Willamette Law Online

(19 summaries)

Andrea Tang

9th Circuit Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Rouse v. Wachovia MortgageCivil Procedure: For diversity jurisdiction purposes, national bank is a citizen only of the state where its main office is located.(03-27-2014)
Tattersalls v. DeHavenCivil Procedure: The district court's use of Rule 60(a) to correct a judgment and award monetary damages, is proper when the district court's original intent is to award monetary damages.(03-21-2014)
Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. FDICCivil Procedure: Claims against a receiver are prudentially moot if there are insufficient assets to satisfy general unsecured liabilities; and, creditor's claims arising from post-receivership breach of pre-receivership agreements are subject to 12 USC § 1821(d)(11) priority distribution.(03-11-2014)
United States v. HammondSentencing: Where Congress has, within its authority, determined an appropriate sentence for a crime, the district court has no discretion to disregard the minimum sentence mandated by the statute.(02-07-2014)
Drakes Bay Oyster Co. v. JewellEnvironmental Law: Although a federal court lacks jurisdiction to review a decision fully committed to an agency's discretion, it has jurisdictional authority to review the decision for violations of constitutional, statutory, regulatory, or other legal mandates or restrictions.(01-14-2014)
Omnipoint v. City of Huntington BeachPreemption: The Telecommunications Act of 1996 preempts local land use authorities’ legislative regulations that fail to comply with requirements of 47 USC § 332(c)(7)(B)(i) and (iv) and adjudicative decisions that fail to meet the minimum process requirements of § 332(c)(7)(B)(ii) and (iii), but such requirements are inapplicable to local authorities’ non-regulatory and non-adjudicative exercise of their property rights.(12-11-2013)
Doe v. HolderImmigration: In an application for asylum or withholding of removal, the applicant need not show “a direct nexus between that the government’s inability or unwillingness to control nongovernmental persecutors and a statutorily-protected ground.”(11-27-2013)
State of Arizona v. ASARCOEmployment Law: In a Title VII sexual harassment suit with nominal damages and no compensatory damages, the highest punitive award supportable under due process must fall within the statutory cap and be proportional to the reprehensibility of the defendant’s conduct without exceeding a punitive damages to compensatory damages ratio of 125,000 to 1.(10-24-2013)
Rocky Mountain Farmers Union v. CoreyEnvironmental Law: A selective comparison of important factors and relevant fuel pathways cannot support the district court's holding that the ethanol and crude oil provisions of California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Cal Code Regs tit. 17, §§ 95480-90 (2011), violate the dormant Commerce Clause.(09-18-2013)
Pizzuto v. BladesHabeas Corpus: Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Idaho Supreme Court’s application of Idaho Code § 19-2515A is neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of the clearly established federal law in Atkins v. Virginia, which prohibits the execution of individuals with mental retardation. (09-09-2013)
Cavitt v. CullenHabeas Corpus: Under California law, the “logical nexus” requirement between the felony and the victim’s death is not unconstitutionally vague because the California Supreme Court has provided guidance as to its definition.(08-29-2013)
United States v. MoschellaSentencing: When a sentence outside the Sentencing Guidelines range is the result of a “variance” based on the application of statutory factors and not a “departure” from the provisions of the Sentencing Guidelines, notice under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(h) is not required; 18 U.S.C. § 3664(n) does not prevent the district court from exercising its discretion in imposing a special condition of restitution during a supervised release.(08-14-2013)
K.M. v. Tustin Unified Sch. Dist.Disability Law: A school district’s compliance with its obligations under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act regarding accommodation for a deaf or hard-of-hearing child does not necessarily foreclose an Americans with Disabilities Act Title II claim grounded in the Title II effective communications regulation.(08-06-2013)
United States v. SpencerSentencing: A conviction for criminal property damage in the first degree under § 708-820(1)(a) of the Hawaii Revised Statutes is categorically a crime of violence under the residual clause of § 4B1.2(a)(2) of the Sentencing Guidelines because it presents a “serious potential risk of physical injury to another,” and a defendant is therefore subject to the “career offender” sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1.(07-29-2013)
Action Recycling, Inc. v. United StatesTax Law: Previous possession of a record by the IRS does not prohibit a future summons of the same information necessary to a legitimate investigation, so long as the IRS no longer has possession of the record.(07-09-2013)
In re: Stake Center Locating, Inc.Criminal Law: The right to restitution provided under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act and the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act attaches at, but not before, the defendant’s sentencing hearing.(06-19-2013)
Western Watersheds Project v. AbbeyEnvironmental Law: To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act, the Bureau of Land Management must not only take a “hard look” at environmental impacts from the programmatic stage of its planning and management, but it must also consider and assess a reasonable range of alternatives, including some that provide more protection for public lands, at the site-specific stage.(06-07-2013)
Fox Ins. Co. v. Centers for Medicare/MedicaidInsurance Law: When a Medicare Part D insurance provider’s malfeasance is found to create a serious risk of health to Medicare enrollees, governing regulations authorize (1) the immediate termination of the services contract without a pre-termination hearing and (2) the immediate recovery of advanced capitation payments not utilized by the provider after the termination, even as final results of the reconciliation process are pending.(05-14-2013)
Edgerly v. City & County of San FranciscoCivil Rights § 1983: Consistent with California Court of Appeal's decisions and the statute's plain language, California Penal Code § 853.5 provides the exclusive grounds for the custodial arrest of a person arrested for an infraction. (04-10-2013)