9th Circuit Court of Appeals (32 summaries)
Bylsma v. Burger King Corp.
The plaintiff is entitled to amend his complaint in light of a Washington Supreme Court decision issued in response to the certified question of whether 鈥渢he Washington Product Liability Act permit[s] relief for emotional distress damages, in the absence of physical injury, caused to the direct purchaser by being served and touching, but not consuming, a contaminated product.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
United States v. Hardeman
The application of 18 U.S.C. 搂 2260A, which criminalizes committing certain federal offenses while under a legal duty to register as a sex offender, does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause, even if the defendant鈥檚 registration duty arose retroactively.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Rojas v. Holder
In determining whether to grant or deny a request for voluntary departure, the Immigration Judge may consider 鈥渆vidence of bad character or undesirability鈥 in making that discretionary determination.
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Rojas v. Holder
In determining whether to grant or deny a request for voluntary departure, the Immigration Judge may consider 鈥渆vidence of bad character or undesirability鈥 in making that discretionary determination.
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Cabantac v. Holder
Evidence that a defendant pleaded guilty to a count of possession of methamphetamine is sufficient to prove that the defendant was convicted of a controlled substance offense under 21 U.S.C. 搂 802, and not a general state offense.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Peter-Palican v. Northern Mariana Islands
The Special Assistant to the Governor of Women鈥檚 Affairs possesses a protected property interest in continued employment only during the term of the appointing governor under Article III, section 2 of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Constitution. Thus, the Special Assistant has no due process claim against the Commonwealth when she is terminated without cause under a new governor.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights 搂 1983
Mojica v. Holder
The years of residency of a petitioner鈥檚 relative will not be imputed to the petitioner for purposes of satisfying the five-year lawful permanent residence requirement of 8 U.S.C. 搂 1229b(a)(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
United States v. Flores-Mejia
A conviction of robbery under California Penal Code 搂 211 is a categorical crime of violence under U.S.S.G. 搂 2L1.2.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
United States v. Turner
A civil detention under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act does not amount to a term of 鈥渋mprisonment鈥 so as to preclude and toll the commencement of a sex offender鈥檚 supervised release term.
Area(s) of Law:- Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
Sawyers v. Holder
The years of residency of a petitioner鈥檚 relative will not be imputed to the petitioner for purposes of satisfying the seven-year continuous residence requirement under 8 U.S.C. 搂 1229b(a)(2).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Marrero v. Ives
For purposes of applying the 鈥渆scape hatch鈥 under 28 U.S.C. 搂 2255, 鈥淸a] petitioner cannot be actually innocent of a noncapital sentence under the escape hatch.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
United States v. Becker
For purposes of ordering a defendant to register as a sex offender, knowingly taking or receiving obscene matters from an interactive computer service, a crime that does not amount to a categorical 鈥渟ex offense鈥 under SORNA, constitutes a 鈥渟ex offense鈥 where the defendant pleads guilty to the offense.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Nordyke v. King
With respect to a gun show on county property, an ordinance may impose a restriction requiring firearms to be affixed to a table without violating the Second Amendment.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Beltran v. Astrue
For purposes of determining whether a claimant is 鈥渄isabled鈥 and thus qualified for benefits under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act, 鈥渁 significant number鈥 of jobs does not exist 鈥渨here the jobs were 鈥榲ery rare鈥 or generally unavailable to the claimant due to [her] limitations.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Disability Law
Meras v. Sisto
A state court鈥檚 admission of a non-testifying expert鈥檚 lab report into evidence on the basis that it is not 鈥渢estimonial鈥 under Crawford is not 鈥渁n unreasonable application of Federal law,鈥 and therefore does not trigger a defendant鈥檚 right to confrontation under the Sixth Amendment.
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
Wentzell v. Neven
Under 搂 2244(b) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, when a defendant files two petitions for writ of habeas corpus, the latter petition is not 鈥渟econd or successive鈥 where an amended judgment intervenes between the filing of the two habeas petitions.
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
Farmer v. McDaniel
Where an initial capital sentence imposes the death penalty and the basis for the initial sentence is later invalidated, the state can seek to reimpose the death penalty on different grounds without violating the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Tyson v. Holder
The repeal of 搂 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act imposes an impermissible retroactive effect on a lawful permanent resident, who was 鈥渃onvicted pursuant to a stipulated facts agreement based on a reasonable expectation that it would not negatively affect her immigration status.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Mazza v. American Honda
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), no common issue of law exists in a consumer protection class action stemming from automobile sales in 44 different jurisdictions, because the foreign states鈥 interest in applying its own consumer protection laws to achieve an optimal balance between protecting consumers and fostering commerce, outweighs one state鈥檚 interest in regulating those who do business and commit wrongdoing within its borders.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
K.D. v. Department of Education, State of Hawaii
For purposes of the 鈥渟tay put鈥 provision under the Individual with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 搂 1415(j)), a settlement agreement that merely requires tuition reimbursement and fails to call for 鈥減lacement鈥 lacks 鈥渢he same legal effect as an affirmative agency decision to define a student鈥檚 鈥榗urrent educational placement.鈥欌
Area(s) of Law:- Disability Law
Kwong v. Holder
A state court鈥檚 abstract of judgment is sufficient to establish the crime for which a defendant was convicted for purposes of finding a lawful permanent resident removable.
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Steven Levin v. United States
Section 1089(e) of the Gonzalez Act does not waive the government鈥檚 sovereign immunity for common law battery claims.
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
Ditullio v. Boehm
Under the civil remedy provision of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. 搂 1595, a victim may recover punitive damages since the provision 鈥渃reates a cause of action that sounds in tort and punitive damages are available in tort actions under common law.鈥 However, 搂 1595 does not apply retroactively to a perpetrator's conduct that occurs before 搂 1595's effective date.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
United States v. Rizk
Where an indictment alleges a conspiracy, summary evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 1006 that includes acts not specified in the indictment, does not constitute 鈥渙ther acts鈥 evidence under Rule 404(b), as such evidence is offered to show the full scope of that conspiracy.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Log Cabin Republicans v. United States
Where a statute is repealed while an appeal challenging the constitutionality of that statute is pending, the suit is moot on appeal because 鈥渢here is no longer a present, live controversy of the kind that must exist鈥 for a reviewing federal court to reach the merits.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Silva v. Di Vittorio
A prisoner鈥檚 right to access the court under the First and Fourteenth Amendments includes a right 鈥渢o litigate claims challenging their sentences or the conditions of their confinement to conclusion without active interferences by prison officials.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
In re: Brenda Marie Jones
The statutory suspension provision under 11 U.S.C. 搂 507(a)(8) does not apply to a tax debt, which would otherwise be discharged in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding, where the debtor鈥檚 estate property re-vested after a prior bankruptcy proceeding and before the tax debt came due.
Area(s) of Law:- Bankruptcy Law
Li v. Holder
Where the BIA denies relief and remands pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 搂 1003.1(d)(6) for background checks required for alternative relief, the Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction to consider an appeal of the final order denying relief.
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Flexible Lifeline Systems v. Precision Lift
In a copyright infringement case, the plaintiff must prove a likelihood of irreparable harm to obtain injunctive relief; the long-standing presumption of irreparable harm upon a showing of likelihood of success on the merits in a copyright infringement case is now impermissible.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Brandt v. American Bankers Insurance
Where the court finds that a defendant acted culpably when the defendant failed to respond to the complaint, the court is not precluded, as a matter of law, from setting aside the default judgment for excusable neglect under Federal Rule of Procedure 60(b)(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Ginsberg v. Northwest, Inc.
The Airline Deregulation Act (鈥淎DA鈥) does not preempt a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, because state enforcement of the covenant does not 鈥渇orce the Airlines to adopt or change their prices, routes or services 鈥 the prerequisite for ADA preemption.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Greenway v. Schriro
Under AEDPA, a federal habeas petitioner must exhaust their claims in state court before petitioning a federal court by 鈥渇ully and fairly presenting鈥 the factual and legal basis for the claim to the state court. It is enough to satisfy the fair presentation requirement when the petitioner includes the operative facts and legal basis for the claim in an amended post-conviction relief petition.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Intellectual Property (1 summary)
Wax v. Amazon Techs., Inc.
Using a mark for a variety of services preserves a priority for the mark's use.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks