Willamette Law Online

(28 summaries)

Eva Vaccari

9th Circuit Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Mayes v. Premo Habeas Corpus:  When determining whether to grant a writ habeas corpus based on racial discrimination, totality of the circumstances must be considered, and just a close comparative juror analysis is not sufficient to undermine the prosecutor’s credibility.(03-27-2014)
Family PAC v. FergusonAttorney Fees: The term “costs” in Rule 39 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure does not include attorney’s fees.(03-19-2014)
Robins v. Spokeo, Inc. Standing: Inaccurate consumer reporting information is sufficient injury in fact to establish Article III standing under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.(02-04-2014)
Smith v. U.S. Customs & Border Protection Immigration: When petitioner has been removed under the expedited removal statute, §1252(e)(2) does not apply, and when the petitioner is not in custody at the time of filing for a writ of habeas corpus, the district court does not have jurisdiction. (01-09-2014)
Taggar v. Holder Immigration: An Immigration Judge does not abuse discretion when setting an extended date for relief applications for the Convention Against Torture and when deeming someone ineligible for a waiver of removability or inadmissibility when it is a crime that is not waivable. (12-02-2013)
United States v. Ramos-Atondo Criminal Law: A district court does not abuse its discretion when it presents the jury with deliberate ignorance instructions when the factual bases of such an instruction are present.(10-11-2013)
United States v. $671,160 in U.S. Currency Civil Law: When a person has shown past extensive travel, has had opportunity to appear for proceedings, and has represented opposition to returning to the country; it amounts to a totality of circumstances showing they are deliberately avoiding criminal prosecution for the purposes of the Fugitive Disentitlement Statute.(09-18-2013)
Sylvia Landfield Trust v. City of Los Angeles Civil Rights § 1983: A program that authorizes the housing department to place property into an escrow program when it becomes inhabitable does not violate due process since it is rationally related to a legitimate governmental goal.(09-09-2013)
United States v. HilgerParole and Post-Prison Supervision: The Opper rule, which requires corroboration of confessions, does not apply to supervised release revocation proceedings.(08-26-2013)
Saesee v. McDonaldHabeas Corpus: When the opening statement by the defense counsel only suggests hope for a witness to testify, the statement does not constitute a promise, and therefore does not establish ineffective assistance of counsel.(08-05-2013)
Galindo v. HolderImmigration: The seven-year continuous presence requirement under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b does not require continuous status of any particular kind, and an advanced parole trip outside the country does not change an individual’s residence or affect continuous presence in the United States.(07-30-2013)
United States v. Green Remedies: Apprendi v. New Jersey, which imposes a maximum sentence based on a jury verdict, does not apply to restitution. (07-11-2013)
Sanders Cnty. Republican Cent. Comm. v. Fox Appellate Procedure: A panel must follow published decision findings unless there is a competent body to overrule it, and if the published decision does not reach all issues, the unreached issues shall be remanded for further revision.(06-21-2013)
Classic Concepts, Inc. v. Linen Sources, Inc. Appellate Procedure: When the court considers extensive briefs before judgment, a motion to alter or amend under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) is not filed within ten days after entry of judgment and Rule 60(b) is not addressed in the filing party’s brief, then the judgment is final and not appealable. (05-30-2013)
Parra v. PacifiCare Arizona Insurance Law: The Medicare Advantage Organization Statute does not grant a private right of action to recover payments made on behalf of a plan participant, and a Medicare Advantage Organization plan cannot sue the survivors of a plan participant for reimbursement for “medical expenses out of the proceeds of an automobile insurance policy.” (04-19-2013)
United States v. $11,500.00 in U.S. CurrencyCivil Law: Dismissal of civil forfeiture action under 21. U.S.C. § 881 for failure to identify the bailor was an abuse of discretion, predominantly because the omission did not appear to be calculated, did not delay or extend the proceedings, and did not prejudice the government.(03-20-2013)
Tamayo-Tamayo v. HolderImmigration: When the history of a statute does not suggest procedural interpretation, substantive interpretation applies as long as it does not render the statute superfluous or lead to absurd results. A removal order under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5) can be reinstated from its original date and is not “superseded” or invalidated because a later removal order exists.(02-28-2013)
Lopez-Vasquez v. HolderImmigration: A drug conviction renders an alien ineligible for adjustment of status where the trial court record is inconclusive, and, therefore, the alien is unable to prove “clearly and beyond doubt” that he was convicted of simple possession of a controlled substance.(02-01-2013)
United States v. YiCriminal Law: A “deliberate ignorance” instruction is appropriate where the evidence establishes “(1) a subjective belief that there is a high probability a fact exists; and (2) deliberate actions taken to avoid learning the truth.”(01-02-2013)
Mount Hope Church v. Bash Back!Civil Procedure: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)(1) “cannot properly support a sanction where the cost of complying with the subpoena is minimal and there is no showing that the subpoena was facially defective or issued in bad faith.”(11-26-2012)
Doe #1 v. ReedConstitutional Law: When no effective relief can be granted and it could reasonably be determined that the controversy could be fully litigated before becoming moot, the case is dismissed as moot.(10-23-2012)
Cudjo v. AyersCriminal Procedure:  [italics]Chambers v. Mississippi[/italics] “clearly establishe[s] that the exclusion of trustworthy and necessary exculpatory testimony at trial violates a defendant’s due process right to present a defense.”(09-28-2012)
United States v. NielsenSentencing: A juvenile adjudication for sexual assault does not constitute a “conviction” for purposes of applying the “repeat and dangerous sex offender against minors” enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.5(a).(09-12-2012)
Schmidt v. Contra Costa CountyCivil Rights § 1983: Judges receive legislative immunity for setting subordinate judicial officer qualifications when the qualifications apply to a broad group, are formally adopted, and bear other traditional hallmarks of legislation.(09-10-2012)
Gentry v. SinclairHabeas Corpus: First, when a claim has been presented to a state court and not remedied it becomes exhausted. Second, when a claim has been tried on substantive ground, even though it has not been tried on procedural grounds, it is deemed to have been adjudicated on the merits. Third, when there is proof that counsel seeks additional resources for further evidence, even if the evidence is not used; it is reasonable to resolve that there was not deficient performance by counsel.(08-28-2012)
Ward v. ChavezCivil Procedure: First, when exhaustion is futile, the exhaustion requirement should be waived. Second, under the MVRA, where a defendant is unable to pay restitution immediately, a court may not order immediate repayment because such an order impermissibly delegates the setting a repayment schedule to the Bureau of Prisons or Probation.(05-08-2012)
Moss v. U.S. Secret ServiceConstitutional Law: Under the First Amendment, officers or agents are not entitled to qualified immunity when there is facial viewpoint discrimination or prevention of demonstration of opposing views. Under the Fourth Amendment, the plaintiff must establish a plausible claim specifically against an individual in order for the claim to move forward.(04-09-2012)
Turtle Island Restoration v. Hawaii LonglineAdministrative Law: The district court does not abuse its discretion by approving a consent decree when (1) it does not make substantive changes to regulations, (2) there is no clearly erroneous fact finding and (3) the decree is “fair, reasonable and adequate and does not violate public policy.”(03-14-2012)