Willamette Law Online

(25 summaries)

Joe Scovel

9th Circuit Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
United States v. Albino-LoeCriminal Law: Notices to Appear when introduced in a removal hearing, are not testimonial and do not run afoul of constitutional concerns; and, a court is prohibited from ruling on sentence enhancements in removal cases where the state of the originating offense did not permit certain affirmative defenses.(04-07-2014)
Oliner v. KontrabeckiBankruptcy Law: In order to seal all records of a civil proceeding, the party must show that there is an overriding compelling government interest in sealing the record. (03-20-2014)
Perez-Palafox v. HolderImmigration: When determining whether a crime is a “serious crime” for removability, the Board of Immigration Appeals can rely on the Matter of Frentescu test to determine seriousness without going beyond the record.(03-11-2014)
Mills v. United StatesStanding: The Quiet Title Act permits a plaintiff to waive the federal government's right of sovereign immunity when there is a “dispute” over real property interest claimed by the federal government. (01-29-2014)
Li v. HolderImmigration: When hearing a pre-REAL ID Act immigration removal proceeding, an Immigration Judge may interpret inconsistent testimony regarding one claim as adverse credibility toward other claims. (12-31-2013)
United States v. KahreCriminal Law: When calculating the tax responsibility for compensation in gold coins or certificates, the employer must use the fair-market value, not the face-value, of the coins.(12-05-2013)
United States v. ChristensenSentencing: When calculating a sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2), a judge is free to give more or less weight to different factors and can provide an upward variance beyond what a probation officer has already suggested; such an upward variance beyond the sentencing range is not considered impermissible double counting if the variance is reasonable based on the facts.(10-11-2013)
Indep. Training v. Cal. Dep't Indus. RelationsLabor Law: "Federal Purposes" under the National Apprenticeship Act mean those projects that require conformity with federal apprenticeship standards for as a conditional of financial assistance eligibility. (09-18-2013)
USW Local 12-369 V. USW Int'lLabor Law: Union officers may be disciplined under § 609 of the Labor-Management Recording and Disclosure Act for actions taken in their official capacity. (09-06-2013)
Hazle v. CrofootCivil Rights § 1983: Under a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim, when an injury has been indisputably proven, the plaintiff is entitled to a damage award by law, and/or a new trial if zero damages are awarded by the jury. (08-23-2013)
Corvello v. Wells Fargo BankContract Law: Under the Home Affordable Modification Program("HAMP"), when a mortgage servicer offers a Trial Pay Period ("TPP") to determine candidacy for a modified mortgage, they must notify the homeowner if they do not qualify, of if the homeowner complies with the TPP, the mortgage servicer must offer a modified mortgage. (08-08-2013)
Ketchikan Drywall Servs. v. ICEImmigration: Employers must fully complete I-9 forms for their employees and merely copying work authorization documents without transcription to the I-9 is a violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act. (08-06-2013)
Murdaugh v. RyanHabeas Corpus: Under the Sixth Amendment, a jury must weigh aggravating versus mitigating factors in applying an aggravating sentencing bonus.(07-26-2013)
United States v. SmithSentencing: When applying enhancements to a sentence, it is permissible to double count for the same occurrence of conduct if the enhancements are to address separate concerns.(06-26-2013)
United States v. GillenwaterCriminal Procedure: At a pretrial competency hearing, a defendant’s right to testify “is of a constitutional magnitude,” and only the defendant can waive this constitutional right to testify on his own behalf.(06-17-2013)
In the Matter of: Fitness Holdings Int'lBankruptcy Law: Bankruptcy courts may recharacterize loans as an equity investment for the purpose of § 548 and must apply state bankruptcy law to determine if a creditor has a "right to payment."(04-30-2013)
Ecological Rights Foundation v. PG&EEnvironmental Law: Under the Clean Water Act, a complaint must allege that the source of pollution stems from a point source or industrial activity, and under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, a complaint must allege that the pollutant is statutorily defined hazardous or solid waste.(04-03-2013)
United Transp. Union v. BNSF Railway CompanyLabor Law: An order, and not just an award, stemming from a Railway Labor Act arbitration panel is reviewable by a District Court and an allegation of corruption within an arbitration panel is a proper complaint pursuant to the National Railroad Adjustment Board 45 U.S.C. § 153.(03-13-2013)
Kuxhausen v. BMW Financial ServicesCivil Procedure: Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446, the time limits for removal are not triggered where (1) the removability of the initial complaint cannot be determined without valuation information from the defendant and (2) no subsequent document filed with the court provides a basis for removal.(02-25-2013)
Kuxhausen v. BMW Financial ServicesCivil Procedure: Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446, the time limits for removal are not triggered where (1) the removability of the initial complaint cannot be determined without valuation information from the defendant and (2) no subsequent document filed with the court provides a basis for removal.(02-25-2013)
Faulkner v. ADT Security Services, Inc.Civil Procedure: Stipulation of a Tribal Enrollment Certificate was insufficient evidence to establish the defendant’s Indian status for purposes of the defendant’s conviction under the Major Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1153, which grants federal jurisdiction over enumerated crimes committed by Indians in Indian country. (01-17-2013)
United States v. LeeCriminal Law: When a defendant pleads guilty to violating a broad statute with 2 or more offenses, the court must be specific, for the purposes of determining career offender status or other enhanced sentencing designations, which offense was committed.(12-28-2012)
Sims v. StantonCivil Rights § 1983: To have a qualified immunity in depriving someone of their 4th amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure within the curtilage of their home, the officer must either be chasing someone who is suspected of a felony violation or is presently a violent threat to the community or the officer.(12-03-2012)
United States v. Wolf ChildSentencing: When a sentencing condition implicates a recognized fundamental liberty interest the court must apply enhanced procedures involving an individualized assessment to ensure that the condition applied is reasonable in its deterrent value and is not overly broad. Furthermore, this enhanced procedure must be made part of the record.(10-23-2012)
McCall v. Facebook, Inc.Civil Procedure: Under FRCP 23(e), a [italics]cy pres[/italics] class action settlement is fair where individual recovery would be [italics]de minimus[/italics] , and the funds go to create an advocacy group whose articles of incorporation demonstrate an adequate nexus to the plaintiffs’ interests, even if an employee of the defendant is a member of the advocacy group’s board of directors.(09-20-2012)