence altered and require tender before rescission at the summary judgment stage and then only on a case-by-case basis, once the creditor has established a potentially viable defense; additionally pursuant to the Real Estate Settlement Practices Act the doctrine of equitable tolling a borrower, in appropriate circumstances, may suspend the limitations period until the borrower discovers or had a reasonable opportunity to discover the violation.(07-16-2014)
United States v. Lopez-ChavezCriminal Law: Ineffective assistance of counsel exists where an attorney concedes removability based on a prior conviction and for failing to appeal the decision of the court, which if properly appealed the court would have been bound by precedent to render a favorable holding in favor of the client.(07-03-2014)
Johnmohammadi v. Bloomingdale’sEmployment Law: An arbitration clause in an employment contract that disallows class action arbitration is valid where the employee has the opportunity to opt-out of the clause.(06-23-2014)
Jiang v. HolderImmigration: Inconsistencies between an individual’s asylum declaration recounting physical abuse suffered and the failure to testify about the same during a removal hearing until prompted by the attorney to do so is a sufficient basis to support an Immigration Judge’s adverse credibility determination. (06-12-2014)
Wood v. YordyCivil Rights § 1983: The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act does not authorize suits against a person in anything other than an official or governmental capacity.(06-03-2014)
Vega v. RyanHabeas Corpus: When applying Strickland v. Washington, a petitioner is required to prove (1) that counsel’s efforts fell below the standard prevailing in the community, and (2) that those failings prejudiced him; and, the petition must demonstrate that the likelihood of a different result is substantial not just conceivable.(05-19-2014)
City of Pomona v. SQMEvidence: Facts that cast doubt as to the credibility of an expert witness and contested facts as to the strength of a scientific method are questions reserved for the fact finder.(05-02-2014)
Wolfe v. BNSFEmployment Law: An employee’s state law claim alleging injury caused by misconduct in employee disciplinary proceedings under a collective bargaining agreement is preempted by the federal Railway Labor Act while an employee’s state law claim concerning alleged negligent mismanagement resulting in a head-on collision is not preempted by the ACT because it is independent of a collective bargaining agreement and therefore did not require interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement. (04-23-2014)
United States v. OdachyanSentencing: Judicial statements which respond to arguments made by the defendant in the manner of a “general frustration” that do not represent their own personal bias are not unconstitutional and not enough to make a fair judgment impossible; and, a defendant may waive his right to appeal by a knowing and voluntary waiver.(04-17-2014)
PAMC, Ltd. v. SebeliusAdministrative Law: The failure to timely submit data on a quarterly basis to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services under the Reporting Hospital Quality Data for Annual Payment Update program will result in a reduction by two percentage points to the medical center who failed to submit the data.(04-08-2014)
Davis v. WalkerCivil Rights § 1983: When a lengthy and indefinite stay effectively puts a prisoner out of court, it is an appealable final decision because the stay order fails to adequately protect the prisoner’s interests.(03-24-2014)
Peralta v. DillardCivil Rights § 1983: A prison official who is sued under § 1983 for money damages may raise a lack of available resources defense. (03-06-2014)
United States v. ChandlerSentencing: Conviction of conspiracy to commit a crime of violence is a 'crime of violence' for the purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act.(02-20-2014)
United States v. PopovCriminal Law: In health care fraud cases, the amount billed to an insurer shall constitute prima facie evidence of intended loss for sentencing purposes. (02-11-2014)
In re: Late Fee & Over-Limit Fee LitigationConsumer Credit: Substantive due process jurisprudence placing limitations on punitive damages does not apply to contractual penalties such as credit card late payment or overlimit fees.(01-21-2014)
Al-Nashiri v. MacDonaldHabeas Corpus: Section 7 of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 deprives the district court of jurisdiction of non-habeas claims.(12-20-2013)
Hana Financial v. Hana BankTrademarks: Tacking may be found where a properly-instructed jury makes a determination of fact regarding the narrow tacking doctrine that the reasonable consumer could have reasonably concluded that the user of a mark had a consistent, continuous commercial impression of the services defendant offered and their origin.(11-22-2013)
Bondarenko v. HolderImmigration: A credibility finding of a person seeking asylum must be supported by substantial evidence, and the person seeking asylum must be given a reasonable opportunity to investigate all evidence presented against them.(10-25-2013)
United States v. LiuCopyright: Under 17 U.S.C. § 506(a), “willfully” requires the Plaintiff to prove that the Defendant knew he was acting illegally, not just that he knew he was making copies, and under 18 U.S.C. § 2318(a)(1), “knowingly” trafficking counterfeit labels “requires knowledge that the labels were counterfeit.”(10-01-2013)
United States v. GrandberryCriminal Procedure: Officers seeking to search the home of a parolee must first have probable cause that the parolee lives there in order to conduct a search without a warrant.(09-17-2013)
SEC v. CMKM Diamonds, Inc.Corporations: A participant’s title, standing alone, cannot determine liability under Section 5 of the Securities Act; there is a material issue of fact as to whether a transfer agent is a necessary participant and substantial factor to satisfy the standard for liability under Section 5.(09-10-2013)
Rusak v. HolderImmigration: The objective element of determining whether an individual has a well-founded fear of future persecution by their native country can be proven by the showing of past persecution of groups or persons “similarly situated” and establishing that the individual is a member of the group.(08-22-2013)
Blantz v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab.Civil Rights § 1983: A performance review procedure does not create a protected property interest for a state agency’s independent contractors.(08-15-2013)
Thornton v. BrownCivil Rights § 1983: A parolee is not barred from bringing an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that challenges the conditions of parole as long as a successful claim would not result in being released from parole more quickly or imply that the parolee’s underlying conviction or sentence was invalid.(07-31-2013)
State of Alaska v. LubchencoEnvironmental Law: Using sub-regions to determine if continued fishing in those regions will adversely modify the critical habitat and jeopardize the continued existence of the entire population of a particular species does not violate the Endangered Species Act.(07-23-2013)
Chamness v. BowenElection Law: There is not a significant distinction between a candidate being referenced as part of the "Independent" party verses being labeled as "No Party Preference" on a ballot to establish a severe burden of the candidate's First Amendment Rights since it is a reasonable, nondiscriminatory restriction that only imposes a slight burden and is supported by the state's important regulatory interests.(07-03-2013)
Corro-Barragan v. HolderImmigration: The “physical presence” requirements under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229c(b)(1)(A) and 1229b(d)(2) are different, in that § 1229c(b)(1)(A) has no exceptions for departures during the one-year period of physical presence required for voluntary departure while § 1229b(d)(2) allows for brief departures from the United States that do not interrupt the ten-year period of continuous physical presence required for cancellation of removal.(06-10-2013)
Gonzalez v. City of AnaheimCivil Rights § 1983: Under the totality of the circumstances, an officer trapped within a moving vehicle with a suspect attempting to flee the scene of a lawful stop is reasonable in his use of deadly force if the threat is severe, immediate, and the suspect is actively resisting arrest.(05-13-2013)
Makaeff v. Trump University First Amendment: Pursuant to California’s Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) statute, a public figure is held to a higher standard in proving that a person committing the crime of defamation against them acted with "actual malice." (04-17-2013)
United States v. Juvenile MaleJuvenile Law: The proper commitment proceeding for a juvenile in federal detention is under the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act, as opposed to 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d); jurisdiction for such decision is determined at the time of the information.(04-02-2013)