Porter v. Martinez
This opinion amended Porter v. Martinez, No. 21-55249, __F4th__ (9th Cir April, 2023) by altering Footnote 6 to include that, in asking for an injunction, plaintiff wanted an injunction against enforcing all bans on expressive honking, but the district court would have discretion in applying an injunction more narrowly. The opinion was otherwise unchanged.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Dickey v. Davis, in his capacity as Warden of San Quentin State Prison
Trial violations regarding witness testimony are material to a determination of a penalty phase verdict when the witness鈥檚 testimony could have made a difference to the jury鈥檚 imposition of the death penalty and, under the stricter Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) standard, where a verdict is already of questionable validity such that 鈥渁dditional evidence of relatively minor importance might be sufficient to create a reasonable doubt.鈥 Under those high standards, a prosecutor violating Brady and Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959) through improper witness testimony, is material to penalty phase verdicts.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
United States v. Castillo
A defendant is a "career offender" if (1) the defendant was at least 18 years old at the time of the instant offense of conviction; (2) the instant offense is a felony that is either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense; and (3) the defendant has at least two prior felony convictions of either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense. U.S.S.G. 搂 4B1.1(a). A "controlled substance offense" is defined as "an offense. . .that prohibits the manufacture, import, export, distribution, or dispensing of a controlled substance (or a counterfeit substance) or the possession of a controlled substance (or a counterfeit substance) with intent to manufacture, import, export, distribute, or dispense." Id. 搂 4B1.2(b). A "controlled substance offense" is defined as "[A]n offense. . .that prohibits the manufacture, import, export, distribution, or dispensing of a controlled substance (or a counterfeit substance) or the possession of a controlled substance (or a counterfeit substance) with intent to manufacture, import, export, distribute, or dispense." Id. 搂 4B1.2(b).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Jason Scott Collection, Inc. v. Trendily Furniture, LLC
There is no 鈥渋ntent to confuse requirement鈥 to support the strong inference of secondary meaning where proof of copying is shown. P & P Imports LLC v. Johnson Enterprises, LLC, 46 F.4th 953, 962 (9th Cir. 2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
United States v. Boam
(1) The 鈥減lain meaning鈥 of the term 鈥渦se鈥 in the context of sec. 2251(a) means 鈥渢o put into action or service,鈥 鈥渢o avail oneself of,鈥 or to 鈥渆mploy.鈥 United States v. Laursen, 847 F.3d 1026, 1033 (9th Cir. 2017). (2) Three of the Dost factors were used to determine whether the videos were sexually explicit conduct: "whether the focal point of the visual depiction is on the child鈥檚 genitalia or pubic area; whether the child is fully or partially clothed, or nude; and whether the visual depiction is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer." United States v. Dost, 636 F. Supp. 828, 832 (S.D. Cal. 1986).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
United States v. Walker
Time between a trial and indictment is properly excluded under the 鈥渆nds of justice鈥 provision of the Speedy Trial Act where factors weigh heavily in favor of exclusion, pursuant to United States v. Olsen, 21 F.4th 1036 (9th Cir. 2000). Specifically, delay due to the COVID-19 Pandemic will weigh heavily in favor of exclusion. Additionally, defendant鈥檚 challenge to the proper mental state of the 鈥渁ffecting commerce鈥 element of the felon in possession statute fails because that element is purely jurisdictional, and therefore does not require a knowing mental state.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Ctr. For Biological Diversity v. Bureau of Land Mgmt.
An order granting or denying intervention is only appealable from a final order in the underlying case. Alsea Valley Alliance v. Department of Commerce, 358 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 2004). If that underlying case is remanded to an administrative agency, an appeal of a denial of intervention must be dismissed for mootness.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Chaudhry v. Aragon
A 鈥渟tigma-plus鈥 [under Section 1983] claim requires 鈥渢he public disclosure of a 鈥渟tigmatizing statement by the government, the accuracy of which is contested, plus the denial of some more tangible interest such as employment. 68 F.4th at 1171
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights 搂 1983
Melville v. Shinn
A state post-conviction relief application is 鈥減ending as long as the ordinary state collateral review process is in continuance.鈥 Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214, 219-20 (2002).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Umana-Escobar v. Garland
The BIA reviews the IJ鈥檚 underlying factual findings, such as what a persecutor鈥檚 motive may be, for clear error. See, e.g., Matter of N-M-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 526, 532 (BIA 2011). For CAT relief, an applicant must prove that the torture would be 鈥渋nflicted by, or at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of, a public official acting in an official capacity or other person acting in an official capacity.鈥 8 C.F.R. 搂 1208.18(a)(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
United States v. Carrillo-Lopez
To establish discriminatory purpose for a facially neutral statute, the proponent must show a preponderance of evidence that 鈥渢he lawmaking body . . . selected or reaffirmed a particular course of action at least in part because of, not merely in spite of, its adverse effects upon an identifiable group.鈥 See Pers. Adm鈥檙 of Mass. v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256, 279 (1979).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
United States v. Orozco-Barron
Under the Speedy Trial Act, a judge did not act improperly in granting an ends-of-justice continuance at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. 鈥淎 global pandemic that has claimed more than half a million lives in this country [...] permit[s] a court to temporarily suspend jury trials in the interest of public health.鈥 United States v. Olsen, 21 F.4th 1036 (9th Cir. 2022).听
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Friedenberg v. Lane County
Under 42 U.S.C. 搂233(a), Public Health Service employees are granted immunity from claims arising out of their performance of 鈥渕edical, surgical, dental, or related functions.鈥 Conduct qualifies as a 鈥渞elated function[,]鈥 when it is "related" to the provision of medical services.
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
United States v. Williams
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has appellate jurisdiction over prejudgment orders for prosecutorial misconduct because the issue is 鈥渃ollateral to the merits of an action and too important to be denied immediate review,鈥 Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 103 (2009). Additionally, disqualification of an entire U.S. Attorneys Office is only appropriate when grounded in 鈥渁 clear basis in fact and law,鈥 United States v. Gatto, 763 F.2d 1040, 1046 (9th Cir. 1985), which requires that (1) 鈥渁 district court must find a strong factual predicate for blanket disqualification,鈥 and; (2) 鈥渁 district court must determine that the U.S. Attorney鈥檚 Office continued representation of the government will result in a legal or ethical violation.鈥 United States v. Williams et al., __F.3d__ (9th Cir. 2023).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Ctr. For Biological Diversity v. USFWS, Et Al
U.S. Fish & Wildlife must designate any habitat as critical only if it is essential to species conservation. Weyerhaeuser Co. v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 139 S. Ct. 361, 368 (2018). FWS acted 鈥渁rbitrarily and capriciously鈥 by designating two tracts of land as critical habitat when they relied on two irrelevant photographs of a single transitory jaguar and speculated that a jaguar may use the land for travel.
Area(s) of Law:- Environmental Law
GP Vincent II v. The Estate of Edgar Beard
To determine whether a previous action involved the same claim or cause of action as a later lawsuit, the Court looks at four factors: (1) whether the rights or interests established by the prior judgement would be destroyed or impaired by prosecution of the second action, (2) whether substantially the same evidence is presented in the two actions, (3) whether the two suits involve infringement of the same right, and (4) whether the two suits arise out of the same transactional nucleus of facts. Mpoyo v. Litton Electro-Optical Sys., 430 F.3d 985, 987 (9th Cir. 2005).
Area(s) of Law:- Environmental Law
United States v. Paulson
The 鈥渞ule of the last antecedent鈥 provides that 鈥渁 limiting clause or phrase . . . should ordinarily be read as modifying only the noun or phrase that it immediately follows.鈥 Lockhart v. United States, 577 U.S. 347, 351 (2016) (alteration in original) (quoting Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20, 26 (2003)).
Area(s) of Law:- Tax Law
Wischmann v. Kijakazi
The ALJ has a general duty to resolve inconsistencies in the evidence, which may require obtaining additional evidence. See 20 C.F.R. 搂 404.1520b(b) (setting out the steps the agency may take when 鈥渢he evidence in [the claimant鈥檚] case record is . . . inconsistent鈥); 20 C.F.R. 搂 416.920b(b) (same). That duty arises only where the purportedly inconsistent evidence is both significant and probative, as opposed to 鈥渕eritless or immaterial.鈥 Kilpatrick v. Kijakazi, 35 F.4th 1187, 1193-94 (9th Cir. 2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Petrick
Absent exceptional circumstances, failure to raise arguments before an agency, such as in comments during a public-comment process, usually waives a litigant鈥檚 rights to make those arguments in court. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. EPA, 217 F.3d 1246, 1249 (9th Cir. 2000). Under HFRA, the wildland-urban interface is 鈥渁n area within or adjacent to an at-risk community that is identified . . . in a community wildfire protection plan.鈥 16 U.S.C. 搂 6511(16)(A).
Area(s) of Law:- Environmental Law
Roberts v. Springfield Utility Board
Unlike speech involving matters of public concern, which is protected, 鈥渟peech that deals with individual personnel disputes and grievances and that would be of no relevance to the public鈥檚 evaluation of the performance of governmental agencies is general not of public concern." Roberts v. Springfield Utility Board, 68 F.4th 470, 475 (9th Cir. 2023).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights 搂 1983
Federal Trade Commission v. Hewitt
Rule 60(b)(4) applies 鈥渙nly in the instance where a judgment is premised either [1] on a certain type of jurisdictional error or [2] on a violation of due process that deprives a party of notice of the opportunity to be heard.鈥 United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260, 271 (2010). 鈥淸I]t is hardly extraordinary鈥 if a decision rests on a 鈥渢hen-prevailing interpretation鈥 of the law and the Supreme Court later 鈥渁rrive[s] at a different interpretation鈥濃攁nd such a change 鈥渋s all the less extraordinary鈥 where a party has displayed a 鈥渓ack of diligence鈥 in the original proceedings. Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 536-37 (2005).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Hollins v. Walmart, Inc.
鈥溾榌A] state-law misbranding claim鈥 that would allow a 鈥榮tate to impose requirements . . . different from those permitted under the [Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act] . . . is preempted.鈥欌 Durnford v. MusclePharm Corp, 907 F.3d 595, 602 (9th Cir. 2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Kimball-Griffith, L.P. v. Burman
The QTA鈥檚 limitations period is a mere claims processing rule鈥搉ot a jurisdictional requirement. Wilkins v. United States, 143 S. Ct. 870 (2023). 鈥淸T]o state a claim under the Takings Clause, a plaintiff must first demonstrate that he possesses a property interest that is constitutionally protected.鈥 Turnacliff v. Westly, 546 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2008) (cleaned up).
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
Kennedy, Jr. v. Warren
鈥淩eputational harm stemming from an unretracted government action is a sufficiently concrete injury for standing purposes. 鈥 Foretich v. United States, 351 F.3d 1198, 1212-13 (D.C. Cir. 2003). To draw the line between persuasion and coercion, the Second Circuit has formulated a non-exclusive four-factor framework that examines: (1) the government official鈥檚 word choice and tone; (2) whether the official has regulatory authority over the conduct at issue; (3) whether the recipient perceived the message as a threat; and (4) whether the communication refers to any adverse consequences if the recipient refuses to comply. National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo, 49 F.4th 700, 715 (2d Cir. 2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Clifton Capital Group, LLC. v. Sharp
鈥淭he requisite personal interest that must exist at the commencement of the litigation (standing) must continue throughout its existence鈥︹ Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env鈥檛 Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000).
Area(s) of Law:- Bankruptcy Law
Skagit Indian Tribe v. Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe
A court must interpret Final Decision I 鈥渟o as to give effect to the intention of the issuing court.鈥 Muckleshoot Tribe v. Lummi Indian Tribe, 141 F.3d 1355, 1359 (9th Cir. 1998) (citing Narramore v. United States, 852 F.2d 485, 490 (9th Cir. 1988)).
Area(s) of Law:- Tribal Law