Willamette Law Online

(37 summaries)

Shelby Phillips

9th Circuit Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Ceron v. Holder Immigration: A lawful permanent resident of the United States may be removed for a crime of moral turpitude for which a sentence of one year or longer may be imposed, even if the individual in question receives a sentence of less than one year. (03-31-2014)
Rosebrock v. Mathis, et al. Constitutional Law: If an organization does not have an organization-wide policy to apply a policy inconsistently, and the associate director clearly communicates the organization's consistent stance on the policy, the organization is not applying the rule inconsistently. (03-14-2014)
United States v. YazzieCriminal Procedure: A defendant's Sixth Amendment rights are not violated when child victims of sexual abuse are permitted to testify in a closed court and without the jury if the court has first determined that it would be detrimental to the victims to testify before an open court.(02-27-2014)
United States v. Shill Criminal Law: 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), using the internet to entice a minor, is not unconstitutionally vague, nor does a ten-year minimum sentence imposed on violators infringe upon the violator's Eighth Amendment rights. (01-24-2014)
Kennedy v. ColvinAdministrative Law: When applying for supplemental security income (SSI), a claimant must meet each of the qualifications listed in Listing 12.05C of the Social Security Act. A claimant many not claim that is over-qualification in some areas makes up for under-qualification in others. (12-31-2013)
Sachs v. Republic of AustriaSovereign Immunity: The commercial activities exception of the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act does not apply when a foreign transportation agency sells a train pass to a United States resident because the transportation carrier has created a "substantial contact" within the United States.(12-06-2013)
NRDC v. EPAAdministrative Law: The Environmental Protection Agency is not obligated by statute to conduct an aggregate risk assessment before granting conditional registration for a pesticide that is not for food use, but if it does conduct an assessment and the margin of exposure exceeds the targeted exposure, that pesticide poses a credible threat to consumers.(11-07-2013)
Abdullah v. U.S. Security Associates, Inc. Civil Procedure: A district court properly certifies a sub-class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 if the sub-class has a "question of law or fact common to the class" and that question "predominate[s] over any questions affecting only individual members."(09-27-2013)
Petitt v. Sause BrothersWorkers Compensation: Under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, scheduled wage increases which are not dependent upon a worker's performance are general wage increases for the purposes of determining the wage-earning capacity of an individual.(09-20-2013)
Bolanos v. HolderImmigration: California Penal Code § 417.3, brandishing a firearm in the presence of an occupant of a motor vehicle, is an aggravated felony because of the threat of use of force; as such a permanent resident convicted under § 417.3 may be removed.(08-21-2013)
In re: NCAA Licensing Litig.First Amendment: Under the California Supreme Court’s “transformative use” test, a video game creator does not have a First Amendment right to use a college football player's realistic likeness in a video game when it recreates the player in the very setting where he achieved his celebrity status.(07-31-2013)
Fox Broadcasting Co. v. Dish NetworkCopyright: Because the consumer, not Dish Network as the programmer, is the most significant cause of copying and storing live television, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying a motion for preliminary injunction.(07-24-2013)
Anwar v. JohnsonBankruptcy Law: Under Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 4007(c), the bankruptcy court does not have the equitable power necessary to retroactively grant a party relief from deadlines, and a party may obtain an extension only if the party files a motion for extension prior to the deadline.(07-02-2013)
Doug C. v. Hawaii Dep’t of Educ.Disability Law: A school violates the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act’s explicit parental participation requirements when it holds an individualized education program meeting without the participation of the disabled child’s parent.(06-13-2013)
Ciolino v. FrankAttorney Fees: When calculating attorneys' fees in class-action lawsuits, fees must be based on the redeemable value of any coupons awarded to class members, and the lodestar method of attorneys' fees calculation may be used for the portion of a settlement agreement that awards equitable relief.(05-15-2013)
MHC Financing LP_v_City of San RafaelProperty Law: Diminution in value is not sufficient to establish a private or public taking, and when an ordinance is in effect prior to acquisition of property, the proper analysis of the economic impact under Penn Central is a comparison of the economic impact at the time when the property was acquired and the economic effect after the property was acquired. (04-17-2013)
United States v. RuizCriminal Law: A unanimity instruction is not required when a conviction is based on a single, continuous act, and a prosecutor’s improper vouching during closing arguments may be harmless error when the evidence of guilt is substantial.(03-26-2013)
Alaska Rent-a-Car v. Avis Budget GroupContract Law: A promisee who joins a settlement agreement after most other promissees is still a proper party to a breach of that agreement.(03-06-2013)
AT&T Mobility LLC v. AU Optronics Corp.Constitutional Law: “To the extent a defendant’s conspiratorial conduct is sufficiently connected to California, and is not ‘slight and casual,’ the application of California [antitrust] law to that conduct is ‘neither arbitrary nor fundamentally unfair,’ and the application of California law does not violate that defendant’s rights under the Due Process Clause.”(02-14-2013)
Barragan-Lopez v. HolderImmigration: Using a hostage to shield oneself from arrest is considered a violent crime, and thus is a deportable offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii).(01-29-2013)
Sanchez v. HolderImmigration: Since the Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply to immigration hearings, the proper standard for admitting evidence is "whether the evidence is probative and its admission is fundamentally fair." Where an appellant claims a translation of her statements is inaccurate, but does not offer a corrected translation of the statements, the statements are admissible.(12-26-2012)
United States v. Arias-EspinosaCriminal Procedure: A court's ambiguous statement that a defendant "may have a right to appeal" does not invalidate the defendant's prior written waiver of appeal.(11-30-2012)
United States v. Aguilar-VeraCriminal Procedure: The sentencing process violates Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(2) if the presiding judicial officer does not address the defendant individually to determine whether the plea is being entered voluntarily. However, if that violation does not substantially affect the defendant's rights, the error is harmless.(10-29-2012)
United States v. James JacksonSentencing: A district court does not plainly err in applying the plain language of U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3(b)(3)(B), which provides for a use-of-computer enhancement, because a district court could reasonably find that the plain language of the Guideline is inconsistent with the Application Note that follows it.(10-11-2012)
Keller Foundation v. TracyWorkers Compensation: The Court held that when a worker is injured overseas, he is not eligible for workers' compensation under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, because work overseas does not satisfy the status and situs tests, which include that the injury must take place in the navigable waters of the United States.(09-20-2012)
Hibbler v. BenedettiHabeas Corpus: When reviewing a decision denying an evidentiary hearing, the Court must determine whether the decision was supported by the record. Furthermore, counsel will not be deemed ineffective if the Court determines that counsel acted objectively reasonable given the circumstances. Both conditions are satisfied, as to the competence of a defendant, when a psychiatric evaluator has found the defendant competent to stand trial.(09-10-2012)
Wood v. BeauclairConstitutional Law: In a prisoner's claim against a prison for violation of constitutional rights flowing from sexual harassment by a prison official, the inmate is entitled to the presumption that the conduct was not consensual.(09-04-2012)
Aguilar-Turcios v. HolderImmigration: A conviction under Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice is “not an aggravated felony under the modified categorical approach” for purposes of determining whether a legal permanent resident is removable.(08-15-2012)
Matthews v. NFL Management CouncilWorkers Compensation: A claimant fails to establish that an arbitration award violates the public policy of one state where the claimant fails to allege that he suffered a specific injury in that state.(08-06-2012)
Pacific Ship Repair v. OWCPWorkers Compensation: “[A]n employee who has a permanent partial disability may be reclassified as temporarily totally disabled during a recovery period following surgery.”(07-24-2012)
In the Matter of EberBankruptcy Law: A district court does not abuse its discretion when it affirms a bankruptcy court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration where the bankruptcy court implicitly concludes that “allowing an arbitrator to decide issues that are so closely intertwined with dischargeability would ‘conflict with the underlying purposes of the Bankruptcy Code.’”(07-09-2012)
Building Industry v. Washington StatePreemption: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 does not preempt the Washington Building Code, because the Code “satisfies the conditions Congress established for enforcement of state and local building codes consistent with federal energy law.”(06-25-2012)
Riggs v. Prober & RaphaelCivil Law: A validation notice expressly requiring a consumer to dispute her debt in writing violates § 1692g(a)(3) of the FDCPA.(06-08-2012)
Jimenez v. FranklinCivil Procedure: Where a defendant is held jointly and severally liable for the whole amount of a judgment, the defendant may not be granted satisfaction of judgment for a payment made in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(2), a statute limiting liability of prisoners, when the defendant failed to raise the issue on appeal.(05-22-2012)
Nedds v. CalderonHabeas Corpus: Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), a petitioner is entitled to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations for a habeas corpus claim when the petitioner relies on circuit court precedent, even if that precedent is later overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.(05-04-2012)
United States v. GoodbearSentencing: For purposes of applying a two-level enhancement under USSG § 3B1.4, the use of a minor by another person can be attributed to a defendant who knew or should have known that the person would use the minor to lie to authorities.(04-13-2012)
United States v. MajorSentencing: Under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), “when [a] district court does not have sufficient information to determine the order in which the jury made determinations of guilt during jury deliberations on multiple counts, it must order the convictions so that the mandatory minimum sentence is minimized.”(03-27-2012)