9th Circuit Court of Appeals (16 summaries)
Amponsah v. Holder
Nunc pro tunc adoption decrees must be considered on a case-by-case basis in determining whether an adopted child qualifies as a "child" under 8 U.S.C. 搂 1101(b)(1), and the Board of Immigration Appeals鈥 blanket rule against recognizing states鈥 nunc pro tunc adoption decrees was an 鈥渦nreasonable and impermissible construction鈥 of the statute.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Bell v. City of Boise
Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, a party cannot seek review of an adverse state court judgment in federal court if the action 鈥渃ontains a forbidden de facto appeal of a state court decision and it alleges a legal error by the state court.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights 搂 1983
United States v. Davis
Forfeiture and restitution ordered payable to the government is not double recovery, even if awarded to the same government entity.
Area(s) of Law:- Remedies
Peralta v. Dillard
The court may instruct the jury to consider the 鈥渄uties, discretion and means available鈥 to prison employees in determining whether the employee acted with deliberate indifference to a prisoner's medical needs.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights 搂 1983
Coles v. Eagle
Claims of excessive force are reviewed using the reasonableness standard under the Fourth Amendment. In determining whether the force was reasonable, the court balances the "nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against the countervailing governmental interests at stake."
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
United States v. Oseguera-Madrigal
An immigration judge violates an alien鈥檚 due process rights when he fails to advise the alien of apparent eligibility for relief through a waiver of inadmissibility when the failure to advised is accompanied with prejudice; however, there is no prejudice where the alien is not eligible for the waiver.
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
United States v. Peppers
If jury instructions fairly and adequately covers the issues presented, the district court is given substantial latitude in tailoring jury instructions.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
United States v. Leal-Del Carmen
The government may not unilaterally deport an illegal alien who it knows can provide exculpatory evidence for a defendant before counsel has been appointed for that defendant.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
United States v. Guerrero
The Court of Appeals does not have jurisdiction to review non-final judgments, unless the Collateral Order Doctrine or a Writ of Mandamus applies.
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
United States v. Dreyer
A district judge has a statutory duty to order a competency hearing sua sponte if evidence of incompetency causes a reasonable judge to experience a genuine doubt regarding the defendant鈥檚 competence.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Alderson v. United States
In a qui tam action, a relator鈥檚 share is considered ordinary income for income tax purposes.
Area(s) of Law:- Tax Law
United States v. Yepiz
Acceptance of a jury panel as constituted cannot be used as a waiver of either party鈥檚 allotted peremptory challenges under Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Denial of a peremptory challenge does not affect the party鈥檚 substantial rights, if the challenged juror is not shown to be biased.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Samson v. City of Bainbridge Island
A City Council鈥檚 rolling moratorium on shoreline development, enacted without a public hearing, does not violate a citizen鈥檚 substantive due process rights when the city has legitimate interest in protecting wildlife and preserving the shoreline, and when the actions do not amount of egregious conduct. The moratorium does not violate procedural due process if done as a lawful legislative act.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Pom Wonderful v. Coca-Cola Co.
Juice producers/bottlers may not state a false-advertising claim under the Lanham Act because the FDA and FDCA regulate how manufacturers may name and label its juices.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
United States v. Kelly
Peace and disarmament activists cannot trespass and destroy government property and claim protection from an international treaty, because when an international treaty conflicts with another federal law, the more recent of the two controls. Under 18 U.S.C. 搂 1363, 鈥渕alicious鈥 is defined under common law as having (1) intent to commit the prohibited act, and (2) no justification or excuse.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Cruz v. International Collection Corp.
A debt collection agency violates the FDCPA when it (1) uses false, deceptive, or misleading representation when attempting to collect a debt, or (2) contacts a debtor who has notified the creditor, in writing, of refusal to pay the debt. An individual may personally violate the FDCPA if he qualifies as a debt collector and took action that violated the FDCPA.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law