9th Circuit Court of Appeals

Opinions Filed in June 2015

Alaskan Eskimo Whaling Comm'n v. EPA

When the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) makes a contrary determinations of a non-contact cooling water causing unreasonable degradation of marine environments, then a court may allow the EPA to reconsider its decision with regard to issuing permits with the new evidence.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Environmental Law

Angelotti Chiropractor v. Baker

In order for a taking to occur, a plaintiff must suffer a sufficiently severe economic interference with his expectations regarding a vested right; economic substantive due process claims are evaluated with rational basis review, and may survive as long as the legislature’s means are rationally related to the goal.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

CHMM v. Freeman Marine Equip.

A vessel owner is not barred by the economic loss doctrine from tort claims when a manufacturer of the product was not responsible for the manufacturing or production of the user-added item.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Admiralty

In Re Benvin

It is a violation of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1) for a district court to become involved in guilty plea agreements.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

In Re United States

A court is not categorically precluded from expressing the merits of the mandamus when issuance would no longer be effective.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

United States v. Esparza

Hearsay violates the Confrontation Clause if the declarant’s statement is testimonial, if the declarant is unavailable, and the defense has had no prior opportunity to cross-examine the declarant.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Ward v. Apple, Inc.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19, an alleged joint tortfeasor is a required party and must be joined when the alleging party claims an interest relating to the subject of the action, and the absence of the alleged tortfeasor could have negative a consequence on the plaintiff.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

Addington v. US Airline Pilots Association

In a collective bargaining context, the duty of fair representation is analogous to a fiduciary duty and must be exercised without hostility or discrimination against any members.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

Carlson v. Att’y Gen. of Cal.

A defendant will be unable to confront his accusers if the court finds the defendant’s actions fall under the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing doctrine.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Jones v. Williams

Under Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, relief is not an unequivocal expression of state consent to private suits for monetary damages.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Rosati v. Igbinoso

A complaint should not be dismissed without leave to amend deficiencies, unless the court finds it absolutely clear that amendment could not cure the deficiencies.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Rights § 1983

United States v. Jefferson

Under 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960 the knowledge of the exact quantity and type of substance are not elements of the offense.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Bear Valley Mut. Water , Co. v. Jewell

There is no independent cause of action under section 2(c)(2) of the Endangered Species Act, which requires the cooperation of state and local agencies to resolve water issues with the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Environmental Law

Chess v. Dovey

A faulty jury instruction is considered harmless when the non-appealing party is able to show that it is more probable than not that the jury would have reached the same verdict had the erroneous instruction not been given.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Rights § 1983

Kaady v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co.

Under a known-loss provision of a contract, property damage would only be covered if the insured did not know the property damages occurred in whole or in part.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Insurance Law

United States v. Rodriguez

In order to be convicted of a crime that has a requisite mental state of willfulness or reckless disregard for human life, the record must provide sufficient evidence that the defendant acted willfully or with reckless disregard for human life.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Ass’n of Irritated Residents v. EPA

It is not arbitrary for an agency to correct an error in officiating a rule after learning the rule was not legally acceptable.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Environmental Law

Robinson v. Jewell

For a tribe to obtain title of a piece of land, there must be recognition by Congress of aboriginal title; absent such recognition by Congress, aboriginal title of occupancy may be terminated at any time without legal compensation to Indians.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tribal Law

WildEarth Guardians v. USFS

Environmental Impact Statements by the United States Forest Service must provide the public with adequate information about the impact of snowmobile uses on big game winter habitat, thus allowing the public to play a role in the decision making process as required by National Environmental Policy Act.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Environmental Law

Mitchell v. United States

A defense counsel may not be rendered ineffective if they made attempts at a defense strategy.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Benko v. Quality Loan Service Corp.

A federal court lacks jurisdiction to hear a removed case due to the “local controversy exception” when (1) more than two-thirds of the class is from the state of the original filing; (2) at least one defendant seeks significant relief from the plaintiff whose alleged conduct forms a significant basis for the claims asserted; and (3) principal injuries related to the conduct occurred in the state of filing.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Marsh v. Colvin

Administrative Law Judges cannot ignore medical opinions and records.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Seeboth v. Allenby

On review, when no level of scrutiny is stated, habeas corpus cannot be granted unless the conclusion is shown to be objectively unreasonable.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

United States v. Lizarraga-Tirado

A satellite image makes no assertion, cannot be hearsay, and therefore does not violate the Confrontation Clause.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Walker V. Beard

A court may hold that there was a failure to state a claim where the state, under the RLUIPA, shows they used the least restrictive alternative.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Coquico v. Lynch

To determine if a crime involves moral turpitude that would support an alien's removal, courts will compare the elements of the crime in question to elements of crimes already found to be crimes involving moral turpitude.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Cottonwood Envtl. Law Ctr. v. USFS

Under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 Section 7(a)(2), consulting Federal Agencies are required to consult and explain to acting agencies, if it appears actions may affect endangered or threatened species, how the action affects the species or its critical habitat.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Environmental Law

Pavoni v. Chrysler Group

Summary judgment may be granted where no genuine issue of material fact exists, after reviewing the case in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Ruiz-Vidal v. Lynch

When a defendant pleads no contest to a lesser offense necessarily included in the offense charged, that conviction may be used to determine whether the defendant has committed an aggravated felony under the Controlled Substances Act.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Toor v. Lynch

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act affords noncitizens a statutory guarantee to file one motion reconsidering a decision that an alien was removable, making the departure bars invalid.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Washington v. Ryan

A Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion will not be granted if a party’s sole purpose for filing the motion is to remedy an untimely notice of appeal and avoid the statutory time limit.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Newman v. Wengler

If a state prisoner has been given a full and fair opportunity to litigate their claim in a lower court, then the prisoner’s federal petition for habeas corpus regarding that previous claim may not be granted.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Flores v. Huppenthal

A plaintiff does not have standing to bring a statewide claim for violations of the Equal Education Opportunities Act when they only have evidence of violations occurring in their school district.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Standing

Naffe v. Frey

A government employee acts under the color of law when, while he is performing his duty, he purposefully influences the behavior of others, which thereby inflicts harm on the plaintiff.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Rights § 1983

United States v. Macias

The Confrontation Clause forbids the admission of testimonial statements of witnesses who did not appear at trial, unless the witness was unavailable and the defendant had a chance to cross-examine the witness.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

In The Matter of Cloobeck

A trustee must give notice and a hearing before an administrative expense is made.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Bankruptcy Law

Teamsters Local Union No. 117 v. Wash. Dep’t of Corr.

Facially discriminatory hiring practices may be legal if the characteristic being discriminated against is bona fide occupational qualification and is reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise

Area(s) of Law:
  • Labor Law

United States v. Yamashiro

A defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel is violated when he is denied counsel during victim allocution.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Alaska Wilderness League v. Jewell

Under the Administrative Procedure Act, when a plan meets all the statutory requirements, approval is not arbitrary or capricious.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Environmental Law

Turner v. City & Cty. of San Francisco

Government employees are not afforded First Amendment protection when they voice grievances about employee-employer internal affairs, because those matters are not of or relating to public concern.

Area(s) of Law:
  • First Amendment

United States v. Alcantara-Castillo

A prosecutor may not create a scenario to force a defendant to testify on a government witness’s credibility.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Acre Fuentes v. Lynch

A monetary threshold set forth in a statute is not a material element of conspiring to commit money laundering, and thus a tribunal who relies on the offender’s pre-sentence report to determine whether the threshold was met does so properly.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

United States v. Osuna-Alvarez

A person who uses the identity of another person commits identity theft regardless if they had the other person's permission.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Bemore v. Chappell

Fraudulent misappropriation of defense funds does not create a conflict of interest absent a showing that the misuse caused counsel to investigate the case less thoroughly than counsel otherwise would.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Lee v. Jacquez

For a state court to bar review of a habeas petition by a federal court, the state procedure rule must be both independent of the federal question and adequate; adequacy is determined by asking whether the state rule was firmly established and regularly followed at the time of the petitioner’s default.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Nat’l Parks Conservation Ass’n v. EPA

Under the Clean Air Act, when the Environmental Protection Agency implements regulations regarding regional haze at a plant where the best available retrofit technology is already in place, the Environmental Protection Agency does not need to provide a detailed explanation for the regulation.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Environmental Law

Zapata v. Vasquez

In order to demonstrate ineffective counsel on habeas review, a defendant must demonstrate (1) the performance by the defendant’s attorney was deficient, (2) the performance prejudiced the defendant’s defense, and (3) that the state court’s application of these standards were unreasonable.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Flam v. Flam

Federal magistrate judges have no authority to make determinations on motions to remand because magistrate judges lack the authority to rule on dispositive motions.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

Garcia-Mendez v. Lynch

An alien does not, by virtue of the alien’s status as an applicant for special rule cancellation of removal, meet the definition of a Violence Against Women Act self-petitioner, nor does an applicant for special rule cancellation, by virtue of that status, become eligible to seek a section 212(h) waiver.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters v. Allegiant Air

An advocacy group is considered a Railway Labor Act representative when it seeks certification from the National Mediation Board, or voluntary recognition.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Labor Law

Medina-Nunez v. Lynch

An alien’s acceptance into the Family Unity Program, without inspection, does not qualify under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a) for the seven-year residency requirement to file an application for cancellation of removal.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Slone v. CIR

To determine whether a company, which sold its shares, received any practical economic benefits other than the creation of income tax losses, the court must consider relevant subjective and objective factors.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tax Law

United States v. Crooked Arm

Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, parts of the migratory bird are distinguishable from the entire migratory bird as a whole, and therefore, selling parts of a migratory bird is not equivalent to selling the actual bird, which is a felony.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

United States v. Gonzalez-Flores

To show an immigration order was fundamentally unfair under 8 U.S.C. §1326(d), an alien has the burden to show prejudice, which is decided by using a balancing test of the alien's positive and negative attributes.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

K.W. v. Armstrong

The Medicaid Act requires an agency to inform every applicant of their right to a hearing at the time of any action affecting their claim, of which the notice must contain the reasons for the intended action.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Insurance Law

Northbay Wellness v. Beyries

Debts that are incurred when an attorney steals money from a client are non-dischargeable in bankruptcy proceedings, regardless of “unclean hands.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Bankruptcy Law

Sam K. v. State of Hawaii Dep’t of Educ.

A department of education may give implied consent for the placement of a student with disabilities in private education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act by failing to timely develop an alternative when a student is likely to continue attending the same school, ultimately creating a bilateral placement.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Disability Law

Big Lagoon Rancheria v. State of California

A class III gaming casino is only allowed on Indian lands if conducted in conformance with a Tribal-State compact entered into by the Indian tribe and the state, from which the State has an obligation to negotiate in good faith.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Indian Law

Escobedo v. Apple American Group

It is an abuse of discretion when a court denies an in forma pauperis application based on the financial resources of the litigant’s spouse without a reasonable inquiry into the availability and sufficiency of the spouse’s funds.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Kohn Law Group v. Auto Parts Mfg. Miss.

The first-to-file rule allows for a federal court to stay a proceeding before it if it finds that substantially similar parties are litigating similar issues in another district court.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Allen v. Bedolla

A district court must comprehensively review all factors to a class action settlement, and must give a reasoned response to all non-frivolous objections when determining the settlement’s substantive fairness.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Britton v. Colvin

An administrative law judge may disregard medical opinions that are brief, conclusory, and inadequately supported by clinical findings.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Pensinger v. Chappell

A kidnap-murder special circumstance requires proof that the kidnapping was committed for an independent felonious purpose, meaning that the kidnapping was not merely incidental to the murder.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Guam Indus. Servs. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co.

Insurance policies with unambiguous terms will be interpreted by their ordinary meaning.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Insurance Law

Back to Top