Gable v. Williams
"Actual innocence," as a procedural default excuse does not require “affirmatively prov[ing] . . . [the defendant] is probably innocent,” as in a solo claim of “actual innocence.” See Jones v. Taylor, 763 F.3d at 1246–47 (internal citation omitted)
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
Guzman v. Polaris Industries
Under Somner v. Premier Nutrition Corp., 971 F.3d 834, 837 (9th Cir. 2020), a plaintiff may only seek an equitable remedy under the UCL and CLRA if they lack an adequate legal remedy.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp.
[The court which issued the prior judgment has] a strong presumption against enjoining a state court proceeding, as determining the preclusive effect of a prior judgment “is usually the bailiwick of the second court.” Smith v. Bayer Corp., 564 U.S. 299, 307 (2011).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
In Re Apple Inc. Device Performance Litigation
In determining if a settlement in a class action is fair and reasonable, the district court “must apply an even higher level of scrutiny” that considers if there are “any subtle signs that class counsel have allowed pursuit of their own self-interest to infect the negotiations.” Roes v. SFBSC Mgmt., LLC, 944 F.3d 1035, 1046 (9th Cir. 2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
Johnson v. City of Grants Pass
“The Eighth Amendment prohibits the imposition of criminal penalties for sitting, sleeping, or lying outside on public property for homeless individuals who cannot obtain shelter.” Martin v. City of Boise, 902 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Save the Bull Trout v. Williams
Claim preclusion applies where “the earlier suit (1) involved the same ‘claim’ or cause of action as the later suit, (2) reached a final judgment on the merits, and (3) involved identical parties or privies.” Mpoyo v. Litton Electro-Optical Sys., 430 F.3d 985, 987 (9th Cir. 2005).
Area(s) of Law:- Wildlife Law
De La Rosa-Rodriguez v. Garland
The Limited Review Provision provides that: Nothing in subparagraph (B) or (C), which limits or eliminates judicial review, shall be construed as precluding review of constitutional claims or questions of law raised upon a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Jane Doe V. USDC-NVL
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3), parties can agree to an extension of the 72-hour deadline with approval from the court of appeals, so long as the extension does not involve a stay or continuance of the underlying district court proceedings for more than five days.
Area(s) of Law:- Remedies
Kassas v. State Bar of Cal.
“[A]n individual debtor [is not discharged] from any debt—to the extent such debt is for a fine, penalty, or forfeiture . . . and is not compensation for actual pecuniary loss.” 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(7).
Area(s) of Law:- Bankruptcy Law
Lara-Garcia v. Garland
A dismissed conviction under the Federal First Offense Act (FFOA), or a similar conviction for simple possession of drugs, later expunged under a state’s rehabilitative statute, was not a “conviction” for purposes of immigration law. Lujan-Armendariz v. INS, 222 F.3d 728, 749 (9th Cir. 2000).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
The Geo Group v. Newsom
The Supreme Court has interpreted the Supremacy Clause “as prohibiting States from interfering with or controlling the operations of the Federal Government.” Washington, 142 S. Ct. at 1984.
Area(s) of Law:- Preemption
In Re Hawkeye Entertainment
“Under 11 U.S.C. § 365(b)(1), a debtor-in-possession may assume a lease only if it cures the default (or provides adequate assurances that it will), provides compensation for any actual pecuniary loss resulting from the default (or provides adequate assurances that it will) and provides adequate assurances of future performance under the lease.”
Area(s) of Law:- Bankruptcy Law
San Luis Obispo Coastkeeper v. Santa Maria Valley Water Conservation
“An ESA § 9 claim cannot succeed unless the agency’s conduct is the proximate cause of the alleged take.” Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Cmtys. for a Great Or., 515 U.S. 687, 696 n.9, 700 n.13 (1995).
Area(s) of Law:- Environmental Law
United States v. Rodriguez
When a defendant files a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, “a hearing is mandatory whenever the record does not affirmatively manifest the factual or legal invalidity of the petitioner’s claims.” Baumann v. United States, 692 F.2d 565, 571 (9th Cir. 1982).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
United States v. Wright
If property is no longer needed as evidence, the government must prove a “legitimate reason” to retain that property by: establishing that the property is contraband; establishing that the project is subject to forfeiture; or rebutting the presumption that the defendant is entitled to lawful possession of the property. United States v. Gladding, 775 F.3d 1149, 1152 (9th Cir. 2014); United States v. Van Cauwenberghe 827 F.2d 424, 433-34 (9th Cir. 1987).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Velasquez-Samayoa v. Merrick Garland
To prevail on a deferral of removal under the CAT, a plaintiff must “establish that it is more likely than not that he . . . would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (providing the standard for withholding of removal under the CAT); see id. §1208.17(a) (providing the standard for deferral of removal under the CAT). To qualify for CAT protection, an applicant must “show only a chance greater than fifty percent that he will be tortured if removed.” Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 770 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Hamoui v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 821, 827 (9th Cir. 2004)).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Spirit of Aloha Temple v. County of Maui
A law that “makes the peaceful enjoyment of freedoms which the Constitution guarantees contingent upon the uncontrolled will of an official—as by requiring a permit or license which may be granted or withheld in the discretion of such official—is an unconstitutional censorship or prior restraint.” Epona v. County of Ventura, 876 F.3d 1214, 1222 (9th Cir. 2017).
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
Vo v. Choi
When declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction for a state-law claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4), a district court must: (1) sufficiently explain “why the circumstances of the case are exceptional” under § 1367(c)(4); and (2) show that “the balance of the Gibbs values provides compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction in such circumstances.” Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Ochoa v. Public Consulting Group, Inc.
State action exists when the Plaintiff shows that her rights were deprived “by a rule of conduct imposed by the state or by a person for whom the State is responsible.” Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 937 (1982).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights § 1983
Wright v. SEIU Local 503
In order to establish a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must demonstrate that a defendant “deprived [the plaintiff] of a right secured by the Constitution” and “acted under color of state law.” Collins v. Womancare, 878 F.2d 1145, 1147 (9th Cir. 1989 (citation omitted).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights § 1983
Hernandez v. Garland
Temporary protected status (TPS) does not constitute being “admitted in any status” under the cancellation statute of 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a). Sanchez v. Mayorkas, 141 S. Ct. 1809 (2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Pinkert v. Schwab Charitable Fund
“An injury that has not yet materialized but will occur in the future can be a basis for Article III standing, but the injury must be ‘imminent,’ meaning that it must be ‘certainly impending.’” Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l, 568 U.S. 398, 409 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Standing
Singh V. Garland
Repeated acts of physical violence, accompanied with death threats, rise to the level of “serious harm” needed to show “past persecution” in petitions for asylum. See Flores Molina v. Garland, 37 F.4th 626, 634 (9th Cir. 2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
United States v. Chen
District courts may consider non-retroactive changes in sentencing law, in combination with other factors particular to the individual defendant, when analyzing extraordinary and compelling reasons for purposes of § 3582(c)(1)(A).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
United States v. Reed
Harmless error review under Brecht shall be utilized when evaluating a habeas review of an instructional error where the jury is instructed on both a valid and invalid predicate offense and failed to specify which predicate forms the basis for a §924(c) conviction.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Nexus Pharms. v. Central Admixture Pharmacy Servs.
“Proceedings to enforce or restrain violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), including the compounding [pharmacy] statute, must be by and in the name of the United States, not a private party.” 21 U.S.C. § 337.
Area(s) of Law:- Preemption
U.S.A. v. Cynthia Montoya
Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(3)(B), if a defendant pleads guilty, the government “will recommend, or agree not to oppose, the defendant’s request, that a particular . . . sentencing range is appropriate, but the defendant has no right to withdraw the plea if the court does not follow the recommendation or request.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
United States v. Fowler
The inherent sovereignty of a tribe to prescribe and enforce laws necessarily includes the right to designate the individuals who will enforce its laws.
Area(s) of Law:- Tribal Law
Mark Bax v. Doctors Med. Ctr. Of Modesto
“Assessing whether an entity provided auxiliary aids where necessary to afford effective communications is a fact-intensive exercise. The tier of fact must weigh [several] factors, including the method of communication used by the individual; the nature, length, and complexity of the communication involved; and the context in which the communication is taking place. Updike v. Multnomah County, 870 F.3d 939, 958 (9th Cir. 2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Disability Law
Cody v. Kijakazi
“The appropriate remedy for an adjudication tainted with an appointments violation is a new hearing before a properly appointed official.” Lucia v. SEC, 138 S. Ct. 2044 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Hernandez Avilez v. Garland
Noncitizens subject to mandatory detention under § 1226(c) are not statutorily eligible for release on bond during the judicial phase of the proceedings, except under the narrow circumstances defined by § 1226(c)(2).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Klamath Irrigation Dist. v. Shasta View Irrigation Dist.
A party is a “required party” if: “that [party] claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and . . . disposing of the action in [their] absence may . . . as a practical matter impair or impede [their] ability to protect the interest.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(1)(B)(i). To determine whether a suit should proceed among existing parties where a required party cannot be joined, courts consider: potential prejudice, possibility to reduce prejudice, adequacy of a judgment without the required party, and adequacy of a remedy with dismissal. Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(b).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
MacIntyre v. Carroll College
“Retaliation against a person because that person has complained of sex discrimination is [a] form of intentional sex discrimination encompassed by Title IX’s private cause of action.” Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 544 U.S. 167, 173 (2005). “[A] plaintiff who lacks direct evidence of retaliation must first make out a prima facie case of retaliation…” Id. (citing Brown v. City of Tucson, 336 F.3d 1181, 1192 (9th Cir. 2003)). “[T]o make out a prima facie case, a plaintiff need only make a minimal threshold showing of retaliation.” Id.
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Metlakatla Indian Community v. Dunleavy
When evaluating off-reservation rights, the Court is required to infer rights that support a reservation’s purpose. See Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564, 576-77 (1908).
Area(s) of Law:- Indian Law
Metlakatla Indian Community v. Dunleavy
Statutes that touch upon federal Indian law “are to be construed liberally in favor of the Indians, with ambiguous provisions interpreted to their benefit.” Swinomish Indian Tribal Cmty. v. BNSF Ry. Co., 951 F.3d 1142, 1156 (9th Cir. 2020). Rights must be inferred that support a reservation’s purpose. Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564, 576–77 (1908).
Area(s) of Law:- Indian Law
Aquilar v. Walgreen Co.
Pursuant to the collateral order doctrine, for a decision to fall within the narrow class of orders satisfying the doctrine three conditions must be met, (1) "conclusiveness," (2) "separateness," and (3) "effective unreviewability." Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 108 (2009).
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
Patsalis v. Shinn
If Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) applies, habeas relief cannot be granted unless the state court’s decision was (1) “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” or (2) “based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State Court proceeding.” Johnson v. Williams, 568 U.S. 289, 292 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Tingley v. Ferguson
“States may regulate professional conduct, even though that conduct incidentally involves speech.” National Institute of Family & Life Advocates v. Becerra, 138 S. Ct. 2361, 2372 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law