Willamette Law Online

(22 summaries)

Breanna Thompson

9th Circuit Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Narayanan v. British AirwaysCivil Procedure: The Montreal Convention’s two-year statute of limitations period under Article 35(1) operates as a condition precedent to suit, and is not subject to equitable tolling.(03-19-2014)
Turijan v. HolderImmigration: Felony false imprisonment under California law is not a categorical crime of moral turpitude because it does not require intent to injure someone, actual injury, or a protected class of persons and because the full range of conduct prohibited by the statute does not fall within the definition of moral turpitude.(03-10-2014)
Escriba v. Foster Poultry FarmsLabor Law: An employee can affirmatively decline to use FMLA leave, even if the underlying reason for seeking the leave would have invoked FMLA protection. (02-25-2014)
Smith v. SwarthoutHabeas Corpus: The court will properly deny a habeas corpus petition on appeal if the judgment was not contrary to clearly established federal law and was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding.(02-10-2014)
Estate of Barabin v. AstenJohnsonEvidence: A reviewing court has the authority to make findings under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc. based the district court’s record, which overrules Mukhtar v. California State University to the extent that Daubert findings always are made by the district court.(01-15-2014)
Alto v. BlackTribal Law: The Band's Constitution vested the BIA with ultimate authority over tribal membership, and so the court had jurisdiction to enjoin preliminarily the enforcement of the order upholding the Tribe's decision to disenroll descendants of a member from the Band while the Band was not a required party under FRCP 19 because its absence did not deny complete relief, and the Band's interest was adequately represented by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.(12-26-2013)
Angov v. HolderImmigration: An immigration judge does not violate due process or immigration laws by relying on a State Department investigation of an asylum petitioner’s claim because such reports are presumed valid, and additional requirements would not materially enhance their reliability.(12-04-2013)
United States v. BlackCriminal Law: There is an extremely high standard required to demonstrate the facts underlying an arrest and prosecution are so extreme as “to violate fundamental fairness” or are “so grossly shocking as to violate the universal sense of justice” and the court will decide on a case by case basis using the following factors: (1) known criminal characteristics of the defendants; (2) individualized suspicion of the defendants; (3) the government’s role in creating the crime of conviction; (4) the government’s encouragement of the defendants to commit the offense conduct; (5) the nature of the government’s participation in the offense conduct; and (6) the nature of the crime being pursued and necessity for the actions taken in light of the nature of the criminal enterprise at issue.(10-23-2013)
United States v. BlackCriminal Law: To meet the high standard required to demonstrate outrageous government conduct, defendants must show that the facts underlying an arrest and prosecution are so extreme as “to violate fundamental fairness” or are “so grossly shocking as to violate the universal sense of justice.” (10-23-2013)
Armstrong v. BrownDisability Law: Changes to § 3065 of the Cal. Penal Code do not absolve the state of responsibility for prisoners and parolees while they are in county facilities, including adherence to disability accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. (10-04-2013)
Garcia-Milian v. HolderImmigration: The threat of physical harm unrelated to a political opinion is not a valid ground for asylum; absent a showing of corruption or other inability to investigate by local authorities the threat does not raise an inference that public officials are likely to acquiesce in future torture.(09-18-2013)
Demers v. AustinCivil Rights § 1983: Garcetti does not apply to teaching and academic writing. Instead, the Pickering test should be applied which requires the employee to show that his or her speech addressed matters of public concern and that interest in voicing those concerns outweigh the State’s interest in promoting efficient public services. (09-04-2013)
Oshodi v. HolderImmigration: An applicant’s oral testimony is “an essential aspect of the asylum adjudication process” and refusal to hear an applicant’s testimony is a violation of due process.(08-27-2013)
United States v. ThomasCriminal Procedure: Under the Speedy Trial Act, the issuance of a new indictment not required to be joined with the original charges triggers a new seventy-day period in which to bring a defendant to trial; and evidence from a trained and reliable dog handler about alert behavior of his dog can be the basis for probable cause and therefore the dog's history must be turned over to the defendant during discovery.(08-08-2013)
United States v. GrassoCriminal Law: A district court can charge a defendant with multiple charges by imposing Pinkerton liability, but must ensure that the multiple charges does not create a merger issue by certifying that the statutes do not penalize the same type of behavior; referral fees may be viewed as “proceeds” of loan and bank fraud.(07-26-2013)
United States v. Perez-ValenciaCriminal Procedure: Under 18 U.S.C. § 2516(2), the principal prosecuting attorney of a political subdivision can designate an attorney to have the authority to apply for a wiretap in his or her absence, as long as the applicable state wiretap statute is also adhered to. (07-16-2013)
Tehama-Colusa Canal Auth. v. U.S. Dep’t of InteriorWater Rights: California Water Code § 11460 does not require providing priority water rights if contracts contain provisions specifically addressing allocation of water during shortage periods and if the parties to the contracts have received validation judgments foreclosing either party from challenging the validity of the contract terms.(07-01-2013)
United States v. NeedhamCriminal Procedure: The “good faith” exception to the exclusionary rule from United States v. Leon applies when officers searched in reasonable reliance on a search warrant, even when the warrant is based solely on the inference that individuals who molest children likely possess child pornography.(06-14-2013)
Hinojos v. Kohl’s Corp.Standing: Under California law, a plaintiff has standing to sue under the Unfair Competition Law and Fair Advertising Law if he purchased merchandise in reliance on the false price and if he would not have purchased the product but for the misrepresentation.(05-21-2013)
Friend v. HolderImmigration: The controlling law governing transmittal of citizenship is generally the statute in place at the time of the child’s birth unless the child is born out of wedlock to a mother who was a U.S. citizen at the time of the child’s birth and previously resided in the U.S. or one of its territories, if so, the Nationality Act of 1940 may be applied retroactively. (04-30-2013)
Cameron v. CraigCriminal Procedure: When executing a lawful search warrant and arrest, an officer is not required to obtain further evidence, or interview the subject of the search warrant, once probable cause is established; whether excessive force was used in the execution of that warrant is generally a question of fact for the jury.(04-16-2013)
Gonzales v. U.S. Department of Homeland SecurityImmigration: In deciding whether to retroactively apply law in determination of I-212 waiver applications, the court must evaluate according to the five factors set forth through the <em>Montgomery Ward</em> test and decide on a case-by-case basis whether retroactive application is appropriate.(03-29-2013)