9th Circuit Court of Appeals (37 summaries)
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
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
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 Lara
An officer may not unreasonably search a probationer's cell phone as a condition of probation.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal 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
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
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
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
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
Styers v Ryan
It has never been held by the Arizona Supreme Court that a conditional writ of habeas corpus that has been issued necessarily means that a sentence or conviction resulted from a constitutional error.
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
United States v Holden
When defining continuing offense, a court will look at either explicit language of the substantive law on point, or the intent of Congress in creating the law coupled with the nature of the crime committed.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Flores-Rios v. Lynch
Under the framework for “membership in a particular social group”, the family is a distinct social group.
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
NLRB v. Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Mkt.
A party must file a petition to revoke a subpoena if it wants to make a claim that the subpoena has a defect, and therefore, is insufficient.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Hajro v. USCIS
In order to retain jurisdiction under a settlement agreement, the order dismissing the case with prejudice needs to incorporate the terms of the agreement or expressly retain it.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Glick v Edwards
Under the rule of necessity, a judge may hear a case in which that judge is named a defendant to the case if the case cannot be heard otherwise.
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
McMonagle v Meyer
A misdemeanor appeal is immediately final in California once the California court of Appeals makes a final decision on the case.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Sakkab v. Luxottica Retail N. Am.
The Federal Arbitration Act will preempt a state rule that is not a generally applicable contract defense and that conflicts with the purposes of the Federal Arbitration Act.
Area(s) of Law:- Arbitration
Cascadia Wildlands v Bureau of Indian Affairs
The National Environmental Policy Act requires preparation of an Environmental Impact Study under circumstances that may affect human living conditions.
Area(s) of Law:- Environmental Law
Rodriguez v. Sony Comput. Entm't Am
A private right of action does not exists for unlawful retention of personably identifiable information under 18 U.S.C. § 2710(c)(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
City of Oakland v Lynch
Judicial Review under the Administrative Procedure Act is precluded when the government’s decision to file a forfeiture action is committed to agency discretion by law, and when allowing the suit to proceed would impermissibly disrupt the existing forfeiture framework.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Olive v. CIR
A trade or business, defined as the activity entered into with the dominant hope and intent of realizing a profit, trafficking in controlled substances prohibited by Federal law is precluded from deducting any amount of ordinary or necessary business expenses under 26 U.S.C. § 280E.
Area(s) of Law:- Tax Law
United States v. Zepeda
The Indian Major Crimes Act requires: (1) proof of quantum Indian blood, whether it is from a Federally recognized tribe, and (2) proof or affiliation with a federally recognized tribe. Further, a defendant needs to have been an Indian during the time of the charged conduct, and whether a tribe is Federally recognized is a matter of law.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Bastidas v. Chappell
When a magistrate judge believes to be issuing a nondispositive order, the judge may warn litigants that if they disagree and believe the matter to be dispositive, they have the right to file an objection to the determination with the district judge.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Alaskan Eskimo Whaling Comm'n v. EPA
When the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) makes a contrary determinations of a non-contact cooling water causing unreasonable degradation of marine environments, then a court may allow the EPA to reconsider its decision with regard to issuing permits with the new evidence.
Area(s) of Law:- Environmental Law
In Re United States
A court is not categorically precluded from expressing the merits of the mandamus when issuance would no longer be effective.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
Mitchell v. United States
A defense counsel may not be rendered ineffective if they made attempts at a defense strategy.
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
Marsh v. Colvin
Administrative Law Judges cannot ignore medical opinions and records.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Naffe v. Frey
A government employee acts under the color of law when, while he is performing his duty, he purposefully influences the behavior of others, which thereby inflicts harm on the plaintiff.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights § 1983
Garcia-Mendez v. Lynch
An alien does not, by virtue of the alien’s status as an applicant for special rule cancellation of removal, meet the definition of a Violence Against Women Act self-petitioner, nor does an applicant for special rule cancellation, by virtue of that status, become eligible to seek a section 212(h) waiver.
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
United States v. Crooked Arm
Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, parts of the migratory bird are distinguishable from the entire migratory bird as a whole, and therefore, selling parts of a migratory bird is not equivalent to selling the actual bird, which is a felony.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Allen v. Bedolla
A district court must comprehensively review all factors to a class action settlement, and must give a reasoned response to all non-frivolous objections when determining the settlement’s substantive fairness.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
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. 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
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
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
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
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
Oregon Supreme Court (4 summaries)
Kiryuta v. Country Preferred Ins. Co
An insurer is not entitled to a safe harbor for attorney fees under ORS 742.061(3), when an arbitration agreement limits the issues to be arbitrated, and the insurer raises an affirmative defense to the award that exceeds the scope of that agreement.
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
Grabhorn v. Washington County
A Land Use Board of Appeal's decision may not lack substantial evidence when the date of lawful nonconforming presence is in dispute, if there would not have been a lawful presence under either date presented by petitioner.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
DCBS v. Muliro
Under ORS 656.210(2)(b)(A), to be eligible for supplemental temporary disability benefits, a claimant must prove that an employee's first employer and insurance company received actual notice of the claimant's secondary employment, and the notice requirement may not be imputed by preexisting knowledge.
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
Northwest Natural Gas Co. v. City of Gresham
An increase in licensing fees may be valid if it is a “privilege tax” and the utilities operate “without a franchise” under ORS 221.450.
Area(s) of Law:- Tax Law
Oregon Court of Appeals (37 summaries)
State v. Alonso
Compensatory fines cannot be imposed if the victim would not have a remedy in a civil action based on the crime.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. V.T.
Under ORS 426.307(6), continued involuntary civil commitment is appropriate if there is clear and convincing evidence of a particularized and highly probable threat to a person's safety.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
Diesel v. Jackson County
A county's prohibition of marijuana production on lands zoned rural residential may not be inconsistent with the county’s comprehensive plan.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Lizarraga-Regalado v. Premo
Counsel's failure to object to the “natural and probable consequences” uniform jury instruction, similar to State v. Lopez-Minjarez, constitutes a failure to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. Watts
If a defendant was not given a reasonable opportunity to consent to a search, such as when the defendant is told that a search will inevitable occur, then it may be a warrantless search.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Mendoza
ORS 138.692 and ORS 138.694, regarding DNA testing and appointment of counsel, require supporting affidavits to prove the motion.
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
Sloan v. Providence Health System-Oregon
If the jury instructions correctly state the law, a trial court may commit a reversible error by refusing to allow those instructions to be submitted to the jury.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Silsby
A stipulated sentence is “illustrated in” ORS 135.407 and ORS 138.222(2)(d) will prevent review on appeal.
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
Ault v. Del Var Properties, LLC
At summary judgment on a premises liability claim, a plaintiff is not required to prove that the injury-causing condition on defendant's property was "unreasonably dangerous."
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
State v. Thomas
The state breaches a plea agreement when the state imposes restitution on a plea agreement that does not mention restitution anywhere in the agreement.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
SAIF v. Williams
The Workers’ Compensation Boards order proving compensability of a “new medical or omitted medical condition” under ORS 656.267 by a claimant may be reversed if the Board comes to its own medical conclusion about causation.
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
State v. Teagues
The state must choose a particular occurrence, and not raise two theories, to base a conviction for assault in violation of ORS 163.160(1)(a)
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Tena
Evidence of prior assaults may be introduced to show “intent or absence of mistake or accident” and “hostile motive” against the victim.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Code and Code
A trial court's determination of property division is just and proper in all the circumstances based on the courts discretion, unless a legal error has occurred.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
122nd Group, LLC v. DCBS
ORS 646A.620(1)(c)'s phrase "make available to the public" does not include throwing an evicted tenants belongings in the dumpster and thus exposing them to dumpster divers.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Hessel v. Dept. of Corrections
It is within the general statutory policy given to the Department of Corrections to govern, manage, and administer prisons.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
State v. Hawkins
ORS 166.025(1)(f) is intended to apply when a defendant's sensory conduct cause the people exposed to experience unpleasant physical, sensory effects.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Green
Under Article I, section 11 of the Oregon Constitution, it may be a violation of the right to counsel to prevent an individual from consulting with his attorney prior to taking a Intoxilyzer test if the officer is within earshot of the attorney or his receptionist.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Holt
A trail court's failure to conduct an OEC 403 balancing test may result in a Due Process violation under the Unites States Constitution.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Zach v. Chartis Claims, Inc.
Since the Director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services decides both the policy within the rules and resolves vocational disputes, deference must be given to his or her interpretation of the rules.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Lawrence v. Bailey
In confirming an arbitration award, a court lacks authority to grant a credit for advanced payments of medical expenses without an evidentiary basis.
Area(s) of Law:- Arbitration
State v. Thomas
OEC 703 does not permit the admission of inadmissible evidence just because it is offered through an expert witness's testimony.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Maxfield v. Nooth
The standard for determining whether counsel's deficient representation prejudiced a defendant is whether "the deficient performance could have affected the outcome of the case."
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. Wade
A second-degree disorderly conduct conviction may be reversed if a rational fact finder would find the elements beyond a reasonable doubt and there was no physical conduct by the defendant.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Anthony
The trial court commits an error if it does not examine the criminal defendant's ability to pay court appointed attorney fees.
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
State v. Rinehart
A criminal defendant may not be required to pay attorney fees unless the defendant is or may be able to pay those fees.
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
Friends of Yamhill County v. Board of Commissioners
If a declaratory judgment proceeding is exclusively available through the writ of review process under ORS 34.020, and if it is substantially the same relief as a writ of review, the relief may be denied.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
Village at North Pointe Condo. Assn. v. Bloedel Constr.
When calculating attorney fees, insurance coverage issues, if not recoverable, may be separated from those incurred in litigating the claims, if recoverable.
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
OHSU v. Oregonian Publishing Co., LLC
Public records may not be disclosed if they contain information about the physical, mental health, psychiatric care, or treatment of a person, when that disclosure can cause an unreasonable invasion of privacy, and the public interest does not demand disclosure.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
LaCasse v. Owen
When opposing a motion for summary judgment, an attorney may submit a declaration that an unidentified expert will testify to certain conclusions at a trial that raise a genuine issue of material fact.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Bundy v. NuStar GP, LLC
Under the workers compensation act, the employer may be sued by an employee for injury that results from the employers deliberate intention to injure that employee.
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
State v Smith
Elevating a public indecency misdemeanor to a felony and imposing a life sentence for two prior sexual attempt crimes is not an unconstitutional sentence.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Padilla
Under Article I, section 16 of the Oregon Constitution, a sentence is dissproportinate if it would shock a reasonable person's moral sense.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Martine
The State has not met its burden of showing legally sufficient proof that physical evidence was discarded if a jury has to use impermissible speculation to agree with the State.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Butcher
Under ORS 151.505(3) and ORS 161.665(4), it is plain error to require a defendant to pay attorney fees in absence of evidence that he is able to do so, and may be reversed if the amount was “substantial” in light of defendant’s circumstances.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Cline
Under ORS 151.505(3) and ORS 161.665(4), it is plain error to require a defendant to pay attorney fees in absence of evidence that he is able to do so.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v Osborn
Under ORS 151.505(3) and ORS 161.665(4), it is plain error to require a defendant to pay attorney fees absent any evidence he is able to do so. Under ORAP 5.45(1), a reviewing court may examine the gravity of the error, the prison term length, and the lack of financial resources of the defendant in choosing to exercise its discretion to correct the plain error of a trial court when a defendant did not adequately preserve his objection at trial.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure