Willamette Law Online

(16 summaries)

Nate Parker

9th Circuit Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Amponsah v. HolderAdministrative Law: Nunc pro tunc adoption decrees must be considered on a case-by-case basis in determining whether an adopted child qualifies as a "child" under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(b)(1), and the Board of Immigration Appeals’ blanket rule against recognizing states’ nunc pro tunc adoption decrees was an “unreasonable and impermissible construction” of the statute.(03-22-2013)
Bell v. City of BoiseCivil Rights § 1983: Under the [italics]Rooker-Feldman[/italics] doctrine, a party cannot seek review of an adverse state court judgment in federal court if the action “contains a forbidden de facto appeal of a state court decision and it alleges a legal error by the state court.”(03-07-2013)
United States v. DavisRemedies: Forfeiture and restitution ordered payable to the government is not double recovery, even if awarded to the same government entity.(02-01-2013)
Peralta v. DillardCivil Rights § 1983: The court may instruct the jury to consider the “duties, discretion and means available” to prison employees in determining whether the employee acted with deliberate indifference to a prisoner's medical needs.(01-07-2013)
Coles v. EagleCriminal Procedure: Claims of excessive force are reviewed using the reasonableness standard under the Fourth Amendment. In determining whether the force was reasonable, the court balances the "nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against the countervailing governmental interests at stake."(12-05-2012)
United States v. Oseguera-MadrigalImmigration: An immigration judge violates an alien’s due process rights when he fails to advise the alien of apparent eligibility for relief through a waiver of inadmissibility when the failure to advised is accompanied with prejudice; however, there is no prejudice where the alien is not eligible for the waiver.(11-19-2012)
United States v. PeppersCriminal Law: If jury instructions fairly and adequately covers the issues presented, the district court is given substantial latitude in tailoring jury instructions.(10-17-2012)
United States v. Leal-Del CarmenCriminal Procedure: The government may not unilaterally deport an illegal alien who it knows can provide exculpatory evidence for a defendant before counsel has been appointed for that defendant.(09-14-2012)
United States v. GuerreroAppellate Procedure: The Court of Appeals does not have jurisdiction to review non-final judgments, unless the Collateral Order Doctrine or a Writ of Mandamus applies.(08-31-2012)
United States v. DreyerCriminal Procedure: A district judge has a statutory duty to order a competency hearing sua sponte if evidence of incompetency causes a reasonable judge to experience a genuine doubt regarding the defendant’s competence.(08-21-2012)
Alderson v. United StatesTax Law: In a [italics]qui tam[/italics] action, a relator’s share is considered ordinary income for income tax purposes.(07-18-2012)
United States v. YepizCriminal Procedure: Acceptance of a jury panel as constituted cannot be used as a waiver of either party’s allotted peremptory challenges under Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Denial of a peremptory challenge does not affect the party’s substantial rights, if the challenged juror is not shown to be biased.(07-02-2012)
Samson v. City of Bainbridge IslandConstitutional Law: A City Council’s rolling moratorium on shoreline development, enacted without a public hearing, does not violate a citizen’s substantive due process rights when the city has legitimate interest in protecting wildlife and preserving the shoreline, and when the actions do not amount of egregious conduct. The moratorium does not violate procedural due process if done as a lawful legislative act.(06-15-2012)
Pom Wonderful v. Coca-Cola Co.Administrative Law: Juice producers/bottlers may not state a false-advertising claim under the Lanham Act because the FDA and FDCA regulate how manufacturers may name and label its juices.(05-17-2012)
United States v. KellyCriminal Law: Peace and disarmament activists cannot trespass and destroy government property and claim protection from an international treaty, because when an international treaty conflicts with another federal law, the more recent of the two controls. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1363, “malicious” is defined under common law as having (1) intent to commit the prohibited act, and (2) no justification or excuse.(04-13-2012)
Cruz v. International Collection Corp.Civil Law: A debt collection agency violates the FDCPA when it (1) uses false, deceptive, or misleading representation when attempting to collect a debt, or (2) contacts a debtor who has notified the creditor, in writing, of refusal to pay the debt. An individual may personally violate the FDCPA if he qualifies as a debt collector and took action that violated the FDCPA.(03-08-2012)