9th Circuit Court of Appeals

Opinions Filed in May 2015

McCormack v. Herzog

An individual may have standing to challenge an abortion statute if the individual could be prosecuted in the future based on a past violation of the statute, or when the individual intends to perform abortions that would violate the statute.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Rights § 1983

Stankova v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.

Summary judgment should not be granted when there is a triable issue of fact.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

LeGras v. AETNA Life Ins. Co.

Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act’s federal common law, the deadline to appeal is extended to the following business day when the deadline falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday.

Area(s) of Law:
  • ERISA

Nettles v. Grounds

A habeas claim is cognizable only if it will “necessarily spell speedier release” from custody, meaning that the relief sought will either terminate custody, accelerate the future date of release from custody, or reduce the level of custody.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

United States v. Martinez

A defendant is not removable based on an aggravated felony if the defendant has been convicted of a child molestation offense that does not satisfy the generic elements of sexual abuse of a minor; nor can a court apply the modified categorical approach when a statute is indivisible and missing elements of the generic definition of sexual abuse of a minor.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Sierra Club v. Bureau of Land Mgmt.

The Bureau of Land Management has a duty to initiate consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Services under the Endangered Species Act, as well as a duty to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement under the National Environmental Policy Act if a project is a federal action that is interrelated to another project.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Environmental Law

Lair v. Bullock

Limitations on contributions to political candidates will be upheld if there is adequate evidence that the limitation furthers a sufficiently important state interest, and if the limits are “closely drawn.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Election Law

United States v. Johnston

When the indictment arises from the same actions, a defendant may not be convicted of both possession and receipt of child pornography since possession is a lesser-included offense of receipt.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Mtoched v. Lynch

An alien convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, and subject to removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), may submit a waiver under 8 U.S.C. §1182(h) if the alien is already in the United States, and submits an application for adjustment of status in conjunction with the waiver application.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

A-1 A-Lectrician v. Snipes

Statutory definitions are not considered vague when a limiting construction is provided for the court to apply to challenged terms.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Rights § 1983

Comm. for a Better Arvin v. EPA

To comply with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, a State Implementation Plan must include waiver measures if they are needed to comply with federal standards.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Environmental Law

Garcia v. Lynch

An individual’s waiver of a right to appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals must be considered and intelligently made in order to be valid.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

United States v. Evans

Evidence obtained during a traffic stop that was prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete the traffic mission is a violation of the Fourth Amendment, unless there is independent reasonable suspicion to justify the delay.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Ryan v. Editions Ltd. West

The Copyright Act’s preemption of state law only includes preemption of laws falling within the scope of the Act, or those that conflict with its purpose.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Copyright

United States v. Pickle

A lack of response to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure’s Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions G(6) special interrogatories does not warrant a per se basis for striking a defendant’s claim.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Garcia v. Google

A plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction should be granted when: (1) the plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) the plaintiff is likely to suffer irreparable harm without the preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities favors the plaintiff; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Maldonado v. Lynch

Under the Convention Against Torture, an applicant for deferral of removal does not need to show that relocation within the country of removal is impossible to avoid torture, however, the applicant must show that torture is more likely to occur than not if removed.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

United States v. Boykin

If sentencing manipulation is proven by showing that the government’s conduct is extreme and outrageous, the court should apply a downward departure to the guidelines range during sentencing.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

Zavala v. Ives

An alien defendant, who is awaiting potential prosecution rather than deportation, will receive sentencing credit for their time spent in detention.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

Riley v. McDaniel

If a state statute states that three different elements of a crime need three separate definitions to prove mens rea, then it is a due process violation if two of the elements are coupled together under the same definition.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

United States v. Cazares

District court rulings in criminal proceedings are likely to be upheld if the district court’s actions do not rise above the level of harmless error.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

United States v. Brown

A defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to adequate representation and a right to choose one’s own counsel, when the defendant wants to excuse his current counsel for a public defender.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

United States v. Gonzalez

A court does not abuse its discretion by providing an additional instruction to ensure juror unanimity on all of the elements of conspiracy.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Ashbey v. Archstone Prop. Mgmt.

A plaintiff may not waive their right to a judicial forum under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, unless they knowingly waive it.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Contract Law

Comstock v. Humphries

Information favorable to the defendant that the prosecutor fails to communicate, even inadvertently, is considered suppressed.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Diaz v. Kubler Corp.

A debt collector is not prohibited from seeking an amount expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Consumer Credit

Sewards v. CIR

Workmen's compensation exclusions do not apply to retirement pensions calculated by reference to the employee's age and length of service, and therefore are taxable under the Internal Revenue Code.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tax Law

Davis v. Guam

Unequal treatment under the law is a judicially cognizable personal injury, even without tangible consequences, which satisfies Article III’s case and controversy requirement.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

El Comité para el Bienestar de Earlimart v. EPA

The Environmental Protection Agency is given broad deference to interpret provisions and to act accordingly, so long as its actions, interpretations, and determinations are not arbitrary or capricious.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Environmental Law

Harrington v. Scribner

Under the Farmer test, deliberate indifference is found when an official is aware of a substantial risk of serious harm, but disregards that risk.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Rights § 1983

In re Adamson Apparel, Inc.

A corporate insider who personally guarantees the corporation’s loan is exempt from preference liability when (1) the insider had a bona-fide basis to waive the insider’s indemnification rights against the corporation, and (2) the insider took no subsequent actions that would repudiate the economic impact of that waiver.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Bankruptcy Law

Sam Francis Found. v. Christies

State regulations of wholly out of state commerce with no connection to in-state activity violate the Dormant Commerce Clause, but the violating provision may be severed from the statute as a whole, if allowed by state law, when the invalid provision is grammatically, functionally, and volitionally severable.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Patterson v. Wagner

International treaties with permissive language do not mandate a court to block extradition.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Castro v. County of Los Angeles

Individual defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity when a constitutional protection is established at the time of the incident, and when sufficient evidence shows that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of harm to the plaintiff.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Qualified Immunity

Ctr. for Competitive Politics v. Harris

Disclosure requirements by the Internal Revenue Service for a non-profit organization’s significant donors do not violate the First Amendment when the disclosures further a compelling governmental purpose, and present no actual burden to the organization or the donors.

Area(s) of Law:
  • First Amendment

United States v. Brown

Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 23(b)(3), courts have discretion to proceed with 11 jurors after excusing a juror for good cause during deliberations, even when alternates are available.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Back to Top