9th Circuit Court of Appeals (17 summaries)
United States v. IMM
(1) The competency of a child witness is a matter within the discretion of the trial judge and not to be disturbed unless clearly erroneous. (2) Inculpatory statements made by a juvenile defendant in custody must be suppressed if the defendant was not properly read his Miranda rights.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Coronado v. Holder
California Health & Safety Code § 11377(a) is a divisible statute and convictions for possessing methamphetamine in violation of the statute are not categorical removable offenses.
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Dariano v. Morgan Hill Unified Sch. Dist.
School officials do not violate students' right to freedom of expression, due process, and equal protection when they ask students to remove clothing bearing the American flag if it is reasonable for the officials “to proceed as though the threat of potentially violent disturbance [i]s real.”
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
Aguilar-Turcios v. Holder
A conviction under the Uniform Code of Military Justice Article 92 for violating a Department of Defense Directive by using an official government computer to view pornography does not constitute an aggravated felony.
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
United States v. Lin
18 U.S.C. § 1546(a) does not “criminalize the mere possession of an unlawfully obtained…driver's license.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Murillo-Prado v. Holder
When determining eligibility for cancellation of removal, a conviction for racketeering under Arizona law constitutes an aggravated felony as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(J).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Valle del Sol V. Whiting
Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-2929 is void for vagueness and the section criminalizing the harboring and transporting of unauthorized aliens is invalid under the Supremacy Clause as it violates federal law.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Rock River Commc'n v. Universal Music Group
A claim of intentional interference with prospective economic advantage cannot be defeated on the alleged illegality of the expectancy unless the illegality is affirmatively established.
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
Abdisalan v. Holder
A Board of Immigration Appeals order of removal may not be reviewed by the Court of Appeals if a petition for review is not filed within 30 days of the BIA decision.
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Anderson Bros. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.
Letters that put the recipient on notice of liability and the sender's intent to pursue compensation qualify as "suits" and can trigger an insurer's duty to defend.
Area(s) of Law:- Insurance Law
United States v. Ermoian
Under the federal statute criminalizing obstruction of justice, 18 U.S.C. § 1512, a Federal Bureau of Investigation criminal investigation is not an “official proceeding.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Montana Wilderness Ass'n v. Connell
A Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) Resource Management Plan does not violate the Federal Land Policy and Management Act or the National Environmental Policy Act as degrading wilderness values absent a showing of evidence that its mapping and designation are fundamentally different from existing methods, but the BLM may violate the National Historic Preservation Act if it is not conducting its required Class III surveys.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
United States v. Teague
Separate convictions of receipt and possession of child pornography must be based on some assurance that the convictions were based on separate conduct.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Varghese v. Uribe
When a state court has no specific legal rule to apply, its decision is not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
Jesse Engebretson v. Mike Mahoney
Prison officials are immune from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for executing conduct prescribed by facially valid court orders.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights § 1983
Clevo Co. v. Hecny Transp., Inc.
Guarantees with no express statute of limitations can place a seller and freight forwarder in direct contractual privity however, a statute of limitations in the bills of lading may bar recovery.
Area(s) of Law:- Admiralty
U.S. v. Trujillo
District courts are not jurisdictionally barred from hearing 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) motions; however in denying such a motion under § 3553(a) the court must give sufficient explanation; and the Ex Post Facto Clause does not prohibit an upward departure in sentencing so long as the original sentence is not exceeded.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure