Nativity Scenes Comm. v. City of Santa Monica
A cause of action alleging First Amendment violations by a city is not created under the Establishment Clause or heckler veto doctrine when the city passes a content-neutral time, place, and manner regulation that is supported by secular rationales, and could not reasonably be construed as primarily seeking to communicate disapproval of a religion.
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
United States v. Gardenhire
It is a plain error if the court concludes an act to be reckless when no subjective evidence associated with the risk was presented.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State of California v. FERC
Under § 205 of the Federal Power Act, in consideration of relief for transaction reporting violations, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission must not structure the remand process to limit its review to proof of market concentration under its hub-and-spoke test, or exclude an enforceable transaction reporting requirement.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Luna v. Kernan
A petitioner seeking equitable tolling for a one-year filing deadline must show (1) there were extreme circumstances which prevented the petitioner from filing on time, and (2) the petitioner was diligent in pursuing the petitioner’s rights.
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
United States v. Torralba-Mendia
It is considered plain error when a district court fails to provide jury instructions for how to evaluate testimony that is admitted as expert and lay witness testimony, unless it can be shown that the error was not prejudicial.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Allen v. The Boeing Co.
The term “event or occurrence” as used in the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(11)(B)(ii)(I), refers to a single event or occurrence that gives rise to the plaintiffs’ claims.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Paulsson v. Dorosz
Foreign laws cannot divest federal district courts of subject matter jurisdiction, unless a foreign law creates rights that can only be enforced by the foreign nation’s courts, then relief for violations of such rights cannot be sought in federal district courts.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Arizona Libertarian Party v. Bennett
A statute that presents only a de minimis burden on a party’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights is subject to rational basis review.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Pizzuto v. Ramirez
Motions fall within the permissible scope of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) if they claim that the federal habeas corpus court improperly held procedurally defaulted claims, and that the state’s attorney perpetrated fraud on the federal district court.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
United States v. Bonds
A single, non-responsive answer by a grand jury witness cannot support a conviction for obstruction of justice.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Prichard v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
A court reviews denials of insurance benefits de novo when the governing plan document does not contain discretion-granting terms.
Area(s) of Law:- ERISA
United States v. Alvarez-Ulloa
A court’s supplemental answer to a jury question is valid if it does not coerce the jury to make a certain determination.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
United States v. Hornbuckle
Impermissible double counting during sentencing occurs when a court applies an enhancement for a necessary element of the underlying conviction.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
United States v. Walls
A regulation that uses the phrase “affecting interstate commerce” indicates that Congress intended that regulation to extend to the outer limits of Congress’s commerce power.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
United States v. Mazzarella
A Fourth Amendment violation for lack of authority to search is likely if: (1) the government knew that it was conducting intrusive acts in violation of the Fourth Amendment, or acquiesced to such; or (2) if the third-party did not intend to further law enforcement efforts or the third-party’s own ends.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Tulalip Tribes v. State of Washington
The “most-favored tribe clause” in the Tulalip Compact does not require the State of Washington to enact an amendment if the amendment does not reflect the same limitations of the terms that the State of Washington has agreed to with another tribe.
Area(s) of Law:- Indian Law
In re County of Orange
The Erie doctrine's federalism principle requires federal courts sitting in diversity to import, as the federal rule, state law governing jury trial waivers where state law is more protective of the right to a jury trial than federal law.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Melendres v. Arpaio
An improperly joined non-jural entity may be dismissed and the proper entity added without harm to the underlying proceeding.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
United States v. Gonzalez Becerra
The term “victim,” as shown in the United States Sentencing Guidelines § 2B1.1, is not just limited to fraud victims suffering from a pecuniary harm, but also includes those suffering from physical, financial, dignitary, and proprietary harms.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Astiana v. Hain Celestial Group
A state cause of action, based on federal cosmetic labeling laws, is not preempted by the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and therefore, the primary jurisdiction doctrine should be utilized.
Area(s) of Law:- Preemption
United States v. Aguilar
A court may deny a motion under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (60)(b)(1) when the Falk factors are met.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
United States v. Sahagun-Gallegos
The application notes to United States Sentencing Guidelines § 3E1.1 retroactively apply to pending criminal cases.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
United States v. Urrutia-Contreras
At a revocation proceeding, a district court must provide the government an opportunity to offer a statement on their position pursuant to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 32.1.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Golden v. Cal. Emergency Physicians
When determining whether a settlement agreement is reviewable, traditional standards of ripeness apply. Additionally, covenants not to compete are not necessarily prohibited under section 16600 of the California Business and Professions Code.
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
Barboza v. Cal. Ass’n of Prof. Firefighters
Using the common law of trusts, parties do not need to use express language to create a trust between a trustee and a beneficiary.
Area(s) of Law:- Disability Law
Chula Vista Citizens v. Norris
A requirement that the official proponent of an initiative be an elector does not violate the First Amendment right to freedom of speech of non-natural persons (i.e., corporations and associations); furthermore, a requirement that the name of the official proponent be published with a notice of intent and summary of the initiative withstands exacting scrutiny under the First Amendment because it bears a substantial relationship to electoral integrity, a sufficiently important governmental interest.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights § 1983
United States v. Simmons
The crime of escape does not inherently include a risk of physical injury to another and is not roughly similar to the offenses enumerating in the United States Sentencing Guidelines for the purpose of determining whether a defendant is a career offender for sentencing purposes.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
United States v. Tamman
The dual application of the Broker-Dealer enhancement and the Special Skill enhancement does not amount to double counting at sentencing when the enhancements reflect separate and distinct behavior of the principal defendant from the defendant-accessory.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
AmeriPride Serv. v. Texas Eastern Overseas
When determining the allocation of contribution costs in multi-party litigation, where some of the parties have settled, the district court has discretion in determining the most equitable approach, but the court must explain its methodology.
Area(s) of Law:- Environmental Law
Eminence Investors v. BNYM
The Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) securities exception under 28 U.S.C. § 1453(d)(3) applies where all of the claims in the class action relate to certain rights, duties, or obligations created by, or pursuant to a security.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
In re Tristar Esperanza Properties
Under 11 U.S.C. § 510(b), a claim for a monetary judgment against a debtor must be subordinated to senior claims if it is for damages arising from, or rescission of, the purchase or sale of a security of the debtor.
Area(s) of Law:- Bankruptcy Law
United States v. Richter
As long as a defendant has an opportunity to present a closing argument, counsel’s conduct can act as an implicit waiver of that right.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Elmore v. Sinclair
Counsel’s strategic trial decisions must be objectively reasonable to defend against a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
Jordan v. Nationstar Mortgage
A case becomes “removable” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1446 when the Class Action Fairness Act ground for removal is first disclosed.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Reyes v. Dollar Tree Stores
Subject matter will exist when a state court's class certification creates a new occasion for removal and permits a second removal, which is timely if filed within thirty days of the class certification.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure