Perez-Portillo v. Garland
The test for whether an individual produced sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of service by regular mail is “practical and commonsensical rather than rigidly formulaic,” and that in many cases the only proof may be the individual’s statement as well as circumstantial evidence. Sembiring v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 981, 988 (9th Cir. 2007).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Reichert v. Rapid Investments, Inc.
In Washington, a contract is formed when both parties accept services after they have a “reasonable opportunity to reject [the] offered services.” Jones v. Brisbin, 247 P.2d 891, 894 (Wash. 1952).
Area(s) of Law:- Arbitration
Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe v. City of Seattle
“Any party to a proceeding under this chapter aggrieved by an order issued by the Commission in such proceeding may obtain a review of such order in the United States court of appeals for any circuit wherein the licensee or public utility to which the order relates is located or has its principal place of business, or in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, by filing in such court, within sixty days after the order of the Commission upon the application for rehearing, a written petition praying that the order of the Commission be modified or set aside in whole or in part. . . . Upon the filing of such petition such court shall have jurisdiction, which upon the filing of the record with it shall be exclusive, to affirm, modify, or set aside such order in whole or in part.” 16 U.S.C. § 825l(b) (emphasis added).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Smith v. Agdeppa
When other evidence in the record, “such as medical reports, contemporaneous statements by the officer, the available physical evidence, and any expert testimony proffered by the plaintiff” is inconsistent with material evidence offered by the defendant, “[q]ualified immunity should not be granted.” Newmaker v. City of Fortuna, 842 F.3d 1108, 1116 (9th Cir. 2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Qualified Immunity
Dodge v. Evergreen Sch. Dist.
Political speech is “inherently controversial” and quintessential protected speech. See Nat’l Ass’n for Gun Rights, Inc., v. Mangan, 933 F.3d 1102, 1111–12 (9th Cir. 2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights § 1983
U.S. v. Anderson
“Under the community caretaking exception, police officers may impound vehicles that jeopardize public safety and the efficient movement of vehicular traffic.” Miranda v. City of Cornelius, 429 F.3d 858, 864 (9th Cir. 2005).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Cara Jones, ET AL v. Google LLC, ET AL
The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (“COPPA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 6501–06, gives the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) authority to regulate the online collection of personal identifying information about children under the age of 13.
Area(s) of Law:- Preemption
USA v. Macapagal
In United States v. Dhingra, 371 F.3d 557, 567 (9th Cir. 2004), the court explained that the plain language of the statute makes clear that the relevant inquiry is the conduct of the defendant, not the minor.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Bravo-Bravo v. Garland
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, if an alien has reentered the United States illegally after having been remove, “the prior order of removal is reinstated from its original date and is not subject to being reopened or reviewed.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Brickman v. Meta Platforms, Inc.
Under the TCPA an autodialer is a piece of equipment which stores or produces telephone numbers to dial using a random or sequential number generator.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY, ET AL V. MICHAEL REGAN, ET AL
Before it can register a pesticide, EPA must conduct a “cost-benefit analysis to ensure that there is no unreasonable risk created for people or the environment from a pesticide.” Wash. Toxics Coal. v. EPA, 413 F.3d 1024, 1032 (9th Cir. 2005).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Pino v. Cardone Capital, LLC
“A person may be liable as a “seller” under the predecessor version of § 12(a) if the person either: (1) passes title to the securities to the plaintiff; or (2) “engages in solicitation,” i.e., “solicits the purchase [of the securities], motivated at least in part by a desire to serve his own financial interests or those of the securities owner.” Pinter v. Dahl, 486 U.S. 622, 643, 647–48 (1988).
Area(s) of Law:- Business Law
U.S. v. Fisher/Fisher
“Probable cause exists if ‘it would be reasonable to seek the evidence in the place indicated in the affidavit.'" United States v. Wong, 334 F.3d 831, 836 (9th Cir. 2003).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
D.R. v. Redondo Beach Unified Sch. Dist.
"To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities...are educated with children who are not disabled, and special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability of a child is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily." 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5)(A).
Area(s) of Law:- Disability Law
Owino v. CoreCivic, Inc.
One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all members only if: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable [“numerosity”]; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class [“commonality”]; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class [“typicality”]; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class [“adequacy”]. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
United States v. Barai
“When called on to interpret a statute, this Court generally seeks to discern and apply the ordinary meaning of its terms at the time of their adoption.” BP P.L.C. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 141 S. Ct. 1532, 1537 (2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
HayDay Farms, Inc. v. FeeDx Holdings, Inc.
Under Section 10(a)(4) the arbitration award must show a manifest disregard for law or be completely irrational to be thrown out.
Area(s) of Law:- Arbitration
Salguero Sosa v. Garland
"Cumulative-effect review is essential where [a] single isolated incident may not rise to the level of persecution, but the cumulative effect of several incidents may constitute persecution.” Korablina v. INS, 158 F.3d 1038, 1044 (9th Cir. 1998).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Suski v. Coinbase, Inc.
Whether the court or the arbitrator decides arbitrability is an issue for judicial determination unless the parties clearly and unmistakably provide otherwise. Oracle Am. Inc. v. Myriad Grp. A.G., 724 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 2013) Issues of contract formation may not be delegated to an arbitrator. Ahlstrom v. DHI Mortg. Co., 21 F.4th 631, 635 (9th Cir. 2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Arbitration
Johnson v. Ryan
When analyzing an inmate’s procedural due process claim, the court engages in a two-step analysis, considering whether: (1) the inmate was deprived of a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest, and (2) that deprivation was accompanied by sufficient procedural protections. United States v. 101 Houseco, LLC, 22 F.4th 843, 851 (9th Cir. 2022). In order to determine whether the procedural protections provided are sufficient at the second step, the court looks at (1) the private interest affected; (2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation and the probable value of any additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and (3) the government’s interest. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976). To establish a property interest in a benefit, “a person clearly must have. . . a legitimate claim of entitlement to it.” Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 (1974). Although “[a] state-created right can, in some circumstances, beget yet other rights to procedures essential to the realization of the parent right,” Conn. Bd. of Pardons v. Dumschat, 452 U.S. 458, 463 (1981), a plaintiff does not have an independent right to those procedures. See Dist. Att’y’s Off. for Third Jud. Dist. v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52, 67–68 (2009). A First Amendment claim in the context of incarcerated individuals has five elements: (1) adverse action by a state actor against the inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner’s protected conduct, and the action (4) chilled the inmate’s exercise of his First Amendment rights and (5) did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal. Chavez v. Robinson, 12 F.4th 978, 1001 (9th Cir. 2021). To establish a retaliatory motive, an inmate “must show that his protected conduct was the substantial or motivating factor behind the defendant’s conduct.” Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1271 (9th Cir. 2009) (quotations omitted).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Twitter, Inc. v. Paxton
Petitioner failed to establish standing in a First Amendment retaliation case without showing “(1) an injury in fact..." Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149, 157-158 (2014).
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
United States v. Wells
Impermissible coercion requires both an objective threat of an adverse employment action for refusal to self-incriminate, and a subjective awareness of this penalty. See United States v. Smith, 821 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2016); United States v. Palmquist, 712 F.3d 640 (1st Cir. 2013); United States v. Friedrick, 842 F.2d 382 (D.C. Cir. 1988).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) v. Aria
A covered person under the CFPA is any person that engages in offering or providing a consumer financial product or service.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Matias Rauda v. Jennings
Under 8 U.S.C. §1252(g), “no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim by or on behalf of any alien arising from decision or action by the Attorney General to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases or execute removal order against any alien.”
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
JAMES KLEISER, ET AL V. BENJAMIN CHAVEZ, ET AL
The third-party doctrine does not apply as an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement when the government seeks cell site location information. Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206, 2219-21 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights § 1983
Waln v. Dysart Sch. Dist., et. al.
A plaintiff must demonstrate an infringement of their rights under the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Diaz-Rodriguez v. Garland
If an ambiguous term is open to multiple usages, the court will defer to the BIA’s “permissible construction.” Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Flaa et. al. v. Hollywood Foreign Press Ass'n et. al.
Unreasonable restraints on trade are prohibited under the Sherman Act, unreasonable restraints can be established two ways.
Area(s) of Law:- Antitrust
Gearing v. City of Half Moon Bay
“Pullman abstention is ‘an equitable doctrine that allows federal courts to refrain from deciding sensitive federal constitutional questions when state law issues may moot or narrow the constitutional questions.” San Remo Hotel v. City & County of San Franscisco, 145 F.3d (9th Cir. 1998). “[Abstention] is appropriate where (1) the federal constitutional claim ‘touches a sensitive area of social policy,’ (2) ’constitutional adjudication plainly can be avoided by a state court,’ and (3) a ‘possibly determinative issue of state law is doubtful.” Sinclair Oil Corp v. County of Santa Barbara, 96 F.3d 401 (9th Cir. 1996)(quoting Pearl INv. Co. v. City & County of San Francisco, 774 F.2d 1460 (9th Cir. 1985)).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Dreamstime.com, LLC v. Google, LLC
A Sherman Act 15 U.S.C. §2 claim includes two elements: "(1) the defendant has monopoly power in the relevant market, and (2) the defendant has willfully acquired or maintained monopoly power in that market." United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 570-571 (1966).
Area(s) of Law:- Antitrust
Hooks v. Nexstar Broadcasting
“While a district court may not presume irreparable injury, it may, however, make permissible inferences based on evidence of violations of labor law." Frankl v. HTH Corp., 650 F.3d 1334, 1362 (9th Cir. 2011).
Area(s) of Law:- Labor Law
U.S. v. Reiche
"A defendant is aware of the risk created by her conduct when she knows facts which, if considered and weighed in a reasonable manner, indicate a substantial and unjustifiable risk . . . , and the defendant knew of that risk.” United States v. Rodriguez, 880 F.3d 1151, 1162 (9th Cir. 2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Perez-Camacho v. Merrick Garland
Under the Immigration Nationality Act (INA), “[a]n alien may file one motion to reopen proceedings and must file it within 90 days of the date of entry of a final administrative order of removal.” 8 U.S.C. §1229a(c)(7)(A) and (C)(i). However, a motion to reopen is available if the deadline is eligible for equitable tolling which is available “when a petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error.” Salazar-Gonzalez v. Lynch, 798 F.3d 917, 920 (9th Cir. 2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Cal. Dep't of Substs. Control v. Dobbas
Intervenors under Rule 24(a)(2) must assert an interest “protectable under some law,” which has a relationship with the “claims at issue.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2); see Wilderness Soc’y v. U.S. Forest Serv., 630 F.3d 1173, 1179 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure