Alfred v. Garland
The distinction between principal and accomplice has been abrogated by Rosemond v. United States, 572 U.S. 65 (2014) such that a theft accomplice conviction meets the requirements to remove a non-citizen from the United States under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Khalulyan v. Garland
An alien who is convicted of an offense that “involves fraud or deceit in which the loss to the victim or victims exceeds $10,000” may be removed from the United States. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(43)(M)(i), 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
City of Los Angeles v. FAA
“NEPA requires that a federal agency consider every significant aspect of the environmental impact of a proposed action … [and] inform the public that it has indeed considered environmental concerns in its decision-making process.” Earth Island Inst. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 351 F.3d 1291, 1300 (9th Cir. 2003).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Schurg v. US
The federal government is immune under the discretionary exception if: (1) “[the] challenged actions involve an element of judgment or choice” and (2) “[the] judgment is of the kind that the discretionary function exception was designed to shield.” Esquivel v. United States, 21 F.4th 565, 573 (9th Cir. 2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Sovereign Immunity
Honey Bum, LLC v. Fashion Nova, Inc.
Whether summary judgement is appropriate where plaintiff cannot show a horizontal agreement between vendors in a per se group boycott; whether summary judgement of California TIPER and TIC tort claims are appropriate without valid outside illegal acts or valid contracts
Area(s) of Law:- Business Law
Mejia v. Miller
"The existence of alternative remedial structures is reason enough not to infer a new Bivens cause of action.” Egbert v. Boule, 142 S. Ct. 1793, 1804 (2022),
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights § 1983
Yim v. Seattle
The ordinance must not “burden substantially more speech than is necessary to further the government’s legitimate interests.” Board of Trs. Of State Univ. Of N.Y. v. Fox, 492 U.S. 469, 478 (1989). If a speech is commercial, intermediate scrutiny should be applied, if non-commercial, strict scrutiny should be applied. If the right to exclude was fundamental, strict scrutiny should be applied.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Olsen v. State of California
A legislative “desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate government interest.” United States Dep't of Agric. v. Moreno 413 U.S. 528, 534 (1973).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Umana-Escobar v. Garland
Whether a protected ground meets the required nexus standard is a legal determination that the BIA is required to review de novo under 8 C.F.R. §1003.1(d)(3)(ii).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Forrest v. Spizzirri
Section three of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) states that “upon determination by a court that an issue or issues are referable to arbitration, the court, on application of a party, ‘shall’ stay the trial of the action pending arbitration (provided the applicant is not in default). 9 U.S.C. § 3.”
Area(s) of Law:- Arbitration
Glazer Capital Management, L.P., et al. v. Forescout Technologies, Inc. et al.
Where plaintiffs' adequately pled fraud under Section 10b and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities and Exchange act, statements by defendant may still be protected when they are forward-looking under the PSLRA's safe harbor provision
Area(s) of Law:- Business Law
Gutierrez-Alm v. Garland
In a transitional rules case, an immigrant's accrual of physical presence stops upon notice of an Order to Show Cause, even if the order does not list the time and place of the deportation proceedings.
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Murguia v. Langdon
“If affirmative conduct on the part of a state actor places a plaintiff in danger, and the officer acts in deliberate indifference to that plaintiff’s safety, a claim arises under §1983.” Penilla v. City of Huntington Park, 115 F.3d 707, 710 (9th Cir. 1997).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights § 1983
State of Alaska Dep't of Fish and Game v. Federal Subsistence Board
There is an exception to the mootness doctrine and that exception is met when (1) the duration of the challenged action is too short to allow full litigation before it ceases or expires, and (2) there is a reasonable expectation that the plaintiffs will be subjected to the challenged action again. Karuk Tribe of Cal. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 681 F.3d 1006, 1018 (9th Cir. 2012).
Area(s) of Law:- Wildlife Law
Forbes Media LLC v. U.S.
Records may be unsealed when they have historically been made available to the public, when public access is beneficial to the procedure, and when unsealing the records is not outweighed by a compelling governmental interest. In re Copley Press, Inc., 518 F.3d 1022, 1026 (9th Cir. 2008).
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
Gay v. Parsons
Absolute immunity may apply when "the official is performing a duty functionally comparable to one for which officials were rendered immune at common law." Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir. 2003)
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights § 1983
Radu v. Shon
The Hague Convention directs courts to “act expeditiously in proceedings for the return of children.” Convention Art. 11.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Van v. LLR, Inc.
FRCP Rule 23(b) requires that, when individualized issues that may cause difficulties in a class-action are substantiated, they must be reviewed by the district court to determine whether the claimant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that questions common to the class predominated over that issue. Bowerman v. Field Asset Servs., 60 F.4th 459, 469 (9th Cir. 2023).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Buero v. Amazon.com Services, Inc.
According to the Oregon Supreme Court, “Oregon law aligns with federal law regarding what activities are compensable. Therefore, under Oregon law, as under federal law, time that employees spend on the employer’s premises waiting for and undergoing mandatory security screenings before or after their work shifts is compensable only if the screenings are either (1) an integral and indispensable part of the employees’ principal activities or (2) compensable as a matter of contract, custom, or practice.”
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
O'Handley v. Weber
In order to support a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against a private party, a plaintiff must show that the private party exercised a right or privilege created by the state or is sufficiently entwined with or coerced by government power. Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922 (1982).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Seaview Trading, LLC v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
Regarding limitations statutes that bar the collection of taxes, there must be, “meticulous compliance by the taxpayer with all named conditions in order to secure the benefit of the limitation.” Lucas v. Pilliod Lumber Co., 281 U.S. 245, 249 (1930)
Area(s) of Law:- Tax Law
Wide Voice, LLC v. FCC
“Under § 706, [the court] must determine whether the agency’s decision was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
No On E v. David Chiu
“The district court applied exacting scrutiny, which requires a ‘substantial relation’ between the disclosure requirement and a ‘sufficiently important’ governmental interest.” Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310, 366–67 (2010).
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
US v. Salazar
Despite the government’s knowledge of relevant information, defendants must provide all relevant information when invoking the safety valve under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Winsor v. Sequoia Benefits & Ins.
"To establish injury in fact, a plaintiff must show that he or she suffered 'an invasion of a legally protected interest' that is 'concrete and particularized' and 'actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.'" Spokeo, 578 U.S. at 339 (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560).
Area(s) of Law:- ERISA
Twitter, Inc. v. Garland
Electronic communication service providers that are recipients of national security process are bound by statute to protect and not disclose classified information arising from that process.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Yamashita v. LG Chem., Ltd.
“For a claim to arise out of a defendant’s forum contacts requires causation, while a claim can relate to those contacts, even absent causation, where, for example, ‘a company . . . serves a market for a product in the forum State and the product malfunctions there.’” Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 141 S.Ct. 1017, 1026–27 (2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
Sinclair v. City of Seattle
To support a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must show that the risk created by the government was affirmatively created with deliberate indifference to danger, and that the risk was sufficiently particularized to the plaintiff.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
US v. Taylor
The standard of a Fourth Amendment analysis is reasonableness.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law