January 20 summaries
United States v. Swisher
A statute containing a content-based restriction, with the purpose of stopping a particular message from being conveyed, is a restriction on speech and analyzed under the First Amendment.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Bravo v. City of Santa Maria
Under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, examining a plaintiff’s success in acquiring a settlement against a defendant arising out of the same facts is appropriate when awarding attorneys' fees.
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
Reyes v. Smith
The Prison Litigation Reform Act prohibits prisoners from bringing actions regarding prison conditions, requires inmates to pursue to every available step of his or her prison grievance process, and to adhere to the “critical procedural rules” of the grievance process.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights § 1983
Klein v. City of Laguna Beach
The court may lawfully award lower or no attorneys’ fees to a plaintiff who seeks compensatory damages and is only awarded nominal damages.
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
Rizo v. Lynch
An order of removal is final even when a voluntary departure proceeding is pending and therefore the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction to review the removal order.
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
United States v. James
When interpreting the meaning of words or phrases in federal statutes, it is improper to derive the meaning of the word or phrase from closely related state statutes.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Fue v. Biter
When a prisoner waits fourteen months to inquire into the status of his or her habeas corpus petition, the prisoner will not be entitled to equitable tolling because he or she did not act with sufficient diligence.
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
McGee v. China Electric Motor
When the difference between a requested fee and the final award are too disparate, the court must provide specific reasoning in using the lodestar method.
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
United States v. Estate of E. Wayne Hage
A person who holds water rights on federal lands holds a revocable license, rather than a property right; such license is subject to limitations by federal agencies, including the requirement that a rancher must obtain a grazing permit before allowing their cattle to graze on federal lands.
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
United States v. Spangler
An exclusion of an expert witness may be found to be harmless error if the expert’s testimony is deemed irrelevant to the charges, and the proponent had the opportunity to present evidence of the same substance.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Nat’l Fed. of the Blind v. United Airlines
The federal government has broadly preempted the field of accessibility of air transportation.
Area(s) of Law:- Preemption
Ramirez v. Lynch
When a state’s statutory definition for a crime of violence is broader than the federal definition, it cannot constitute a crime of violence that merits deportation.
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Taylor v. Beard
A felony murder conviction may be upheld even when there is evidence proving the individual did not commit the crime actually convicted of, if the prosecutor presented multiple theories of guilt from which a jury determination could lead to the same conviction based on a different charge.
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
Davis v. United States
A breach of a closing agreement by the Internal Revenue Service does not remove the statutory obligation of an individual to pay taxes.
Area(s) of Law:- Tax Law
Bozzio v. EMI Group
The incapacity of the promisee to a contract is not an absolute bar to a lawsuit by a third-party beneficiary.
Area(s) of Law:- Standing
Presidio Historical Ass'n v. Presidio Trust
The National Historic Preservation Act requires the head of the responsible Federal agency to his maximum capacity possible to plan and take action as necessary to minimize harm to the landmark.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
United States v. Cruz-Mendez
To be applicable for the “pilot/captain” enhancement, the defendant need only act as operator of a vessel carrying a controlled substance.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Wolfson v. Concannon
Restrictions placed on a candidate's ability to solicit for his own campaign and endorse other candidate's campaigns does not violate freedom of association and speech if the regulations are narrowly tailored to the legitimate state interest of safeguarding public confidence in elected officials.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Zachary v. California Bank & Trust
The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 amendments only allow individual chapter 11 debtors to acquire property and earnings acquired after the start of the case that would be excludable under § 541(a)(6) & (7).
Area(s) of Law:- Bankruptcy Law
Liao v. Junious
Failure of counsel to secure medical evidence supporting the petitioner’s defense constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel.
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
February 19 summaries
Jacksonville Pension Fund v. CVB
When proving scienter under section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, hearsay is not automatically discounted from consideration of whether the statement is sufficiently reliable for pleading purposes.
Area(s) of Law:- Consumer Credit
Valencia v. Lynch
Where a statute is ambiguous, an agency regulation that provides reasonable interpretation will receive deference upon review.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Villavicencio-Rojas v. Lynch
Under the Federal First Offender Act, individuals found guilty of simple drug possession have the opportunity to enter a diversion program in order to avoid an entry of a judgment of conviction.
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Garcia v. City of Riverside
Officers do not have a duty to investigate every unsupported assertion of innocence of detained individuals; however, when a detainee claims misidentification and there is clear physical inconsistency between a warrant subject and a booked individual officers should explore readily accessible identity checks to insure they are not holding the incorrect person.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights § 1983
Smith v. Schriro
It is unconstitutional for an intellectually disabled person to be executed even if their crime merits execution.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
United States v. Johnson
Application of the obstruction enhancement under United States Sentencing Guidelines § 3C1.1 to trial testimony does not impermissibly penalize a defendant twice for the same conduct, assuming the district court found the trial testimony was false, willful, and material.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
In re The Village at Lakeridge
A bankruptcy court cannot confirm a Chapter 11 reorganization plan without first determining if any of the persons voting to accept the plan are either statutory or non-statutory insiders.
Area(s) of Law:- Bankruptcy Law
Daire v. Lattimore
Supreme Court precedent has “clearly established” that the Strickland standard applies to all claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in noncapital sentencing proceedings.
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
Ayala v. Davis
Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, a denial of relief that is not objectively unreasonable precludes any relief sought.
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
Sanders v. Energy Northwest
An employee asserting retaliation must establish the following elements for a prima facie case: (1) the employee was engaged in a protected activity; (2) the employer knew or suspected the employee was engaged in the protected activity; (3) the employee suffered an adverse action; and (4) the surrounding circumstances allude that the protected activity was a contributing factor in the adverse action.
Area(s) of Law:- Labor Law
Mena v. Long
A district court may hold a petition in stay and abeyance even when all claims in a habeas corpus petition are unexhausted.
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
Sarver v. Chartier
Procedural state laws are not used in federal court if to do so would result in a direct collision with a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
USA v. Eglash
Mail fraud requires showing two elements: (1) the perpetrator devised or intended to devise a scheme to defraud (or to perform specified fraudulent acts); and (2) use of the mail for the purpose of executing or attempting to execute the scheme (or specified fraudulent acts).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Oregon Restaurant & Lodging Ass’n. v. Perez
If a court holds that a statute does not prohibit certain conduct, that does not disallow an agency from rulemaking regarding that conduct.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Gonzalez v United States
Determining whether the FBI is shielded from discretionary functions requires an analysis of: (1) whether the conduct is not discretionary and is not “the product of judgment or choice” and (2) whether government policy allows the discretion to be exercised.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
United States v. Hernandez-Castro
A sentence consistent with a negotiated plea agreement may not be appealed unless an appellate waiver applies.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Ministry of Defense v. Frym
Judgments consummated after the Algiers Accord are not in violation of the Accord and are permitted to be attached.
Area(s) of Law:- Remedies
Yang v. Lynch
The Board of Immigration Appeals may not make credibility determinations based on the falsus maxim.
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Alaska Oil and Gas Ass'n v. Jewell
Agency action is presumed valid and will be maintained if there is reasonable basis for the conclusion and the agency has considered all relevant factors.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
March 18 summaries
United States v. Murguia-Rodriguez
Under the Court Interpreters Act, a party must knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive their right to an interpreter; mere affirmation that a party is comfortable proceeding in English does not constitute waiver of that right.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
United States v. Lemus
When a court reviews a conviction for sufficient evidence it will ask whether, after observing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
United States v Lara
An officer may not unreasonably search a probationer's cell phone as a condition of probation.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
City of Mukilteo v. USDOT
The National Environmental Policy Act requires the Federal Aviation Administration to analyze all reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts of its decisions before commencing operations for commercial passenger services at any major airport.
Area(s) of Law:- Environmental Law
Hedlund v. Ryan
A casual nexus test forbids the court from giving weight to non-statutory mitigating evidence unless the evidence was casually connected to the crime.
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
Hooks v. Kitsap Tenant Support Servs.
A person lacks the authority to serve in an Executive position under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act if that person is also a nominee for the permanent position.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Melendres v. Maricopa County
28 U.S.C. § 2107(a) and Rule 4(a) require appeals to be filed within thirty days of entry of the order appealed.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
United States Ex Rel Mateski v Ratheon
A complaint raising fraud based on disclosed information that is different in kind and degree from previously disclosed information is not “substantially similar” under the False Claims Act.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
United States v. Zhou
The government may revoke a citizen’s naturalization if it was procured illegally.
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
United States v. Reza-Ramos
Because jurisdiction depends upon the victim’s status as an Indian, the government has the burden to prove the victim’s status when a non-Indian commits a criminal offense against an alleged Indian on a federally recognized reservation.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Beaver v. Tarsadia Hotels
The presumption that state law should not be superseded by federal law can be overcome through conflict preemption if the state law hinders the full purposes and objectives of Congress.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Burton v. Davis
A motion to proceed pro se is timely if it is made before the jury is established and there is no evidence that it is a tactic to secure delay.
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
Rosales Rivera v. Lynch
The two-step framework for determining if a crime involves moral turpitude includes first identifying the elements of the conviction statute, and secondly, comparing those elements to the generic definition of crime involving moral turpitude.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Arizona Ex Rel. Horne v. The Geo Group
In a class action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 aggrieved persons must allege acts within 300 days of the alleged unlawful employment practice; however, if they fail to do this they may piggyback their claim onto the timely charge filed by another plaintiff in order to fulfill exhaustion of administrative remedies.
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Mitchell v. State of Washington
A state official's decision to deny a medical treatment option using an explicit racial classification is subject to strict scrutiny, but will be entitled to qualified immunity if the particular set of circumstances was not clearly established at the time that treatment was denied.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights § 1983
State of Alaska Dep't of Nat. Res. v United States
Summary judgment may be granted when a suit is brought under the Alaska’s Quiet Title Act, when the United States is not a party, when a claim declaratory relief is the same as a quiet title claim, and when a condemnation claim is improperly pleaded.
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
Casa Del Caffee Vergnano v. ItalFlavors
Parties are only required to submit to arbitration in disputes where the parties consented to arbitration; further, the requisite consent to constitute a binding agreement is governed by contract law principles, specifically determining the parties’ mutual assent under an objective standard regarding the exchange of a legally enforceable bargain with consideration.
Area(s) of Law:- Arbitration
Daire v. Lattimore
For a claim to meet the standard review of the the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act it must show that a ruling was so lacking in justification that there was an error beyond any possibility for fair-minded disagreement.
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus