Willamette Law Online

(26 summaries)

Danielle Ross

9th Circuit Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Amado v. Gonzalez Habeas Corpus: Under Brady v. Maryland, prosecutors must disclose favorable and material evidence to the defense; and, in making a Brady claim, the defense must show that the evidence is both newly-discovered and that the exercise of due diligence would not have uncovered the evidence.(07-11-2014)
Tourgeman v. Collins Financial Servs.Bankruptcy Law: A debt collector cannot present misleading information that is material in the collection of their debt; and, under section 1692e of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, a debt collector is liable if the least sophisticated debtor would be misled by a communication.(06-25-2014)
Cohen v. City of Culver CityDisability Law: When a facility is already in compliance with the ADA but disabled access has been eliminated, 28 C.F.R. § 35.151 applies rather than 28 C.F.R. § 35.150 for purposes of determining whether a person has been denied the benefits of a public entity’s services.(06-06-2014)
United States v. EzetaCriminal Law: An indictment for fraud under 20 U.S.C. § 1097(a) does not require the government to prove that the defendant personally received or exercised control over funds. (05-23-2014)
United States v. Cabrera-PerezCriminal Law: An alien is only eligible for voluntary departure if he has not committed a crime of violence. (05-09-2014)
Progressive Gulf Ins. Co. v. FaehnrichInsurance Law: A choice-of-law provision in automobile insurance contracts does not violate Nevada public policy. (05-07-2014)
Frost v. Van BoeningHabeas Corpus: A trial court infringes on a defendant's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights when it precludes defense counsel from making a legitimate defense theory to the jury. (04-29-2014)
United States v. SheldonCriminal Law:  Under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) the Government does not need to prove a defendant’s knowledge concerning the interstate commerce travel of materials used in the production of child pornography.(04-09-2014)
Peabody Coal v. OWCPAdministrative Law: The Administrative Procedure Act is not violated when an ALJ relies on the regulatory preamble to the Black Lung Benefits Act when using it to understand medical issues and his award determination is based on supporting substantial evidence.(04-01-2014)
United States v. MorrisCriminal Law: In calculating loss associated with mortgage fraud cases, courts should use the following two steps set forth under U.S.S.G. §2B1.1(b): (1) calculate the greater of actual or intended loss by using a reasonable foreseeability analysis and (2) deducting from the actual or intended loss the value of any collateral recovered or recoverable by the creditor.(03-13-2014)
Montoya v. HolderImmigration: An immigrant has no vested right in a retroactivity claim if their actions have not substantially furthered their expectation of relief.(03-07-2014)
Rea v. Michaels StoresAppellate Procedure: The reviewing court should apply the clearly erroneous standard of review when reviewing the district court’s determination of whether removal jurisdiction exists.(02-18-2014)
Carter v. Caleb Brett LLCAttorney Fees: When a district court significantly reduces a fee award, it must explain with specificity its reasons for the reduction. (02-03-2014)
United States v. DavisSentencing: Section 1B1.10(b) of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual does not violate the separation of powers doctrine or exceed the Commission's authority.(01-14-2014)
Kalitta Air v. Cent. Texas Airborne Sys.Remedies: 28 U.S.C. § 1920 does not allow the district court to award costs for pro hac vice fees as taxable costs, nor does it authorize costs of deposition editing and synchronizing, but the district court is allowed to award costs for graphics consultants.(12-19-2013)
Smith v. Oregon Board of ParoleHabeas Corpus: A federal habeas claim is not procedurally defaulted even when an objection is not raised during trial, if the claim is rejected without any discussion or citation. (11-26-2013)
James v. RyanHabeas Corpus: Although Johnson v. Williams grants state courts “the benefit of the doubt” when there is unclear reasoning for its holding, federal courts are not required to disregard a state court’s clear explanation of its own decision to deny the claim based solely on state procedural grounds. (10-25-2013)
United States v. NickersonCriminal Law: In order to warrant the dismissal of Class B misdemeanor charges based on outrageous government conduct, there must be a nexus between the conduct and the criminal proceeding at issue; the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(d)(2) and 3162, does not apply to Class B misdemeanors.(10-01-2013)
Schurz v. RyanHabeas Corpus: In the absence of “new” mitigating evidence showing it was likely a jury would have reached a different verdict, a petitioner cannot show any prejudice from alleged ineffective assistance. (09-12-2013)
Zhao v. HolderImmigration: The Board of Immigration Appeals abuses its discretion in deciding whether to grant or deny a motion to reopen an application for asylum when it applies an incorrect legal standard and does not adequately consider the substantial evidence submitted. (09-06-2013)
United States v. KingCriminal Law: A felon's Fourth Amendment right is not violated by a suspicionless search when the felon has already agreed to a suspicionless search condition as part of their probation agreement. (08-27-2013)
United States v. Flores-CorderoSentencing: In Arizona, a conviction for resisting arrest does not authorize a sixteen-level sentencing increase because it is not categorically a crime of violence, and it is only appropriate to apply a modified categorical approach when a prior conviction is divisible.(07-25-2013)
United States v. Huizar-VelazquezSentencing: A court should apply Sentencing Guideline § 2T3.1 regulating smuggling rather than Sentencing Guideline § 2C1.1 regulating bribery when a defendant is guilty of conspiring to evade import duties.(07-02-2013)
Macias-Carreon v. HolderImmigration: Possession of marijuana in violation of Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11359 is categorically a crime "relating to a controlled substance" for immigration purposes.(05-30-2013)
United States v. SivillaCriminal Law: Government destruction of evidence requires bad faith for dismissal as a constitutional violation, but bad faith is not required for a remedial jury instruction.(05-07-2013)
Romero-Ochoa v. HolderImmigration: The presumption of a lack of “good moral character” for an alien who has been incarcerated for more than six months is a reasonable restriction which Congress may impose and does not violate Equal Protection principles.(04-10-2013)