Willamette Law Online

(19 summaries)

Bradley Thayer

9th Circuit Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
United States v. Dominguez -MaroyoquiCriminal Law: A violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(a) is not a categorical crime of violence, and a felony conviction under that subsection cannot support a “crime of violence” sentence enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A). (04-07-2014)
Murray v. SchriroHabeas Corpus: A denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition brought after April 24, 1996 to challenge a murder conviction and capital sentence will not be overturned where the petitioner’s claims fail to show the state court decision: “(1) was contrary to clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court, (2) involved in an unreasonable application of such law, or (3) …was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the record before the state court” under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. (03-17-2014)
Garcia v. Google, Inc.Copyright: A trial court abuses its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction for the removal of a film available online in a copyright case when the video contains a performance that a plaintiff actress makes intentionally for a different film, and the plaintiff actress establishes: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits of her claim; (2) the likelihood of irreparable harm resulting from a denial of injunctive relief; and (3) a causal connection between the copyright infringement and the alleged harm.(02-26-2014)
United States v. Vasquez-PerezCriminal Procedure: The initial appearance provisions in Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1, and the requirements therein, do not apply to a defendant already in custody for a separate offense when revocation proceedings begin; and, the procedural safeguards guaranteed by Boykin v. Alabama are not applicable in revocation proceedings. (02-10-2014)
Grenning v. Miller-StoutCivil Rights § 1983: In a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action brought by a prisoner on the basis of continuous illumination of his or her cell, summary judgment is not appropriate where material issues of fact exist regarding the actual brightness of the constant illumination in the cell, the effects thereof, and whether the prison officials were deliberately indifferent to those effects.(01-16-2014)
Cassirer v. Thyssen-BornemiszaPreemption: California Code of Civil Procedure § 338(c)(3) does not intrude on foreign affairs and thus is not unconstitutional on field preemption grounds, and§ 338(c)(3) does not violate a museum, gallery, auctioneer, or dealer’s First Amendment rights.(12-09-2013)
Ritchie v. United StatesTort Law: The Feres doctrine will bar third-party wrongful death claims arising out of military service activities, and the “in utero” exception does not apply when the servicewoman mother has been injured by the purported negligent acts. (10-24-2013)
Castle v. Eurofresh, Inc.Disability Law: A prisoner of the state is not the “employee” of a company contracting with a state prison under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act, because the prisoner’s labor belongs to the state; further, where such a contracting company receives no direct or indirect federal financial assistance, the company is not subject to the requirements imposed by the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; however, a state may be held liable for disability discrimination acts that its contractors commit.(09-24-2013)
United States v. Bonilla-GuizarCriminal Procedure: A district court does not abuse its discretion in permitting a Immigration and Customs Enforcement case agent to testify as an expert witness where the testimony has some probative value. Brandishing a firearm is insufficient to warrant the application of a sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2A4.1(b)(3) for use of a dangerous weapon.(09-09-2013)
Dandino, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp.Administrative Law: A party may file a petition for review under 49 U.S.C. § 521(b)(9) within 30 days of actual notice of a final order by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration; when a final order is sent by mail without proof of actual receipt, a rebuttable presumption arises that the order was received within three days.(08-30-2013)
Alaska Wilderness League v. EPAEnvironmental Law: Where the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7661c(e), is ambiguous as to whether “increment” requirements are “applicable” to a temporary source, such as a drilling vessel, the Ninth Circuit will defer to the Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Appeals Board’s reasonable interpretation of the statute.(08-15-2013)
Dennis v. HartCivil Procedure: A suit is improperly removed from state court where a plaintiff asserts a state-law cause of action and when a plaintiff’s allegations, under the well-pleaded complaint rule, are insufficient to support federal jurisdiction.(07-31-2013)
Meier v. ColvinAdministrative Law: Where a party moves under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), for an award of attorney’s fees and costs, the United States government holds the burden of proving its position – including both its litigation position and the underlying agency action giving rise to the civil action – was substantially justified. Further, in the context of social security, the courts treat a decision of an administrative law judge as the underlying agency action. (07-23-2013)
Roth v. CHA Hollywood Medical CenterCivil Procedure: As long as a defendant has not lost its right to remove due to a failure to timely file a notice of removal, 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1) or (b)(3) does not bar a defendant from removal to federal court when it discovers, after its own investigation, that the case is removable.(06-27-2013)
United States v. WattersCriminal Procedure: For the purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c), which penalizes a person for “corruptly” does not have a “knowingly” mens rea component.(06-05-2013)
McCullough v. GraberCriminal Procedure: A habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 asking the Bureau of Prisons to reconsider a rejected application to the Second Chance Act’s now defunct elderly offender pilot program is moot because the relief requested is no longer available.(05-10-2013)
United States v. Anguiano-MorfinCriminal Procedure: Although the “willfulness” requirement in 18 U.S.C. § 911 necessitates knowledge on the part of the defendant, jury instructions are adequate under circumstances where a “misrepresentation...[is] deliberately made” because this “suggests a knowing falsehood.”(04-18-2013)
Firebaugh Canal Water Dist. v. United StatesAdministrative Law: The United States Department of the Interior’s broad discretion precludes claims for inadequate drainage under the San Luis Act, and a failure to provide adequate drainage does not constitute “agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed” under the Administrative Procedure Act.(04-05-2013)

Oregon Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
State v. GuckertCriminal Law: An indictment that alleges specific sexual touching need not be proven wherein the indictment is more specific than the legal standard in ORS 163.427. (12-18-2013)