Willamette Law Online

(8 summaries)

Rianna Venn

9th Circuit Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Anderson v. City & Cnty. of San FranciscoEmployment Law: To assert a valid bona fide occupational qualification defense for sex discrimination, an employer must prove: (1) that the job qualification justifying the discrimination is reasonably necessary to the essence of its business; and (2) that sex is a legitimate proxy for the qualification because (a) it has a substantial basis for believing that all or nearly all individuals of that particular sex lack the qualification, or (b) it is impossible or highly impractical to insure by individual testing that its employees will have the necessary qualifications for the job.(07-02-2014)
United States v. SardarianiCriminal Law: A notary seal can be an “authentication feature” under 18 U.S.C. § 1028.(06-19-2014)
United States v. SullivanCriminal Procedure: Venue in district court is proper when an essential conduct element of the offense continues into the charging district. (05-28-2014)
ProtectMarriage.com v. BowenConstitutional Law: The constitutional validity of contribution disclosure requirements is evaluated using exacting scrutiny, which balances a burden on First Amendment rights and the substantial government interests of (1) providing the electorate with information about the source of campaign money, (2) deterring corruption and the appearance of corruption, and (3) keeping accurate records. (05-20-2014)
Eclectic Props. East v. Marcus & Millichap Co.Civil Procedure: To bring forth a RICO violation claim, a plaintiff must provide sufficient factual allegations that establish a plausible theory of specific intent to defraud, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) and 9(b), otherwise the claim will be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6). (05-07-2014)
United States v. Castro-VerdugoCriminal Procedure: The district court has jurisdiction to revoke probation when (1) the defendant is still serving a term of probation and (2) the defendant violates its conditions. (05-06-2014)
United States v. GomezCriminal Law: To attack a deportation order, an alien defendant must demonstrate: (1) exhaustion of any administrative remedies to seek relief against the order; (2) the deportation proceedings deprived judicial review; and (3) the entry of the order was fundamentally unfair if due process rights were violated in the deportation proceeding and the defendant suffered prejudice as a result of those proceeding defects. (04-24-2014)
United States v. GillenwaterCriminal Law: To authorize an order for involuntary medication to attain competency of a defendant, the court must find clear and convincing evidence that there is (1) an important governmental interest; (2) involuntary medication will significantly further that interest; (3) involuntary medication is necessary; and (4) the administration is medically appropriate.(04-11-2014)