Willamette Law Online

(32 summaries)

Nathan Payne

9th Circuit Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Haskell v. HarrisCivil Rights § 1983: DNA collection from all adults arrested for or charged with any felony or attempted felony is not a violation of the constitution.(03-20-2014)
Martin 1999 Irrevocable Trust v. United StatesTax Law: Economic losses generated by transactions that flow through partnerships permit the IRS to apply Final Partnership Administrative Adjustments (FPAA) relating to one partnership to all partnerships whose transactions are directly related to the initial FPAA.(01-13-2014)
Hayes v. County of San DiegoCivil Rights § 1983: A plaintiff asserting a survival claim for negligent wrongful death must establish that they are the decedent’s personal representative or successor in interest, and summary judgment is improper when a reasonable juror could conclude that deadly force was not objectively reasonable.(12-02-2013)
In Re: Plant Insulation Co.Bankruptcy Law: Chapter 11 reorganization of asbestos manufactures is subject to § 524(g) and provides a broad equitable power that accounts for the interests of both present and future asbestos claimants; a trust is required to serve as a fiduciary for the future claimants and that trust must be given a majority of the voting shares of the reorganized debtor.(10-28-2013)
NW Res. Inf. Ctr. v. NW Power & Conserv. CouncilAdministrative Law: Alternative, hypothetical power production schemes raised during regional power planning administrative meetings do not change the analysis of the weight of due consideration applied to fish and wildlife interests in the development of the Northwest Power Plan. (09-18-2013)
Haro v. SebeliusAdministrative Law: The secondary payer provision of the Medicare statutory scheme, demanding up front reimbursement for Medicare payments and requires attorneys to withhold settlement payments until the provision is satisfied by the beneficiary, is reasonable as it is interpreted by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.(09-04-2013)
United States v. TorlaiSentencing: A person that uses fraud to qualify for a federal benefit is not an intended beneficiary, and the court's effort to differentiate legitimate from illegitimate claims is unnecessary because by committing fraud that person has exempted themselves from the guidelines of the federal benefit.(08-26-2013)
Lemire v. Cal. Dep't of Corr.Civil Rights § 1983: The decision to remove all guards that could respond to prevent the death of an inmate in a state prison presents a triable issue of fact of deliberate indifference that a jury must decide.(08-07-2013)
Voggenthaler v. Maryland SquareEnvironmental Law: Nevada statute does not provide exceptions or limitations to cost-of-cleanup obligations regardless of ownership status when environmental contaminants are released into the ground or, once discovered, not dealt with properly. Soil and groundwater are articles of commerce and are properly regulated by the federal government under the Commerce Clause.(07-26-2013)
Strong v. Valdez Fine FoodsEvidence: Expert testimony is unnecessary when no specialized or technical knowledge is required to understand common observations such as height or width or the absence of a required element. These observations meet the requirement of personal knowledge and are not hearsay when the witness was present during the gathering of measurements. (07-22-2013)
United States v. MoralesEvidence: United States Border Patrol Field 826 forms are public records of government agencies for the purpose of Federal Rule of Evidence 803, but since they contain statements of third parties who are not governmental employees, they may not be admitted under the public records hearsay exception.(07-02-2013)
Lopez-Valenzuela v. County of MaricopaConstitutional Law: Arizona’s Proposition 100 law serves to further the State’s legitimate and compelling interest of assuring that illegal immigrants accused of serious crimes are present to stand trial and is not a punishment that would violate the due process guarantees of the Constitution.(06-18-2013)
Din v. KerryImmigration: The Government’s denial of a visa application filed by an American citizen on behalf of her alien spouse must be “facially legitimate and bona fide” with proof that the Government official who denied the application “knows or has reason to believe” the applicant had done something to violate the applicable statute.(05-23-2013)
Mondaca-Vega v. HolderImmigration: Findings of fact related to questions of citizenship are reviewed for clear error.(04-25-2013)
Tibble v. Edison InternationalAdministrative Law: Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), the six-year statute of limitations is measured from the time the decision to include the investment plan is initially made; a safe harbor under ERISA § 404(c) applies only to a pension plan that “provides for individual accounts and permits a participant or beneficiary to exercise control over the assets in his account.”(03-21-2013)
Corns v. Laborers Int'l UnionLabor Law: Under the Labor Management Reporting Disclosure Act, an international labor organization that represents a group of local unions is not permitted to pass a dues increase by a vote of local union members because the local union individuals are not members of the international labor organization.(03-07-2013)
Dichter-Mad Family Partners v. United StatesCivil Procedure: Plaintiffs must overcome a strong presumption that the United States is immune from prosecution for the actions of its agents under the ’discretionary function’ exception to the United States’ waiver of sovereign immunity in the Federal Tort Claims Act. 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a).(02-12-2013)
United States v. JensenSentencing: The maximum sentence for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3146, failing to appear, is determined by looking to the maximum sentence imposed by the underlying offense and applying that in § 3146 framework.(01-14-2013)
Managed Pharmacy Care v. SebeliusAdministrative Law: Congress expressly granted the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to reasonably decide under federal law the reimbursement rate that states may set in managing their Medicaid programs.(12-13-2012)
Wagner v. Maricopa CountyEvidence: Expert witness testimony that is an opinion based on the propriety of a defendant’s action is a question for the jury to determine, not for the court acting as gatekeeper.(11-16-2012)
Ruiz-Diaz v. U.S.Immigration: The restriction on non-citizens filing an adjustment of status application concurrently with an employer’s petition for a religious worker visa does not violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), nor is it unconstitutional under Equal Protection or Due Process.(10-05-2012)
Rogovich v. RyanHabeas Corpus: “No clearly established federal law requir[es] the defendant to consent on the record to an insanity defense.”(09-18-2012)
Ayala v. WongHabeas Corpus: During preemptory jury challenges, the defense counsel may not be excluded from [italics]Batson[/italics] steps two and three, except when confidential or strategic reasons justify the challenge.(08-29-2012)
Sollberger v. CIRTax Law: The determination of “whether a sale occurs for tax purposes is based on a flexible case-by-case analysis of whether the burdens and benefits of ownership have been transferred.”(08-16-2012)
Hill v. AstrueDisability Law: At the fifth step of the five-step sequential analysis required under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i)-(v), “[i]f a vocational expert’s hypothetical does not reflect all the claimant’s limitations, then the expert’s testimony has no evidentiary value to support a finding that the claimant can perform jobs in the national economy.”(08-07-2012)
Hester v. Vision Airlines, Inc.Civil Procedure: In determining whether a district court erred in ordering a default judgment, the reviewing court will consider whether the district court: (1) “explicitly discussed the alternative of lesser sanctions and explained why it would be inappropriate;” (2) “implemented lesser sanctions before ordering the case dismissed;” and (3) “warned the offending party of the possibility of dismissal.”(07-18-2012)
United States v. WingParole and Post-Prison Supervision: “[A] district court lacks jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) to revoke a term of supervised release based on newly discovered violations of a previously revoked term of supervised release.”(06-21-2012)
United States v. Marquez-LobosSentencing: The generic definition of kidnapping implies a nefarious purpose that constitutes a “crime of violence.”(06-19-2012)
United States v. Leal-VegaSentencing: Sentencing enhancements for illegal reentry by deported aliens can only be applied where the prior convictions are a specific violation written in the language of a state or federal statute.(05-30-2012)
Lopez v. BrewerConstitutional Law: Under Arizona’s lethal injection protocol, difficulties in inserting the peripheral line in a prisoner’s hand, the femoral central line, and repeated abortive IV line placement efforts do not constitute an “objectively intolerable risk of pain,” and therefore do not violate the Eighth Amendment.(05-15-2012)
Robles-Urrea v. HolderImmigration: Misprision of a felony is not categorically a crime involving moral turpitude which would qualify a resident alien for removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I).(04-23-2012)
United States v. NguyenCriminal Procedure: A search warrant is validly issued if there is a “‘fair probability’ that a crime has been committed.”(03-23-2012)