D.O. v. Escondido Union School Dist.
A delay in proposing an autism assessment plan does not by itself constitute a procedural violation of IDEA. A procedural violation of IDEA constitutes a denial of FAPE if there are “procedural inadequacies that result in the loss of educational opportunity, or seriously infringe [on] the parents’ opportunity to participate in the IEP formulation process, or . . . cause[] a deprivation of educational benefits.” Amanda J. ex rel. Annette J. v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 267 F.3d 877, 892 (9th Cir. 2001).
Area(s) of Law:- Disability Law
United States v. Baker
Where a “protective search goes beyond what is necessary to determine if the suspect is armed, it is no longer valid under Terry and its fruits will be suppressed.” Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 373 (1993) (internal citation omitted).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
NLRB v. Aakash, Inc.
Under section 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act, it is an unfair labor practice for an employer to refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives of their employees.
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Antonio v. Garland
To satisfy the nexus requirement the defendant must show that he/she was persecuted “on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A); Fon v. Garland, 34 F.4th 810, 813 (9th Cir. 2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Wit v. United Behavioral Health
The Rules Enabling Act forbids interpreting Rules 23 to ‘abridge enlarge or modify and substantive right.
Area(s) of Law:- ERISA
United States v. Eller
18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) is applicable to a defendant who uses an adult proxy in the coercion of minors because the statute’s purpose would be wholly frustrated if liability could be avoided through the use of an intermediary. United States v. Macapagal, 56 F.4th 742, 744 (9th Cir. 2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Brown v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Absent explicit authority through statute, the Tax Court does not have the jurisdiction to order a refund of any tax payment or payment towards an OIC. Greene-Thapedi v. Commissioner, 126 T.C. 1, 8 (2006).
Area(s) of Law:- Tax Law
Langer v. Kiser
“[N]o individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182. A facility is “all or any portion of buildings, structures, sites, complexes, equipment, rolling stock . . . roads, walks, passageways, parking lots, or other real or personal property, including the site where the building, property, structure, or equipment is located.” 28 C.F.R. § 36.104. Courts cannot use the doctrine of standing to keep meritorious ADA cases out of federal courts simply because they are brought by serial litigants.
Area(s) of Law:- Disability Law
Grier v. Finjan Holdings, Inc.
Proof of scienter is not required to prove Section 14(e) claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78n(e). Varjabedian v. Emulex Corp., 888 F.3d 399, 407 (9th Cir. 2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Corporations
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Haaland
“An agency action is ‘final’ only if it both (1) ‘mark[s] the consummation of the agency’s decision-making process—it must not be of a merely tentative or interlocutory nature,’ and (2) is ‘one by which rights or obligations have been determined, or from which legal consequences will flow.’ Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 177–78 (1997).”
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Doe v. USDC-NVL
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3663(a)(3) "grants statutory authority to district courts to award restitution whenever a defendant agrees in a plea agreement to pay restitution." U. S. v. McAninch, 994 F.2d 1380, 1384 n.4 (9th Cir. 1993).
Area(s) of Law:- Remedies
Shulman v. Kaplan
RICO’s standing provision states that “any person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation” may bring a RICO claim in federal court to recover damages. 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c). The Controlled Substances Act provides that all "substances which have been manufactured, distributed, dispensed, or acquired in violation of [the CSA]" "shall be subject to forfeiture to the United States and no property right shall exist in them." 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Standing
Opara v. Yellen
After a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case for discrimination either based on the McDonnell Douglas factors or by offering direct or circumstantial evidence of discriminatory motive, “‘[t]he burden . . . shifts to the employer to articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the challenged action.’” E.E.O.C. v. Boeing Co., 577 F.3d 1044, 1049 (9th Cir. 2009) (second brackets in original) (quoting Chuang v. Univ. of Cal. Davis, Bd. of Trs., 225 F.3d 1115, 1123-24 (9th Cir. 2000)). Once an employer articulates some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the challenged action, the employee must show that the articulated reason is pretextual.
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
United States v. Lillard
The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to “be represented by an otherwise qualified attorney whom the defendant can afford to hire, or who is willing to represent the defendant even though he is without funds[.]” Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States, 491 U.S. 617, 624 (1989). An illegally excessive sentence violates a defendant’s substantial rights even if it runs concurrent with an equal or longer, valid sentence.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Singh v. Garland
Under Flores Molina, an asylum applicant has faced past persecution when they have repeatedly fled their homes after receiving “immediate threat[s] of severe physical violence or death.” Flores Molina v. Garland, 37 F.4th 626, 634 (9th Cir. 2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Wash. State Health Care Auth. v. Ctrs. For Medicare & Medicaid Servs.
State licensure and scope of practice standards must be tied to “factors external to the Medicaid program.” Planned Parenthood Ariz. Inc. v. Betlach, 727 F.3d. 960, 971 (9th Cir. 2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Tribal Law
U.S. v. Amintobia
"In a case in which the illegal act by which a defendant procured naturalization was “a false statement made to government officials, the Government must prove, inter alia, that the alleged false statement sufficiently altered the processes for investigating and adjudicating naturalization applications “as to have influenced an award of citizenship.” Maslenjak v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1918, 1928 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Johnson v. Walmart, Inc.
When substantial evidence supports that two contracts are separate, independent agreements, an arbitration agreement consented to for an initial purchase “does not control the [second] agreement of the parties.” Int’l Ambassador Programs, Inc. v. Archexpo, 68 F.3d 337, 340 (9th Cir. 1995).
Area(s) of Law:- Arbitration
U.S. v. Mongol Nation
“[T]he purposes of the Mongols Gang . . . included, but were not limited to,” several unlawful purposes. Because the indictment expressly contemplated that the association may exist for other purposes—perhaps including lawful ones—it is not facially inconsistent with Mongol Nation’s interpretation of the definition of “person” in the RICO statute[.]"
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Lathus v. City of Huntington Beach
Under Hobler v. Brueher, 325 F.3d 1145, 1150 (9th Cir. 2003), an individual who is the “public face” of an elected official “can be fired for purely political reasons.”
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
U.S. v. Knight
Where a waiver would deprive the defendant of a constitutional right, courts generally require that it be a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent choice among alternative courses of action, made without coercion and with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences that would arise from the waiver. See, e.g., Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 748–49 (1970); Parke v. Raley, 506 U.S. 20, 29 (1992).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
SoCal Recovery, LLC v. City of Costa Mesa
Under the ADA, FHA, or FEHA, “actual disability” may be established by showing an impairment which “substantially limits” the ability to engage in “major life activities.” 42 U.S.C. §§ 3602(h), 12102(1); see Pac. Shores Props., LLC v. City of Newport Beach, 730 F.3d 1142, 1156 (9th Cir. 2013) (Persons recovering from drug and alcohol addictions are protected from housing discrimination.). On appeal, the panel held that sober living homes may satisfy the “actual disability” inquiry on a collective basis, by offering evidence of admission criteria and house policies. See Rohr v. Salt River Project Agric. Improvement & Power Dist., 555 F.3d 850, 858–59 (9th Cir. 2009). Reversed.
Area(s) of Law:- Disability Law