September 38 summaries
Patsalis v. Shinn
If Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) applies, habeas relief cannot be granted unless the state court鈥檚 decision was (1) 鈥渃ontrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,鈥 or (2) 鈥渂ased on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State Court proceeding.鈥 Johnson v. Williams, 568 U.S. 289, 292 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Tingley v. Ferguson
鈥淪tates may regulate professional conduct, even though that conduct incidentally involves speech.鈥 National Institute of Family & Life Advocates v. Becerra, 138 S. Ct. 2361, 2372 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional 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
Cody v. Kijakazi
鈥淭he appropriate remedy for an adjudication tainted with an appointments violation is a new hearing before a properly appointed official.鈥 Lucia v. SEC, 138 S. Ct. 2044 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Hernandez Avilez v. Garland
Noncitizens subject to mandatory detention under 搂 1226(c) are not statutorily eligible for release on bond during the judicial phase of the proceedings, except under the narrow circumstances defined by 搂 1226(c)(2).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Klamath Irrigation Dist. v. Shasta View Irrigation Dist.
A party is a 鈥渞equired party鈥 if: 鈥渢hat [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.鈥 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
鈥淩etaliation against a person because that person has complained of sex discrimination is [a] form of intentional sex discrimination encompassed by Title IX鈥檚 private cause of action.鈥 Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 544 U.S. 167, 173 (2005). 鈥淸A] plaintiff who lacks direct evidence of retaliation must first make out a prima facie case of retaliation鈥︹ Id. (citing Brown v. City of Tucson, 336 F.3d 1181, 1192 (9th Cir. 2003)). 鈥淸T]o make out a prima facie case, a plaintiff need only make a minimal threshold showing of retaliation.鈥 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鈥檚 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 鈥渁re to be construed liberally in favor of the Indians, with ambiguous provisions interpreted to their benefit.鈥 Swinomish Indian Tribal Cmty. v. BNSF Ry. Co., 951 F.3d 1142, 1156 (9th Cir. 2020). Rights must be inferred that support a reservation鈥檚 purpose. Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564, 576鈥77 (1908).
Area(s) of Law:- Indian Law
Mark Bax v. Doctors Med. Ctr. Of Modesto
鈥淎ssessing 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
Nexus Pharms. v. Central Admixture Pharmacy Servs.
鈥淧roceedings 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.鈥 21 U.S.C. 搂 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 鈥渨ill recommend, or agree not to oppose, the defendant鈥檚 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.鈥
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
Hernandez v. Garland
Temporary protected status (TPS) does not constitute being 鈥渁dmitted in any status鈥 under the cancellation statute of 8 U.S.C. 搂 1229b(a). Sanchez v. Mayorkas, 141 S. Ct. 1809 (2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Pinkert v. Schwab Charitable Fund
鈥淎n 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 鈥榠mminent,鈥 meaning that it must be 鈥榗ertainly impending.鈥欌 Clapper v. Amnesty Int鈥檒, 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 鈥渟erious harm鈥 needed to show 鈥減ast persecution鈥 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 搂 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 搂924(c) conviction.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Ochoa v. Public Consulting Group, Inc.
State action exists when the Plaintiff shows that her rights were deprived 鈥渂y a rule of conduct imposed by the state or by a person for whom the State is responsible.鈥 Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 937 (1982).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights 搂 1983
Wright v. SEIU Local 503
In order to establish a claim under 42 U.S.C. 搂 1983, a plaintiff must demonstrate that a defendant 鈥渄eprived [the plaintiff] of a right secured by the Constitution鈥 and 鈥渁cted under color of state law.鈥 Collins v. Womancare, 878 F.2d 1145, 1147 (9th Cir. 1989 (citation omitted).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights 搂 1983
Vo v. Choi
When declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction for a state-law claim under 28 U.S.C. 搂 1367(c)(4), a district court must: (1) sufficiently explain 鈥渨hy the circumstances of the case are exceptional鈥 under 搂 1367(c)(4); and (2) show that 鈥渢he balance of the Gibbs values provides compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction in such circumstances.鈥 Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202, 1210鈥11 (9th Cir. 2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Spirit of Aloha Temple v. County of Maui
A law that 鈥渕akes the peaceful enjoyment of freedoms which the Constitution guarantees contingent upon the uncontrolled will of an official鈥攁s by requiring a permit or license which may be granted or withheld in the discretion of such official鈥攊s an unconstitutional censorship or prior restraint.鈥 Epona v. County of Ventura, 876 F.3d 1214, 1222 (9th Cir. 2017).
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
In Re Hawkeye Entertainment
鈥淯nder 11 U.S.C. 搂 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.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Bankruptcy Law
San Luis Obispo Coastkeeper v. Santa Maria Valley Water Conservation
鈥淎n ESA 搂 9 claim cannot succeed unless the agency鈥檚 conduct is the proximate cause of the alleged take.鈥 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. 搂 2255, 鈥渁 hearing is mandatory whenever the record does not affirmatively manifest the factual or legal invalidity of the petitioner鈥檚 claims.鈥 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 鈥渓egitimate reason鈥 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 鈥渆stablish that it is more likely than not that he . . . would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.鈥 8 C.F.R. 搂 1208.16(c)(2) (providing the standard for withholding of removal under the CAT); see id. 搂1208.17(a) (providing the standard for deferral of removal under the CAT). To qualify for CAT protection, an applicant must 鈥渟how only a chance greater than fifty percent that he will be tortured if removed.鈥 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
Jane Doe V. USDC-NVL
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 搂 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.
鈥淸A]n individual debtor [is not discharged] from any debt鈥攖o the extent such debt is for a fine, penalty, or forfeiture . . . and is not compensation for actual pecuniary loss.鈥 11 U.S.C. 搂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鈥檚 rehabilitative statute, was not a 鈥渃onviction鈥 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 鈥渁s prohibiting States from interfering with or controlling the operations of the Federal Government.鈥 Washington, 142 S. Ct. at 1984.
Area(s) of Law:- Preemption
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. 搂 1252(a)(2)(D).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
In Re Apple Inc. Device Performance Litigation
In determining if a settlement in a class action is fair and reasonable, the district court 鈥渕ust apply an even higher level of scrutiny鈥 that considers if there are 鈥渁ny subtle signs that class counsel have allowed pursuit of their own self-interest to infect the negotiations.鈥 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
鈥淭he Eighth Amendment prohibits the imposition of criminal penalties for sitting, sleeping, or lying outside on public property for homeless individuals who cannot obtain shelter.鈥 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 鈥渢he earlier suit (1) involved the same 鈥榗laim鈥 or cause of action as the later suit, (2) reached a final judgment on the merits, and (3) involved identical parties or privies.鈥 Mpoyo v. Litton Electro-Optical Sys., 430 F.3d 985, 987 (9th Cir. 2005).
Area(s) of Law:- Wildlife Law
Gable v. Williams
"Actual innocence," as a procedural default excuse does not require 鈥渁ffirmatively prov[ing] . . . [the defendant] is probably innocent,鈥 as in a solo claim of 鈥渁ctual innocence.鈥 See Jones v. Taylor, 763 F.3d at 1246鈥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 鈥渋s usually the bailiwick of the second court.鈥 Smith v. Bayer Corp., 564 U.S. 299, 307 (2011).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
October 34 summaries
U.S. v. Rosenow
The Fourth Amendment encompasses a private party鈥檚 search if the private party is acting 鈥渁s an agent of the Government or with the participation of knowledge of any governmental official.鈥 United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113 (1984).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Chennette v. Porch.com, Inc.
Plaintiff's standing under TCPA 47 U.S.C. 搂 227(c), stating that businesses cannot use telephone solicitations if 鈥淸a] residential telephone subscriber [] has registered his or her telephone number on the national do-not-call registry,鈥 was permitted based on statutory presumption favoring protection.
Area(s) of Law:- Standing
USSEC v. Murphy
"When someone places another鈥檚 capital at risk by trading securities as his or her agent, he or she is trading securities 鈥渇or the account of others,鈥 and is a 鈥渂roker鈥 subject to 搂 15(a)鈥檚 registration requirements. 15 U.S.C. 搂 78c(a)(4)(A)."
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Mu帽oz v. U.S. Dep't of State
In the case of a visa denial, if the government fails to provide听"a听facially legitimate and bona fide reason for denying the visa鈥澨齂leindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 770听(1972). Or, if despite听a "bona fide reason" the petitioner makes an "affirmative showing" of bad faith,听judicial review is permitted.听Kerry v. Din, 576 U.S. 86, 105 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Ochoa v. Davis
(1) A juror in a capital case is properly excluded for cause where the juror鈥檚 views on capital punishment would 鈥減revent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath.鈥 Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 424 (1985) (cleaned up). (2) Ineffective assistance of counsel claims require that 鈥渃ounsel鈥檚 performance was deficient,鈥 and that the 鈥渄eficient performance prejudiced [defendant鈥檚] defense.鈥 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). In the penalty phase of a capital case, a defendant must show 鈥渁 reasonable probability that at least one juror鈥 would have voted for a life sentence. Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 537 (2003). (3) Intellectual disability is defined according to 3 factors: 鈥渟ignificantly subaverage intellectual functioning鈥; 鈥渄eficits in adaptive functioning鈥; and 鈥渙nset of these deficits during the developmental period.鈥 Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. 701, 710 (2014).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Save Our Skies LA v. FAA
Agencies must prepare an environmental impact statement for 鈥渕ajor Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.鈥 42 U.S.C. 搂 4332(C). However, the FAA has a 鈥渃ategorical exclusion鈥 for editorial changes which have no effect on the flight path of an airplane, bypassing the typical NEPA impact statement requirement. FAA Order 1050.1F 5-6.5.k; see 40 C.F.R. 搂 1507.3(e)(2)(ii).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Mobilize the Message, LLC. v. Bonta
鈥淸T]he First Amendment does not prevent restrictions directed at commerce or conduct from imposing incidental burdens on speech.鈥 Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 564 U.S. 552 (2011).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
United States v. Saelee
To establish that evidence originally acquired unlawfully has been independently attained, the State must show that, 鈥渘o information gained from the Fourth Amendment violations 鈥渁ffected either [1] the law enforcement officers鈥 decision to seek a warrant or [2] the magistrate鈥檚 decision to grant it.鈥 Murray, 487 U.S. at 539鈥40.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Eaton v. Blewett
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, prisoners must exhaust 鈥渟uch administrative remedies as are available鈥 before bringing a claim to federal court. 42 U.S.C. 搂 1997e(a). However, if a claim is not barred if a remedy is effectively unavailable. McBride v. Lopez, 807 F.3d 982, 986 (9th Cir. 2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Mendoza v. Strickler
The State is 鈥渇ree to choose鈥 a variety of measures less intrusive than incarceration, and does not have to accept a defendant escaping punishment for lack of ability to pay a fine. See Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235, 244鈥45 (1970); Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660, 672 (1983).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
U.S. v. Holguin
It is within the court's "broad latitude" to deny a Daubert hearing. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 142 (1999).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
350 Montana v. Haaland
The arbitrary and capricious standard under the APA requires the court 'to determine whether the agency has taken a 'hard look' at the consequences of its actions, 'based [its decision] on a consideration of the relevant factors,' and provided a 'convincing statement of reasons to explain why a project's impacts are insignificant.' Barnes v. U.S. Dep't of Transp., 655 F.3d 1124, 1132 (9th Cir. 2011).
Area(s) of Law:- Environmental Law
Hoyos v. Davis
To establish a prima facie case at Step One of a Batson analysis, Defendant bares the burden to show: (1) they are a member of a cognizable group; (2) the prosecutor removed members of that group; and (3) the totality of the circumstances gives rise to an inference that the prosecutor excluded jurors based on race. United States v. Esparza-Gonzalez, 422 F.3d 897, 904 (9th Cir. 2005).
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
Bax v. Doctors Med. Ctr. of Modesto Inc.
To avoid discriminating against persons with disabilities, covered entities must ensure meaningful access to their services. The touchstone of the accessibility analysis is whether the entity provided auxiliary aids sufficient to ensure 鈥渆ffective communication鈥 with deaf patients.
Area(s) of Law:- Disability Law
Michaels v. Davis
(1) If a suspect 鈥渋ndicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent,鈥 officers must cease the interrogation. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 473-74 (1966). The Miranda rights invocation must be 鈥渦nambiguous.鈥 Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452, 459 (1994). (2) Ineffective assistance of counsel claims require that 鈥渃ounsel鈥檚 performance was deficient,鈥 and that the 鈥渄eficient performance prejudiced [defendant鈥檚] defense.鈥 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). (3) The dispositive question when defendants complain of conflicts with their attorneys that are conflicts of their own making is whether counsel provided adequate counsel according to standards established in Strickland. See Plumlee v. Masto, 512 F.3d 1204, 1211 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). (4) To be competent to stand trial, a defendant must have 鈥渟ufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding . . . [and] a rational and factual understanding of the proceedings against him.鈥 Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348, 354 (1996) (alterations in original).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Peck v. Montoya
鈥淚n evaluating a Fourth Amendment claim of excessive force, we ask whether the officers鈥 actions are objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them.鈥 Rice v. Morehouse, 989 F.3d 1112.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights 搂 1983
Riley v. Volkswagen Group of America
Under BMW v. Gore, three guidelines establish 鈥渨hether punitive damage awards comply with due process: (1) the reprehensibility of defendant鈥檚 conduct; (2) the disparity between . . . harm suffered . . . [and] punitive damages; and (3) the difference between the punitive damages and . . . civil penalties . . . in comparable cases.鈥 BMW v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 575 (1996).
Area(s) of Law:- Remedies
Dong v. Garland
A credibility determination for an asylum application may be based on the 鈥渢he demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant or witness.鈥 See 8 U.S.C. 搂1158(b)(1)(B)(iii).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Killgore v. Specpro Pro. Servs.
An employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not retaliate against an employee for refusing to participate in an activity that would result in a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation. California Whistleblower Protection Act, section 1102.5(c).
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Wakefield v. ViSalus
In determining whether a Plaintiff has established a concrete injury in fact in order to have standing to sue under Article III, 鈥渁n intangible injury is sufficiently concrete when Congress created a statutory cause of action for the injury.鈥 TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez 141 S. Ct. at 2204鈥07.
Area(s) of Law:- Standing
Lopez v. Garland
The Convention Against Torture prohibits the U.S. from returning anyone to a country where it is more than likely they would be tortured.
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Newman
Under Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 501 US. 663 (1981), journalists are not immune from generally applicable laws when engaging in newsgathering. Furthering a RICO scheme is not a sufficient independent criminal or tortious purpose to support violations of the Federal Wiretap Act, where the purpose of the RICO scheme and the wiretapping are the same.
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
Cadena v. Customer Connexx, LLC
In determining if an activity performed outside of regular working hours is compensable, the court must consider, 鈥渋f those activities are an integral and indispensable part of the principal activity for which covered workmen are employed.鈥 Steiner v. Mitchell, 350 U.S. 247, 256 (1956).
Area(s) of Law:- Labor Law
Jane Does v. Reddit
鈥淭o hold a defendant criminally liable as a beneficiary of sex trafficking, the defendant must have actually engaged in some aspect of the sex trafficking.鈥 United States v. Afyare, 632 F. App鈥檟 272, 286 (6th Cir. 2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
Mendoza-Linares v. Garland
The 鈥淭ransit Bar,鈥 which provided that, subject to certain enumerated exceptions, an alien who arrived in the U.S. across the southern border 鈥渁fter transiting through at least one country outside the alien鈥檚 country of citizenship, nationality, or last lawful habitual residence en route to the United States鈥 was categorically ineligible for asylum. 8 C.F.R. 搂 208.13(c)(4) (2020)
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Shayler v. 1310 PCH
鈥淚n ADA cases, a prevailing plaintiff may recover a reasonable attorney鈥檚 fee. 42 U.S.C. 搂 12205. A reasonable attorney鈥檚 fee... can be adjusted upward or downward based on other factors. Machowski v. 333 N. Placentia Prop., LLC, 38 F.4th 837, 840-41 (9th Cir. 2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Disability Law
United States v. Kabir
USSG 搂 3B1.1(c) provides that a defendant鈥檚 offense level will be adjusted two levels upward if he 鈥渨as an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor鈥 in a non-extensive criminal activity involving fewer than five participants. 鈥淧lain error is (1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.鈥 United States v. Waknine, 543 F.3d 546, 551 (9th Cir. 2008).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Jane Doe v. USDC-NVL
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 搂 3663(a)(3), when a defendant agrees to pay restitution as part of a plea agreement the district court has statutory authority to award restitution. United States v. McAninch, 994 F.2d 1380, 1384 n.4 (9th Cir. 1993); United States v. Soderling, 970 F.2d 529, 534 n.9 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam).
Area(s) of Law:- Remedies
Verdun, et. al. v. City of San Diego
The administrative search exception may be reasonable where the primary purpose of a search is distinguishable from the general interest of crime control.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights 搂 1983
Bliss Sequoia Ins. & Risk Advisors, Inc. v. Allied Prop & Casualty Ins. Co.
A broad interpretation of 鈥渂ecause of鈥 is not a reasonable one, and "a but-for cause is not always (in fact not often) a cause relevant to legal liability.鈥 United States v. Hatfield, 591 F.3d 945, 948 (7th Cir. 2010).
Area(s) of Law:- Insurance Law
City of Reno v. Netflix, Inc.
Under Nevada law, courts determine whether a statute creates an implied right of action by considering: "(1) whether the plaintiffs are of the class for whose [special] benefit the statute was enacted; (2) whether the legislative history indicates any intention to create or deny a private remedy; and (3) whether implying such a remedy is consistent with the underlying purposes of the legislative [sch]eme."听Baldonado v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC, 194 P.3d 96 (Nev. 2008).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
GCIU Emp. Ret. Fund v. MNG Enter.
Actuaries must make 鈥渞easonable鈥 assumptions which offer the actuary鈥檚 鈥渂est estimate鈥 of 鈥渁nticipated experience鈥 when assessing withdrawal liability for a pension plan. 搂 1393(a)(1). Using a rate which does not account for expected returns under the plan is not the 鈥渂est estimate.鈥 United Mine Workers of Am. 1974 Pension Plan v. Energy W. Mining Co., 39 F.4th 730, 740 (D.C. Cir. 2022).
Area(s) of Law:- ERISA
Hernandez v. Garland
Aliens convicted of 鈥減articularly serious crimes鈥 are not eligible for withholding removal or asylum. 8 U.S.C. 搂搂 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii), 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii). A 鈥減articularly serious crime鈥 is a discretionary determination made by weighing multiple factors. Arbid v. Holder, 700 F.3d 379, 383 (9th Cir. 2012).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
United States v. Richards
The finding that a provision under 搂 3583 is unconstitutional (1) 鈥渁pplies only when a defendant commits a discrete set of federal criminal offenses specified鈥, (2) 鈥渢akes away the judge鈥檚 discretion to decide whether violation of a condition of supervised release should result in imprisonment and for how long鈥, and (3) 鈥渓imits the judge鈥檚 discretion in a particular manner: by imposing a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of 鈥榥ot less than 5 years.鈥欌 United States v. Haymond, 139 S. Ct. 2369, 2386 (2019). 鈥淸A] district court has discretion to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences after revocation of multiple concurrent terms of supervised release.鈥 United States v. Xinidakis, 598 F.3d 1213, 1217 (9th Cir. 2010).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
November 26 summaries
Save the Bull Trout et al. v. Williams
Claim preclusion bars a party in successive litigation from pursuing claims that were rained or could have been raised in a prior action. Media Rts. Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 922 F.3d 1014, 1020 (9th Cir. 2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Green v. Miss United States of America
The First Amendment ensures that 鈥淐ongress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech,鈥 which includes 鈥渧arious forms of entertainment and visual expression as purely expressive activities.鈥 U.S. Const. amend. I.; Anderson v. City of Hermosa Beach, 621 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2010). These protections extend to theatrical productions that 鈥渇requently mix[] speech with live action or conduct,鈥 and beauty pageants fall within this ambit. Se. Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546, 558 (1975).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Galvez v. Jaddou
"To determine whether the district court abused its discretion in entering the injunction, look to whether the trial court identified and applied the correct legal rule to the relief requested.鈥 United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1263 (9th Cir. 2009).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Ray v. Los Angeles Cnty. Dept. of Pub. Social Servs.
Under Bonnette v. Cal. Health & Welfare Agency, 704 F.2d 1465 (9th Cir. 1983), an entity is a joint employer if the entity 鈥(1) had the power to hire and fire [] employees, (2) supervised and controlled employee work schedules or conditions of employment, (3) determined the rate and method of payment, and (4) maintained employment records.
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Jones v. Ryan
IAC claims require the defendant to show that (1) 鈥渃ounsel鈥檚 performance was deficient,鈥 and (2) 鈥渢he deficient performance prejudiced the defense.鈥 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). Counsel鈥檚 failure to investigate and present evidence of a defendant鈥檚 mental defect constitutes deficient performance. Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 396 (2000). Additionally, the failure to 鈥渕ake even [a] cursory investigation鈥 into available means of obtaining additional funding for expert witnesses may amount to deficient performance under Strickland. See Hinton v. Alabama, 571 U.S. 263, 274 (2014).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Magassa v. Mayorkas
搂 1981 prohibits intentional discrimination and promises 鈥淸a]ll persons鈥 the right to 鈥渕ake and enforce contracts.鈥 42 U.S.C. 搂 1981(a). The statute provides that 鈥淸t]he rights protected by this section are protected against impairment by nongovernmental discrimination and impairment under color of State law.鈥 Id. 搂 1981(c). When evaluating procedural due process claims, the Court weighs the plaintiff鈥檚 鈥(1) liberty [or property] interests; (2) the risk of an erroneous . . . deprivation through the current traveler redress procedures, and the probable value of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and (3) the government鈥檚 interest in national security, including the administrative burdens that additional procedural requirements would entail.鈥 Kashem v. Barr, 941 F.3d 358, 364, 377 (9th Cir. 2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Online Merchants Guild v. Maduros
Under the TIA, "district courts shall not enjoin, suspend or restrain the assessment, levy or collection of any tax under State law where a plain, speedy and efficient remedy may be had in the courts of such State." 28 U.S.C.听搂 1342.
Area(s) of Law:- Tax Law
Unicolors, Inc. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P.
A party seeking to invalidate a copyright registration under 搂 411(b) must demonstrate that (1) the registrant submitted a registration application containing inaccuracies, (2) the registrant knew that the application failed to comply with the requisite legal requirements, and (3) the inaccuracies in question were material to the registration decision by the Register of Copyrights. Roberts v. Gordy, 877 F.3d 1024, 1030 (11th Cir. 2017). A copyright registration certificate is relevant evidence of the validity of the copyright in question. United Fabrics Int鈥檒, Inc. v. C&J Wear, Inc., 630 F.3d 1255, 1257 (9th Cir. 2011). A remittitur must reflect the maximum amount sustainable by the proof. But where the method the jury used to calculate its award can be ascertained by a review of the verdict, the judge is responsible for preserving the jury鈥檚 findings to the greatest extent possible by using that method of calculation in determining the remittitur amount.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Barclay v. Boskoski
11 U.S.C. 搂 522(f) 鈥渆stablishes as the baseline, against which impairment is be measured, not an exemption to which the debtor 鈥榠s entitled,鈥 but one to which he 鈥榳ould have been entitled.鈥欌 Owen v. Owen, 500 U.S. 305, 311 (1991). The Court applies a state exemption law in effect on the filling date of the bankruptcy petition rather than on the creation date of the lien.
Area(s) of Law:- Bankruptcy Law
Mejia v. Miller
Under Bivens, 鈥渁n implied damages remedy鈥 when federal officers perform an unreasonable search and seizure. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Egbert, limits the availability of a Bivens cause of action in "new contexts" if there is,听鈥淸A]ny rational reason ... to think that Congress is better suited to weigh the costs and benefits鈥 is enough to preclude extending Bivens."听Egbert v. Boule, 142 S. Ct. 1793, 1805 (2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Qualified Immunity
Punchbowl, Inc. v. AJ Press, LLC
Under the Rogers test, the defendant must first 鈥渕ake a threshold legal showing that its allegedly infringing use is part of an expressive work protected by the First Amendment.鈥 Gordon v. Drape Creative, Inc., 909 F.3d 257, 264 (9th Cir. 2018). If the defendant meets this burden, the Lanham Act does not apply unless 鈥渢he defendant鈥檚 use of the mark (1) is not artistically relevant to the work or (2) explicitly misleads consumers as to the source or the content of the work.鈥 Id.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
San Antonio Winery, Inc. v. Jiaxing Micarose Trade Co.
Under 15 U.S.C. 搂 1051(e), a trademark applicant may 鈥渆ither designate a U.S. person to be served with notice of process or submit to service through the director of the Patent Trademark Office.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
Hooper v. Brnovich
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine is the principle that 鈥渁 state-court decision is not reviewable by lower federal courts,鈥 and federal district courts are prevented from exercising subject matter jurisdiction and the de facto equivalents of such appeals.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Prescott v. Santoro
To establish a prima facie case of actual innocence, it requires more than asserting insufficient evidence to support his conviction. 28 U.S.C. 搂 2254(d)(2); Carriger v. Stewart, 132 F.3d 463, 476鈥77 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). It must be more likely than not that no reasonable fact finder could find Petitioner guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, when taking the new evidence into consideration with the full record. Jones v. Taylor, 763 F.3d 1242, 1246 (9th Cir. 2014).
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
Borden v. Efinancial, LLC
In determining a violation under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), an autodialer must have the 鈥渃apacity to use a random or sequential number generator to either store or produce telephone numbers to be called.鈥 Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 141 S. Ct. 1163 (2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
Farlow v. Kijakazi
Under Social Security regulations, "[o]pinions from treating physicians receive more weight than opinions from examining physicians, and opinions from examining physicians receive more weight than opinions from non-examining physicians."听Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995). "To reject the uncontested opinion of an examining or treating doctor, an ALJ must provide 'clear and convincing' reasons supported by substantial evidence."听Id.听at 830.
Area(s) of Law:- Disability Law
Smartt v. Kijakazi
"When faced with contradicted medical testimony, an ALJ must provide specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record for rejecting a treating physician's opinion". Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995).
Area(s) of Law:- Disability Law
U.S. v. Nishida
A nonjudicial officer "may not decide the nature or extent of the punishment imposed upon a probationer...since under our constitutional system the right to impose the punishment provided by law is judicial. United States v Stephens, 424 F.3d 876, 881 (9th Cir. 2005).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
In re Tillman
搂724(a) concerns the trustee鈥檚 avoidance of qualifying liens, 搂 522 withdraws the property interest from the bankruptcy estate and is thus beyond the reach of the trustee for distribution for creditors.
Area(s) of Law:- Bankruptcy Law
Collier v. Lincoln Life Assurance Co. of Bos.
When a district court applies de novo review to an administrator鈥檚 denial of benefits, it affords no deference, evaluating only whether the correct choice was made. Abatie v. Alta Health & Life Ins. Co., 458 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc).
Area(s) of Law:- ERISA
Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland
When evaluating alleged due process violations, courts weigh three factors: 鈥渇irst, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government鈥檚 interest.鈥 Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976). The private interest of a detained alien under 搂 1226(a) is lower than that of a detained U.S. citizen, and the governmental interests are significantly higher in the immigration detention context. In all events, 鈥淸d]ue process does not . . . require two hearings.鈥 Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 267 n.14 (1970).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
San Carlos Apache Tribe v. Becerra
鈥淸B]ecause the canons of construction applicable in Indian law are rooted in the unique trust relationship between the United States and the Indians, . . . statutes are to be construed liberally in favor of the Indians, with ambiguous provisions interpreted to their benefit.鈥 Montana v. Blackfeet Tribe of Indians, 471 U.S. 759 (1985).
Area(s) of Law:- Indian Law
United States v. Kirst
鈥淎n administrative investigation is a 鈥榩roceeding鈥 within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. [搂] 1505.鈥 United States v. Vixie, 532 F.2d 1277, 1278 (9th Cir. 1976) (per curiam). Wrongful intent 鈥渕ay be inferred from circumstantial evidence.鈥 United States v. Dearing, 504 F.3d 897, 901 (9th Cir. 2007)
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Valiente v. Swift Transp. Co.
The Supreme Court has provided a two-prong test for determining when the doctrine of anti-retroactivity applies: (1) a court must determine whether Congress has expressly prescribed the statute's proper reach; and (2) a court must assess whether the action would have an impermissible retroactive effect.听Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 263-64, 280 (1994).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Clark v. Weber
The California prohibition on voting for the recalled governor as their own replacement on a recall ballot is not a severe restriction on the right to vote; similar to a term limit, the restriction is a 鈥渘eutral candidacy qualification鈥 with no distinction based on a protected class or arbitrary factor. Bates v. Jones, 131 F.3d 843, 847 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc); see Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 434 (1992).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights 搂 1983
McKnight v. Uber Techs., Inc.
Under In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig., 779 F.3d 934, 951 (9th Cir. 2015), there are three factors to consider a class settlement a coupon settlement: 鈥(1) whether class members have 鈥榯o hand over more of their own money before they can take advantage of鈥 a credit, (2) whether the credit is valid only 鈥榝or select products or services,鈥 and (3) how much flexibility the credit provides, including whether it expires or is freely transferable.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
December 34 summaries
Cal. Dep't of Substs. Control v. Dobbas
Intervenors under Rule 24(a)(2) must assert an interest 鈥減rotectable under some law,鈥 which has a relationship with the 鈥渃laims at issue.鈥 Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2); see Wilderness Soc鈥檡 v. U.S. Forest Serv., 630 F.3d 1173, 1179 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Perez-Camacho v. Merrick Garland
Under the Immigration Nationality Act (INA), 鈥淸a]n alien may file one motion to reopen proceedings and must file it within 90 days of the date of entry of a final administrative order of removal.鈥 8 U.S.C. 搂1229a(c)(7)(A) and (C)(i). However, a motion to reopen is available if the deadline is eligible for equitable tolling which is available 鈥渨hen a petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error.鈥 Salazar-Gonzalez v. Lynch, 798 F.3d 917, 920 (9th Cir. 2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Hooks v. Nexstar Broadcasting
鈥淲hile a district court may not presume irreparable injury, it may, however, make permissible inferences based on evidence of violations of labor law." Frankl v. HTH Corp., 650 F.3d 1334, 1362 (9th Cir. 2011).
Area(s) of Law:- Labor Law
U.S. v. Reiche
"A defendant is aware of the risk created by her conduct when she knows facts which, if considered and weighed in a reasonable manner, indicate a substantial and unjustifiable risk . . . , and the defendant knew of that risk.鈥 United States v. Rodriguez, 880 F.3d 1151, 1162 (9th Cir. 2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Dreamstime.com, LLC v. Google, LLC
A Sherman Act 15 U.S.C. 搂2 claim includes two elements: "(1) the defendant has monopoly power in the relevant market, and (2) the defendant has willfully acquired or maintained monopoly power in that market." United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 570-571 (1966).
Area(s) of Law:- Antitrust
Diaz-Rodriguez v. Garland
If an ambiguous term is open to multiple usages, the court will defer to the BIA鈥檚 鈥減ermissible construction.鈥 Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Flaa et. al. v. Hollywood Foreign Press Ass'n et. al.
Unreasonable restraints on trade are prohibited under the Sherman Act, unreasonable restraints can be established two ways.
Area(s) of Law:- Antitrust
Gearing v. City of Half Moon Bay
鈥淧ullman abstention is 鈥榓n equitable doctrine that allows federal courts to refrain from deciding sensitive federal constitutional questions when state law issues may moot or narrow the constitutional questions.鈥 San Remo Hotel v. City & County of San Franscisco, 145 F.3d (9th Cir. 1998). 鈥淸Abstention] is appropriate where (1) the federal constitutional claim 鈥榯ouches a sensitive area of social policy,鈥 (2) 鈥檆onstitutional adjudication plainly can be avoided by a state court,鈥 and (3) a 鈥榩ossibly determinative issue of state law is doubtful.鈥 Sinclair Oil Corp v. County of Santa Barbara, 96 F.3d 401 (9th Cir. 1996)(quoting Pearl INv. Co. v. City & County of San Francisco, 774 F.2d 1460 (9th Cir. 1985)).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
JAMES KLEISER, ET AL V. BENJAMIN CHAVEZ, ET AL
The third-party doctrine does not apply as an exception to the Fourth Amendment鈥檚 warrant requirement when the government seeks cell site location information. Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206, 2219-21 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights 搂 1983
Waln v. Dysart Sch. Dist., et. al.
A plaintiff must demonstrate an infringement of their rights under the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Matias Rauda v. Jennings
Under 8 U.S.C. 搂1252(g), 鈥渘o court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim by or on behalf of any alien arising from decision or action by the Attorney General to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases or execute removal order against any alien.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) v. Aria
A covered person under the CFPA is any person that engages in offering or providing a consumer financial product or service.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Twitter, Inc. v. Paxton
Petitioner failed to establish standing in a First Amendment retaliation case without showing 鈥(1) an injury in fact..." Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149, 157-158 (2014).
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
United States v. Wells
Impermissible coercion requires both an objective threat of an adverse employment action for refusal to self-incriminate, and a subjective awareness of this penalty. See United States v. Smith, 821 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2016); United States v. Palmquist, 712 F.3d 640 (1st Cir. 2013); United States v. Friedrick, 842 F.2d 382 (D.C. Cir. 1988).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Johnson v. Ryan
When analyzing an inmate鈥檚 procedural due process claim, the court engages in a two-step analysis, considering whether: (1) the inmate was deprived of a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest, and (2) that deprivation was accompanied by sufficient procedural protections. United States v. 101 Houseco, LLC, 22 F.4th 843, 851 (9th Cir. 2022). In order to determine whether the procedural protections provided are sufficient at the second step, the court looks at (1) the private interest affected; (2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation and the probable value of any additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and (3) the government鈥檚 interest. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976). To establish a property interest in a benefit, 鈥渁 person clearly must have. . . a legitimate claim of entitlement to it.鈥 Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 (1974). Although 鈥淸a] state-created right can, in some circumstances, beget yet other rights to procedures essential to the realization of the parent right,鈥 Conn. Bd. of Pardons v. Dumschat, 452 U.S. 458, 463 (1981), a plaintiff does not have an independent right to those procedures. See Dist. Att鈥檡鈥檚 Off. for Third Jud. Dist. v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52, 67鈥68 (2009). A First Amendment claim in the context of incarcerated individuals has five elements: (1) adverse action by a state actor against the inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner鈥檚 protected conduct, and the action (4) chilled the inmate鈥檚 exercise of his First Amendment rights and (5) did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal. Chavez v. Robinson, 12 F.4th 978, 1001 (9th Cir. 2021). To establish a retaliatory motive, an inmate 鈥渕ust show that his protected conduct was the substantial or motivating factor behind the defendant鈥檚 conduct.鈥 Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1271 (9th Cir. 2009) (quotations omitted).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Salguero Sosa v. Garland
"Cumulative-effect review is essential where [a] single isolated incident may not rise to the level of persecution, but the cumulative effect of several incidents may constitute persecution.鈥 Korablina v. INS, 158 F.3d 1038, 1044 (9th Cir. 1998).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Suski v. Coinbase, Inc.
Whether the court or the arbitrator decides arbitrability is an issue for judicial determination unless the parties clearly and unmistakably provide otherwise. Oracle Am. Inc. v. Myriad Grp. A.G., 724 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 2013) Issues of contract formation may not be delegated to an arbitrator. Ahlstrom v. DHI Mortg. Co., 21 F.4th 631, 635 (9th Cir. 2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Arbitration
HayDay Farms, Inc. v. FeeDx Holdings, Inc.
Under Section 10(a)(4) the arbitration award must show a manifest disregard for law or be completely irrational to be thrown out.
Area(s) of Law:- Arbitration
D.R. v. Redondo Beach Unified Sch. Dist.
"To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities...are educated with children who are not disabled, and special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability of a child is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily." 20 U.S.C. 搂 1412(a)(5)(A).
Area(s) of Law:- Disability Law
Owino v. CoreCivic, Inc.
One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all members only if: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable [鈥渘umerosity鈥漖; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class [鈥渃ommonality鈥漖; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class [鈥渢ypicality鈥漖; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class [鈥渁dequacy鈥漖. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
United States v. Barai
鈥淲hen called on to interpret a statute, this Court generally seeks to discern and apply the ordinary meaning of its terms at the time of their adoption.鈥 BP P.L.C. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 141 S. Ct. 1532, 1537 (2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Brickman v. Meta Platforms, Inc.
Under the TCPA an autodialer is a piece of equipment which stores or produces telephone numbers to dial using a random or sequential number generator.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY, ET AL V. MICHAEL REGAN, ET AL
Before it can register a pesticide, EPA must conduct a 鈥渃ost-benefit analysis to ensure that there is no unreasonable risk created for people or the environment from a pesticide.鈥 Wash. Toxics Coal. v. EPA, 413 F.3d 1024, 1032 (9th Cir. 2005).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Pino v. Cardone Capital, LLC
鈥淎 person may be liable as a 鈥渟eller鈥 under the predecessor version of 搂 12(a) if the person either: (1) passes title to the securities to the plaintiff; or (2) 鈥渆ngages in solicitation,鈥 i.e., 鈥渟olicits the purchase [of the securities], motivated at least in part by a desire to serve his own financial interests or those of the securities owner.鈥 Pinter v. Dahl, 486 U.S. 622, 643, 647鈥48 (1988).
Area(s) of Law:- Business Law
U.S. v. Fisher/Fisher
鈥淧robable cause exists if 鈥榠t would be reasonable to seek the evidence in the place indicated in the affidavit.'" United States v. Wong, 334 F.3d 831, 836 (9th Cir. 2003).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Bravo-Bravo v. Garland
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, if an alien has reentered the United States illegally after having been remove, 鈥渢he prior order of removal is reinstated from its original date and is not subject to being reopened or reviewed.鈥 8 U.S.C. 搂 1231(a)(5).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Cara Jones, ET AL v. Google LLC, ET AL
The Children鈥檚 Online Privacy Protection Act (鈥淐OPPA鈥), 15 U.S.C. 搂搂 6501鈥06, gives the Federal Trade Commission (鈥淔TC鈥) authority to regulate the online collection of personal identifying information about children under the age of 13.
Area(s) of Law:- Preemption
USA v. Macapagal
In United States v. Dhingra, 371 F.3d 557, 567 (9th Cir. 2004), the court explained that the plain language of the statute makes clear that the relevant inquiry is the conduct of the defendant, not the minor.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Dodge v. Evergreen Sch. Dist.
Political speech is 鈥渋nherently controversial鈥 and quintessential protected speech. See Nat鈥檒 Ass鈥檔 for Gun Rights, Inc., v. Mangan, 933 F.3d 1102, 1111鈥12 (9th Cir. 2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights 搂 1983
U.S. v. Anderson
鈥淯nder the community caretaking exception, police officers may impound vehicles that jeopardize public safety and the efficient movement of vehicular traffic.鈥 Miranda v. City of Cornelius, 429 F.3d 858, 864 (9th Cir. 2005).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Perez-Portillo v. Garland
The test for whether an individual produced sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of service by regular mail is 鈥減ractical and commonsensical rather than rigidly formulaic,鈥 and that in many cases the only proof may be the individual鈥檚 statement as well as circumstantial evidence. Sembiring v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 981, 988 (9th Cir. 2007).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Reichert v. Rapid Investments, Inc.
In Washington, a contract is formed when both parties accept services after they have a 鈥渞easonable opportunity to reject [the] offered services.鈥 Jones v. Brisbin, 247 P.2d 891, 894 (Wash. 1952).
Area(s) of Law:- Arbitration
Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe v. City of Seattle
鈥淎ny party to a proceeding under this chapter aggrieved by an order issued by the Commission in such proceeding may obtain a review of such order in the United States court of appeals for any circuit wherein the licensee or public utility to which the order relates is located or has its principal place of business, or in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, by filing in such court, within sixty days after the order of the Commission upon the application for rehearing, a written petition praying that the order of the Commission be modified or set aside in whole or in part. . . . Upon the filing of such petition such court shall have jurisdiction, which upon the filing of the record with it shall be exclusive, to affirm, modify, or set aside such order in whole or in part.鈥 16 U.S.C. 搂 825l(b) (emphasis added).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Smith v. Agdeppa
When other evidence in the record, 鈥渟uch as medical reports, contemporaneous statements by the officer, the available physical evidence, and any expert testimony proffered by the plaintiff鈥 is inconsistent with material evidence offered by the defendant, 鈥淸q]ualified immunity should not be granted.鈥 Newmaker v. City of Fortuna, 842 F.3d 1108, 1116 (9th Cir. 2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Qualified Immunity