Willamette Law Online

(41 summaries)

Sydney Safley

9th Circuit Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
United States v. MooreCriminal Procedure: The narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment under the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Georgia v. Randolph will only apply if the co-occupant is physically present and expressly refuses to consent to the search. (10-23-2014)
Clark v. ArnoldHabeas Corpus: According the U.S. Supreme Court case Strickland v. Washington, in order to prevail under a claim of ineffective assistance, one must demonstrate that (1) counsel was ineffective by an objective reasonableness standard and (2) the defendant was prejudice by such ineffective assistance in that trial would have had a substantially different outcome.(10-08-2014)
United States v. Aguilera-RiosImmigration: If one is deported due a firearms offense under a state statute, the deportation is improper if the state law is not a categorical match to the federal firearms offense in 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(C) and the federal definition for “firearm” in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3). (09-24-2014)
Retail Prop. Trust v. UBCJALabor Law: Section 303 of the Labor Relations Management Act does not completely preempt state claims because it is not written in a way and is not intended to so thoroughly occupy the field of federal labor law that it replaces state law claims.(09-23-2014)
Andersen v. DHL Retirement Pension PlanCivil Law: According to the definitions provided in ERISA, one’s “accrued benefit” is reduced only if the annual benefit of a defined benefit plan is reduced or the balance of the individual’s contribution plan account is reduced. (09-15-2014)
United States v. Tomsha-MiguelCriminal Law: 18 U.S.C. § 912, which prohibits the impersonation of a United States officer or employee, is a permissive restriction on speech because it protects the integrity and repute of the government and it is not unconstitutionally overbroad because it incorporates the element of intent to deceive. (09-04-2014)
Lacano Investments v. BalashSovereign Immunity: A federal court does not have jurisdiction over an action where the plaintiff seeks relief that is functionally equivalent to quiet title over submerged lands because such is barred by the Eleventh Amendment and specifically does not invoke the Ex parte Young exception.(08-28-2014)
Hernandez v. SpearmanHabeas Corpus: If a pro se prisoner has a third party deliver his or her habeas petition to prison authorities, the prison mailbox rule will still apply, so the filing date of the petition will be the date of delivery to the prison authority.(08-22-2014)
Rendon v. HolderImmigration: A state conviction will qualify as an aggravated felony, and render one ineligible for cancellation of removal, if it matches the comparable, generic federal statute under the “categorical approach,” or is divisible, under the “modified categorical approach,” in such a way that reveals alternative elements matching the comparable, generic federal statute.(08-22-2014)
FTC v. KimotoConsumer Credit: An individual will be held liable under the Federal Trade Practices Act if he or she is found to have actual knowledge of material misrepresentations,was recklessly indifferent to the truth or falsity of a misrepresentation, or had an awareness of a high probability of fraud; further one can be held individually liable under the Electronic Funds Transfer Act for violations committed by corporations if he or she has personal involvement in such violations.(08-15-2014)
K.C. v. TorlaksonCivil Procedure: A federal court will have the discretion to exercise ancillary jurisdiction over a motion to enforce attorney’s fees in a matter that is related to, but may be separate from, a federal lawsuit, even if such lawsuit has concluded.(08-11-2014)
IFC v. Roman Catholic ChurchInsurance Law: If an insurance provision includes the phrase “any insured,” the plain language of the phrase clearly intends to include innocent co-insureds. (07-30-2014)
United States v. Valdez-NovoaImmigration: If an alien challenges his deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d)(3), he must demonstrate: (1) the defects in the proceeding were a violation of his due process rights; and, (2) he suffered prejudice, in that the Immigration Judge failed to advise him of his eligibility to voluntarily depart and the Immigration Judge would have granted such voluntary departure.(07-28-2014)
United States v. HsiungCriminal Law: The Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1—7, does not apply to import trade, unless it proximately causes a direct effect on domestic commerce in the United States.(07-10-2014)
United States v. JacksonCriminal Law: In order to meet 18 U.S.C. § 701’s element of “prescription by the head of a United States department or agency,” evidence of who prescribed the design of the badge, card or other insignia must be presented.(06-18-2014)
In re: MERSProperty Law: One must be in possession of both the promissory note and deed of trust of a mortgage in order to foreclose on a property, but if these documents are separated, the assignment of a beneficial interest in the deed of trust to the note holder will “reunify” the documents.(06-12-2014)
Rosales-Martinez v. PalmerCivil Rights § 1983: If a prisoner’s claim for relief is based on an unlawful sentence, then the statute of limitations does not begin to run until the conviction or sentence is invalidated.(06-03-2014)
Zhi v. HolderImmigration: A judge’s adverse credibility determination must be grounded in substantial evidence in light of the totality of the circumstances, and a judge must provide notice or an opportunity for explanation to asylum applicants of the corroborative evidence needed to meet his or her burden of proof.(05-16-2014)
United States v. BrooksCriminal Law: In order to allow one to regain competency to stand trial, the government may order the administration of antipsychotic drugs against the defendant’s will, but only if there is no other way to administer the drugs and the four Sell factors are met. (05-07-2014)
Hedlund v. RyanHabeas Corpus: If an application for writ of habeas corpus is based on a claim or claims that were adjudicated on the merits in state court proceedings it will not be granted, unless the state court decision was contrary to or involved unreasonable application of Federal law or the decision was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. (04-24-2014)
United States v. CharlesCriminal Law: The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010’s provisions only apply to offenders who are sentenced after August 3, 2010 and Amendment 750 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines does not apply to those sentenced under the career offender guideline.(04-15-2014)
Gonzalez v. City of AnaheimCriminal Procedure: Summary judgment for an excessive use of deadly force claim should not be granted if, based on the totality of the circumstances, a jury could reasonably rule for either party.(03-31-2014)
United States v. Hernandez-AriasImmigration: If one’s temporary resident status is terminated, it acts as a revocation of any prior admission and he or she will return to the status of an inadmissible alien who is subject to removal.(03-21-2014)
Go v. HolderImmigration: The time, number, and other procedural requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c) apply to claims under the Convention Against Torture.(03-07-2014)
Stout v. FreeScoreConsumer Credit: If one offers a service that is represented, through advertisements or otherwise, as having the purpose to provide advice or assistance with regard to improving a consumer’s credit history, score, or record, then it will be deemed a “credit repair organization” under the Credit Repair Organizations Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1679 et seq. (02-21-2014)
United States v. VallejosCriminal Law: If one knowingly uses a file-sharing network to download child pornography, then he is engaging in the distribution of such materials, whether or not he knows he is allowing others to access those files.(02-10-2014)
Griffin v. GomezHabeas Corpus: A court will be found to abuse its discretion when issuing orders if it does not take subsequent, related developments into account or fails to apply appropriate authority.(01-28-2014)
Smith v. JEM Group, Inc.Arbitration: A court, rather than an arbitrator, has the authority to decide the validity of an arbitration clause in an attorney retainer agreement.(12-12-2013)
United States v. KingCriminal Law: For charges under 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(1)(A), unlawfully dealing in firearms, a jury instruction requiring the government to prove that a defendant was not acting as an authorized agent of a federal firearms licensee would be incorrect because it does not comport with the plain language of the statute and would undermine the purpose behind the statute.(11-15-2013)
United States v. StargellCriminal Law: A financial institution can be "affected" under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 if the institution encounters a new or an increased risk of loss.(10-17-2013)
Tobar v. United StatesSovereign Immunity: Reciprocity with another nation exists when, under similar circumstances, United States nationals are able to sue the other nation in that nation’s courts, and the discretionary function exception in the Federal Tort Claims Act applies to the Public Vessels Act.(09-25-2013)
McKinney v. RyanHabeas Corpus: There is no constitutional right to a “standard courtroom layout,” and sentencers are required only to fully consider mitigating evidence; they are not required to give it weight.(09-16-2013)
In Re: Wilshire CourtyardBankruptcy Law: Under the “close nexus” test, a closed bankruptcy proceeding adequately supports subject matter jurisdiction if the matter affects the “’interpretation, implementation, consummation, execution, or administration of the confirmed plan.’”(09-10-2013)
Mont. Shooting Sports Ass'n v. HolderCivil Procedure: A state firearm law which allows citizens to manufacture firearms, so long as they remain within the boundaries of the state, is subject to regulation under the Commerce Clause by the federal government because Congress may rationally conclude that the law would affect interstate commerce.(08-23-2013)
Villa-Anguiano v. HolderImmigration: The reinstatement of a prior removal order that has been invalidated on constitutional grounds cannot serve as the only reasoning for removing an alien.(08-14-2013)
United States v. FloresCriminal Law: Courts shall “exercise caution” when estimating the amount of drugs distributed by a defendant, and when imposing a sentencing enhancement, courts must support conclusions with evidence and have the ability to adequately explain its decision.(08-02-2013)
Gorlick Distrib. Ctrs. v. Car Sound Exhaust Sys.Corporations: In order to be found in violation of the Robinson-Patman Act, the buyer must have knowledge of the discriminatory prices; if a competitor has no reason to know its lower prices were anything other than a well-deserved reward a claim cannot stand.(07-19-2013)
United States v. White EagleCriminal Law: A "misapplication theory" by the government, predicated at best on an employer directive and a civil regulation, cannot support a conviction for conspiracy; and a defendant must have controlled or had custody of the funds that she later borrowed in order to meet the standard for embezzlement and conversion.(07-05-2013)
Gantt v. City of Los AngelesCivil Rights § 1983: Jury instructions on the level of culpability for deliberate fabrication of evidence which are confusing and misleading may cause reversible error because a reasonable juror conclude that the techniques employed on a witness were so coercive and abusive that they would likely lead to false information.(05-31-2013)
Schwab v. CIRTax Law: The term "amount actually distributed" in a life insurance policy, for purposes of calculating what is taxable, means the fair market value of the what was distributed under the policy, and "surrender charges associated with a variable universal life insurance policy may be considered as part of the general inquiry into a policy's fair market value."(04-24-2013)
North East Med. Svcs. v. Cal. DHCSConstitutional Law: The Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution bars claims for retroactive monetary relief, but prospective relief may be granted if "the complaint alleges an ongoing violation of federal law and seeks relief properly characterized as prospective."(04-04-2013)