Willamette Law Online

(37 summaries)

Robin Wade

9th Circuit Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
United States v. FrenchCriminal Law: A defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to self-representation is not violated when a court adequately advises the defendant of the disadvantages of foregoing counsel and the defendant affirms his or her wish to proceed pro se is voluntary; a conviction for money laundering will be reversed when the state fails to provide sufficient evidence that the defendant “knowingly” engaged in the transaction.(04-07-2014)
Murray v. SchriroHabeas Corpus: Under the AEDPA, a state court’s failure to undertake a comparative juror analysis is not “contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, or an unreasonable determination of the facts;” a court properly rejects an ineffective assistance of counsel claim when an attorney diligently pursues a number of avenues for obtaining background evidence; and a court is proper in denying a motion to amend the habeas petition when the claims are “duplicative, frivolous, and futile.”(03-17-2014)
Airs Aromatics v. Victoria's SecretTrademarks: Under Section 37 of the Lanham Act, trademark cancellation is a remedy that may be sought in a trademark infringement suit and does not provide an “independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction standing alone;” ongoing litigation over a trademark does not constitute sufficient continuous use for purposes of a showing of non-abandonment.(02-28-2014)
ASI v. IBTAdministrative Law: Section 152 First of the Railway Labor Act, requiring transportation industry employees to “engage in the Act’s labor dispute resolution procedures before ceasing to perform their work,” applies to all transportation industry employees and is not a violation of the free speech rights afforded by the First Amendment.(01-10-2014)
Makaeff v. Trump UniversityCivil Procedure: California’s Anti-SLAPP statutes, which provide criteria for pre-trial dismissal of a defamation claim, do not “collide” with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12 and 56; no inter-circuit split has emerged on this issue.(11-27-2013)
Amado v. GonzalezHabeas Corpus: For the purposes of a habeas corpus petition, the prosecution violates Brady v. Maryland by failing to disclose impeachment evidence, including a probation report, regarding its key witness whose statements prejudice the defendant.(10-30-2013)
Maciel v. CateHabeas Corpus: For the purposes of a habeas petition, a state’s imposition of parole and sex-offender registration requirements after a sentencing court fails to impose them is “neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.”(09-25-2013)
Doe v. Gangland Productions, Inc.Civil Procedure: Under § 425.16 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, an anti-SLAPP motion will be granted if: (1) the defendant can show that the conduct was in furtherance of his right to free speech and the conduct was connected to a matter of free speech; and (2) the plaintiff then fails to “demonstrate the probability that some of his claims will succeed.”(09-16-2013)
Ass'n des Eleveurs de Canards v. HarrisConstitutional Law: For the purposes of § 25982 of the California Health & Safety Code, which prohibits the sale of products that are the result of force feeding birds to enlarge their livers beyond normal size, a court does not abuse its discretion by refusing to grant a preliminary injunction to enjoin the state from enforcing the statute when the plaintiff “fails to raise serious questions” about a Due Process challenge; Section 25982 does not violate the Commerce Clause.(08-30-2013)
Hildes v. Arthur Andersen LLPCorporations: A district court errs in denying a request for leave to amend a complaint to add claims under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 when the amended complaint sufficiently alleges that material misstatements in a registration statement required for merger could have caused the plaintiff’s losses, regardless of whether the plaintiff signed a voting agreement prior to the filing of the registration statement.(08-19-2013)
United States v. UnderwoodCriminal Procedure: A court order to suppress evidence of drug trafficking obtained during the execution of a search warrant will be upheld when: (1) the warrant does not have a sufficient basis for probable cause because it lacks underlying facts; and (2) the good faith exception is not met because the executing agents could not have acted in objectively reasonable reliance on the warrant.(08-06-2013)
Aguilar v. WoodfordHabeas Corpus: Under Brady v. Maryland, the prosecution impermissibly withholds evidence and violates due process when (1) the evidence is favorable to the defendant; (2) the government had knowledge of the evidence because it had previously stipulated to it in another case; and (3) absent the evidence in question, there was nothing tying the defendant to the scene of the crime.(07-29-2013)
American President Lines v. ILWULabor Law: Section 303 of the Labor Management Relations Act does not preclude an employer from bringing a claim against a union for “unfair labor practices,” even if the employer fails to file a petition to vacate an arbitration award.(07-12-2013)
United States v. KrieselCriminal Procedure: Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g), the government’s retention of a criminal defendant’s DNA sample is “reasonable under all circumstances” in that the government has a legitimate interest in maintaining an accurate and trustworthy searchable DNA database that links undefined DNA samples to known offenders.(06-28-2013)
Tapia Madrigal v. HolderImmigration: For purposes of granting asylum under the Convention Against the Torture, the Board of Immigration Appeals should view the events leading to the past and present “fear of persecution” under the “totality of the circumstances.” (05-15-2013)
Grand Canyon Skywalk Dev. v. 'Sa' Nyu Wa Inc.Indian Law: A tribal court may assert jurisdiction over non-Indian corporations on tribal land where the corporation has entered into a consensual agreement with an Indian corporation and the bad faith and futility exceptions to the exhaustion of tribal remedies requirement are not met when the bad faith actor is merely a party and not the tribal court itself and there are still adequate opportunities to challenge the tribal court’s jurisdiction. (04-26-2013)
Milke v. RyanHabeas Corpus: Under [italics]Brady[/italics] and [italics]Giglio[/italics] , exculpatory evidence of a key witness’ past misconduct and disciplinary actions must be produced by the state in order ensure a fair trial.(03-14-2013)
Great Old Broads for Wilderness v. KimbellAdministrative Law: A plaintiff has adequately exhausted administrative remedies when claims made at the administrative appeals level are so similar to those brought at the federal level that the agency was put on notice.(03-04-2013)
A.D. v. California Highway PatrolConstitutional Law: A police officer violates the liberty interest afforded by the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause when he shoots and kills a person with “the purpose to harm, unrelated to a legitimate law enforcement objective.”(03-03-2013)
Reed v. Town of Gilbert, ArizonaFirst Amendment: A city ordinance that categorizes noncommercial speech based on objective factors, like size and duration, serves a significant government interest and leaves open ample alternative channels of communication, is not a content based restriction and is a constitutional time, place and manner restriction.(02-08-2013)
United States v. El Dorado CountyAppellate Procedure: An order suspending a consent decree will not be subject to an interlocutory appeal unless the appealing party can show that it will suffer “serious, perhaps irreparable consequences.”(01-11-2013)
In Re: VeriFone HoldingsCivil Law: Under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, pleadings are adequate if, viewed holistically, the inference that a company was deliberately reckless in the manipulation of its financial statements is "at least as compelling as any opposing inference."(12-21-2012)
United States v. MunguiaCriminal Procedure: A trial court’s jury instruction to use a hypothetical reasonable person standard to evaluate “reasonable cause to believe,” when a subjective standard from the defendant’s perspective is proper, is not harmless error and, therefore, warrants reversal of a conviction.(11-27-2012)
Chesbro v. Best Buy StoresCivil Law: An automated phone call from a consumer products company urging the listener to redeem customer rewards points that require future purchases falls within the scope of “unsolicited advertisement,” prohibited by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and Washington Automatic Dialing and Announcing Device Act.(10-17-2012)
Public Lands for the People v. USDAAdministrative Law: Pursuant to the Organic Administration Act of 1987, the U.S. Forest Service is within its authority in redefining public roads to limit the use of motor vehicle traffic on forest land.(09-26-2012)
Stephan v. Unum Life InsuranceAppellate Procedure: An abuse of discretion standard is proper if its use was predetermined in a settlement agreement and the disputed policy was in effect at the time of the settlement.(09-12-2012)
United States v. Vasquez-CruzSentencing: In reviewing a district court’s denial of a departure, the court of appeals will review the denial only for substantive reasonableness, not procedural correctness.(08-30-2012)
Frost v. Van BoeningHabeas Corpus: In a habeas corpus petition, a trial court’s restriction of the defense’s closing argument, disallowing the simultaneous use of the affirmative defense of duress and accomplice liability, does not amount to a structural error where it does not have a “substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.”(08-22-2012)
Dahlia v. RodriguezFirst Amendment: A police officer’s speech alleging the use of abusive interrogation techniques is not protected as private speech under the First Amendment.(08-07-2012)
Runningeagle v. RyanHabeas Corpus: A district court does not err in denying a habeas corpus claim when the petitioner fails to show that withheld evidence is material and favorable; mere speculation is not enough.(07-18-2012)
Ford v. GonzalezCriminal Procedure: When the factual predicate and speculative inferences of a claim have been present since the trial and could have been discovered through reasonable due diligence in the circumstances, a plaintiff is not entitled to equitable tolling.(07-02-2012)
Bilyeu v. Morgan StanleyAdministrative Law: Administrative Law: Under ERISA, a district court abuses its discretion in dismissing a claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies where the claimant “acted reasonably in light of [a plan fiduciary’s] ambiguous communications and failure to engage in a meaningful dialogue.”(06-20-2012)
Harris v. County of OrangeAdministrative Law: Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, the rule requiring a plaintiff to exhaust all administrative remedies before filing a lawsuit may be met where an individual class member files a complaint with the administrative agency; the filing need not be on behalf of the class as a whole.(06-08-2012)
James v. City of Costa MesaDisability Law: Medical marijuana use is not protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act.(05-21-2012)
United States v. DorseyEvidence: Witness testimony tending to prove that the defendant had the means to commit a crime is not within the scope of inadmissible evidence involving “prior bad acts.”(04-30-2012)
United States v. WilburIndian Law: In a Cigarette Tax Contract (“CTC”), the state’s retrocession of taxes applies only to the sale of cigarettes by licensed “Indian retailers”, as defined in the CTC. The sale of untaxed, unstamped, “contraband” cigarettes on tribal land is a violation of the Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act (“CCTA”).(04-06-2012)
Coneff v. AT & T Corp.Preemption: The Federal Arbitration Act preempts the Washington State law that invalidates a class-action waiver in arbitration agreements.(03-16-2012)