Source: http://www.willamette.edu/wucl/resources/journals/wlo/staff/authors/voss_rebecca.html
Timestamp: 2014-10-23 12:41:17
Document Index: 151409166

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1292', '§ 956', '§ 2244', '§ 3', '§ 303', '§207', '§207', '§ 69']

Willamette Law Online | Authors: Rebecca Voss
College of LawWillamette Law OnlineSubscribe NowUnited States Supreme CourtU.S. Supreme Court Certiorari Granted9th Circuit Court of AppealsOregon Supreme CourtOregon Court of AppealsIntellectual PropertyEditors and StaffAuthorsSearchOregon Court of Appeals WillametteCollege of LawResourcesJournalsWillamette Law OnlineEditors and StaffAuthorsRebecca Voss
(37 summaries)Rebecca Voss9th Circuit Court of AppealsTitleExcerptFilling DateS.L. v. Upland Unified Sch. Dist.Disability Law: Under the Individuals with Disabilities Act, a child can be reimbursed for private schooling if the private schooling is shown to be appropriate; a motion for attorneys fees must be timely filed. (04-02-2014)Johnson v. Consumerinfo.comArbitration: 28 U.S.C. §1292(b) is the sole route for an appeal of an order to stay proceedings and compel arbitration.(03-20-2014)United States v. ChhunCriminal Law: 18 U.S.C. § 956(a) is not ambiguous and applies to any activities, terrorist or not, involving the acts constituting conspiracy to commit murder while the person conspiring is in the United States.(03-11-2014)Gutierrez v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.Administrative Law: For purposes of determining Social Security Supplemental Benefits, it is not error for an Administrative Law Judge to define “region” as the State of California, nor is it error to find 2,500 jobs in that region to be a “significant” number of jobs. (01-23-2014)United States v. Valdes-VegaCriminal Procedure: Under the “totality of the circumstances” analysis for determining whether an officer had reasonable suspicion, prior decisions that held certain factors are per se probative or not do not comply with Supreme Court precedent.(12-24-2013)Courtney v. GoltzConstitutional Law: The Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not extend to the right to operate a public ferry on intrastate navigable waters. (12-02-2013)Stewart v. CateHabeas Corpus: A timely filing under 28 USC § 2244 is generally 30-60 days, and under Schlup v. Delo a defendant must show that no reasonable juror would have found him guilty in light of new evidence. (11-01-2013)United States v. LaurientiCriminal Law: A district court properly denies an evidentiary hearing if the defendant had ample opportunity at trial and after trial to submit evidence by an affidavit, and the court does not err by applying a sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3 for “abuse of a position of trust” when the defendant uses his special knowledge and expertise to suggest which securities to recommend.(09-30-2013)Larsen v. SotoHabeas Corpus: A habeas petitioner who presents new evidence of innocence that “convincingly undermine[s] the State’s case” is entitled to have his claims heard on the merits despite the fact that the petition is untimely.(09-16-2013)Somers v. Apple, Inc.Civil Procedure: A plaintiff voluntarily abandons and thus waives a claim on appeal if she fails to raise an issue in response to defendant’s motion to dismiss; a suit for antitrust is barred if the plaintiff is an indirect purchaser; there must be an “antitrust injury” for a suit alleging antitrust.(09-03-2013)Smith v. Clark County School DistrictDisability Law: Reconsideration of an order denying summary judgment is proper when a district court commits clear error as it does when it fails to apply Supreme Court precedent; when deciding if someone is a “qualified individual” under the ADA, a district court must use the standards set forth in Cleveland v. Policy Mgmt. Sys. Corp. for evaluating inconsistent statements made on benefit and disability applications; if a party offers sufficient explanations for inconsistent statements made on benefit applications that is enough for their claim to succeed past the summary judgment stage. (08-21-2013)NRDC v. Cnty. of Los Angeles Environmental Law: Monitoring data that shows pollutants greater than the amount allowed by permit in federally navigable waters is conclusive proof that those discharging are liable for a violation of their National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit. (08-08-2013)Townley v. MillerStanding: Plaintiffs lack standing when they do not have a concrete intent to cast a particular vote, when the relief they seek would worsen the position of those intending to vote instead of redressing the injury, or when the alleged injury is not traceable to the challenged conduct. (07-10-2013)Lemke v. RyanCriminal Procedure: Original jeopardy has not terminated when the jury fails to reach a verdict. A defendant does not waive the Double Jeopardy claim by entering a guilty plea or by the broad waiver in the plea agreement. If the record does not establish that the jury necessarily decided guilt or innocence when it failed to return a verdict retrial is not barred by collateral estoppel.(06-19-2013)Hedlund v. Educational Resources Inst. Bankruptcy Law: When reviewing the third prong of the test from Brunner v. New York Higher Education Services Corp. to determine whether a debtor has shown undue hardship, a finding of good faith is to be reviewed for clear error.(05-22-2013)In re Western States Antitrust Litig. Preemption: State antitrust claims arising outside of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s jurisdiction are not preempted by the Natural Gas Act; denying leave to amend is proper when the party seeking the amendment has known the facts and theory since the case began; and denying dismissal of defendants is proper if the defendants fail to make a “compelling case” for why the exercise of personal jurisdiction would be unreasonable.(04-10-2013)Gulbrandson v. RyanHabeas Corpus: Defense counsel was not unreasonably ineffective by failing to have the defendant testify as a guilt stage witness if it is reasonable it would harm the defense, or by failing to have a psychiatric expert testify as to the state of mind at the sentencing hearing because it would have been cumulative of evidence already before the court.(03-18-2013)In re: MarcianoBankruptcy Law: Unstayed non-default state judgments on appeal are “not contingent as to liability or the subject of a bona fide dispute as to liability or amount” for purposes of involuntary petitions pursuant to § 303(b)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code.(02-27-2013)Cannedy v. AdamsHabeas Corpus: A defendant is denied effective assistance of counsel in a lewd acts case where defense counsel fails to interview witnesses who can corroborate the defendant's claim that the victim had motive to make false accusations.(02-07-2013)Castrijon-Garcia v. HolderImmigration: The court held that simple kidnapping does not involve moral turpitude because under CPC §207(a) it “does not require an intent to injure, actual injury, or a special class of victims.”(01-09-2013)Castrijon-Garcia v. HolderImmigration: The court held that simple kidnapping does not involve moral turpitude because under CPC §207(a) it “does not require an intent to injure, actual injury, or a special class of victims.”(01-09-2013)Barnes-Wallace v. Boy Scouts of AmericaConstitutional Law: A city’s lease of land for one dollar per year to the Boy Scouts of America does not violate the California Constitution, because the leases are “indirect or incidental” aid by the city for a religious purpose, and the city’s lack of involvement does not amount to entanglement such that the leases would violate the California No Preference Clause or state or federal Establishment Clauses.(12-20-2012)United States v. WahchumwahCriminal Procedure: When an undercover agent is invited into the home by a suspect, the warrantless use of a concealed audio-video recording device does not violate the Fourth Amendment.(11-27-2012)Center for Biological Diversity v. BLMAdministrative Law: The court held that the Biological Opinion was arbitrary and capricious because it relied on the beneficial effects of the Conservation Action Plan which was not incorporated as part of the proposed project and because the Fish and Wildlife Services acted unreasonably when it failed to examine the impact from groundwater withdrawals which is a “relevant factor” in the jeopardy determination of endangered species.(10-22-2012)De Osorio v. MayorkasImmigration: The Child Status Protection Act grants automatic conversion and priority date retention to all “aged-out” derivative beneficiaries, regardless of whether a change in petitioner occurs.(09-26-2012)Young v. HolderImmigration: Under the modified categorical approach, a guilty plea to a conjunctive count that alleges several theories of a crime establishes a conviction under at least one theory, but not necessarily all, of those theories. Further, “[a]n alien cannot carry the burden of demonstrating eligibility for cancellation of removal by merely establishing that the relevant record of conviction is inconclusive as to whether the conviction is for an aggravated felony.”(09-17-2012)Pacific Coast Federation v. BlankAdministrative Law: The National Marine Fisheries Services complied with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act provisions because those provisions did not require it to develop criteria for allocating fishing privileges or to restrict privileges to only those who substantially participate. The National Marine Fisheries Services also complied with the National Environmental Policy Act by adopting flexible mitigation measures in accordance with separate studies conducted to lessen the potential adverse effect on fishing communities.(09-10-2012)California Tow Truck v. City of San FranciscoAdministrative Law: When preemption is claimed to a comprehensive law, the court must look at each individual provision and not at the law as a whole.(08-27-2012)Hooper v. Lockheed MartinCivil Law: A transferee court must apply the state statute of limitations that a transferor court would have applied in cases arising under federal question jurisdiction. Further, a fraudulent estimate made for a bid on a contract can carry liability under the FCA.(08-02-2012)Anchorage School District v. M.P.Education Law: Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, a “stay put” order does not excuse an educational agency’s failure to provide an updated Individualized Educational Program for an eligible student on a yearly basis.(07-19-2012)Flores-Lopez v. HolderImmigration: Because California Penal Code § 69 does not require proof of the requisite level of intent of force, it is not a categorical crime of violence.(07-09-2012)Mackey v. HoffmanCivil Procedure: If a district court finds that an attorney effectively abandoned an incarcerated habeas petitioner, rendering him unable to file a timely appeal, the district court has discretion to grant relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).(06-25-2012)Kaahumanu v. State of HawaiiFirst Amendment: Where a permit to conduct commercial activities on a public forum imposes a condition allowing an official to revoke the permit at his or her sole discretion, such a condition violates the First Amendment because no adequate standards exist to guide the official’s decision and to render that decision subject to judicial review.(06-06-2012)Rodgers v. MarshallCriminal Procedure: A criminal defendant’s request for representation to file a post-verdict new trial motion is a “critical stage” under the Sixth Amendment and thus allows for a right to counsel, and that denying such representation because a defendant waived his right to counsel previously is a violation of established federal law.(05-17-2012)United States v. BacklundAdministrative Law: A defendant in a criminal proceeding based on the Forest Service’s administrative decision may obtain judicial review of a final agency action by filing suit in a federal district court under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), or challenging the decision in a subsequent criminal proceeding, so long as either action is filed within the APA’s six-year statute of limitations.(04-26-2012)United States v. ManzoCriminal Procedure: The failure of counsel to advise a defendant to withdraw from a plea bargain is deemed ineffective counsel if there is still time to withdraw and it becomes clear that the sentence will be significantly greater than expected because there was a mutual mistake in predicting the sentence.(04-05-2012)Western Radio Services v. Qwest Corp.Administrative Law: Based on a new report and order from the Federal Communications Commission, when a call is originated and terminated in the same Major Trading Area it is considered local, and the involvement of an interexchange carrier does not affect the obligation of reciprocal compensation.(03-15-2012)