Willamette Law Online

(21 summaries)

Adam Paczkowski

9th Circuit Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Organized Village of Kake v. USDAAdministrative Law: Regardless of an existing agency rule or decision, an agency is not stopped from changing that rule or decision, nor does the agency face a higher burden to do so under the Administrative Procedure Act.(03-26-2014)
Jackson v. City & Cnty. of San FranciscoConstitutional Law: When governmental action does not create a substantial burden on Second Amendment rights, intermediate scrutiny may be applied in determining the constitutionality of regulations that limit the sale of hollow-point ammunition and requiring safe storage of firearms when not being carried on the person.(03-25-2014)
Clabourne v. RyanHabeas Corpus: When a district court has ruled on a petitioner’s default of a claim prior to the announcement of Martinez v. Ryan, and the result of that claim would otherwise be uncertain, appellate courts should otherwise remand the case for additional review. (03-05-2014)
Sheehan v. City & Cnty. of San FranciscoCivil Rights § 1983: Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, summary judgment should not be granted when a genuine issue of material fact exists in whether a state’s actors were objectively reasonable in forcing a confrontation with a known emotional and mentally ill person.(02-21-2014)
Greater L.A. Agency on Deafness v. CNNCivil Procedure: For a defendant to successfully move for dismissal under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, the targeted conduct needs to be protected by the defendant’s free speech rights, and then the plaintiff must not have established a probability of prevailing on the merits of their claim.(02-05-2014)
Dickens v. RyanHabeas Corpus: When otherwise procedurally defaulted from raising a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner may otherwise succeed if he can show cause and prejudice by establishing that the claim is substantial, in the initial PCR hearing they were either not represented or had ineffective assistance of counsel, a state PCR hearing was their initial review proceeding, and state law required them to bring the claim in their initial review.(01-24-2014)
United States v. MondragonCriminal Procedure: When a defendant either consents to or moves for a mistrial, the applicability of the Double Jeopardy Clause hinges on whether the alleged misconduct was an attempt preclude the empaneled jury from eventually reaching a verdict.(12-23-2013)
Mondragon v. Capital OneCivil Procedure: Under the Class Action Fairness Act, in order to support a finding that two-thirds of plaintiff class members are actually local state citizens there needs to be actual facts; however, an inference in determining citizenship of a prospective plaintiff class may be adequate so long as the definition of the class limits the class to the state in question.(11-27-2013)
Visendi v. Bank of AmericaCivil Procedure: A multi-plaintiff lawsuit is subject to removal to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act, and the federal court will retain jurisdiction even if the plaintiffs are misjoined. (10-23-2013)
United States v. GomezCriminal Procedure: An alien defendant's due process rights will be violated when undergoing a stipulated removal proceeding if the alien defendant’s waiver to their right of appeal is found to be invalid when that waiver is not voluntary, knowing and intelligent.(10-07-2013)
McMaster v. United StatesProperty Law: In order to withstand a motion for summary judgment when bringing a complaint under the Quiet Title Act a plaintiff needs to detail the scope of their right, title or interest the they are claiming in the real property, the circumstances of how it was obtained, and the right, title, or interest being claimed by the United States.(09-24-2013)
Gonzalez v. City of MaywoodAttorney Fees: In a civil rights case it is not unreasonable for the prevailing party to receive attorney’s fees greater than the amount awarded to the client, and when making a reduction in attorney’s fees awards, courts must use the prevailing market rate and provide a clear explanation for any reduction greater than 10% in the amount awarded compared to what was claimed.(09-09-2013)
In Re: Application for ExemptionAppellate Procedure: Appellate courts lack the jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 to review decisions dealing with the collection of user fees for the Public Access to Court Electronic Records system because the decision is an administrative action that is issued outside of the litigative function and is not of a judicial character.(08-29-2013)
Griffin v. HarringtonHabeas Corpus: A defense counsel’s failure to take an action that deprives the defendant of the sole opportunity to make inadmissible the prosecution’s only direct evidence connecting the defendant to the crime does not amount to acceptable tactical error and constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel.(08-16-2013)
Schwirse v. Director, OWCPEmployment Law: Under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, an injury that is ”occasioned solely by” intoxication means that the legal cause of the injury was the intoxication, regardless of where the intoxicated person fell.(07-26-2013)
Logan v. U.S. BankCivil Procedure: Under the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009, there is no private right of action, and the regulation of eviction proceedings “does not implicate an important state interest.”(07-16-2013)
Watkins v. Vital PharmaceuticalsCivil Procedure: An undisputed declaration showing that the total amount of sales exceeds $5 million is sufficient to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Class Action Fairness Act’s amount in controversy requirement has been met.(07-02-2013)
United States v. Gonzalez-AguilarSentencing: The defendant bears the burden of showing that there is a “reasonable probability” that an imposed sentence would have been less had the government not breached the plea agreement. (06-13-2013)
Center for Food Safety v. VilsackAdministrative Law: The United States Department of Agriculture’s deregulation of Roundup Ready Alfalfa (“RRA”) was proper because the agency was correct in determining that RRA was not a “plant pest” under the Plant Protection Act, and therefore was not required to consult the Fish and Wildlife Service regarding RRA’s effects on endangered and threatened species.(05-17-2013)
Jamerson v. RunnelsHabeas Corpus: In order to overrule the trial court's determination on the credibility of racially discriminatory preemptory challenges, there must be sufficient evidence that the trial court erred.(04-24-2013)
United States of America v. Yuman-HernandezSentencing: In the context of a “fictitious stash house robbery,” in order to establish sentencing entrapment a defendant only needs to show either a lack of intent or a lack of capability.(04-08-2013)