Spencer Wollan

United States Supreme Court (1 summary)

Helix Energy Sol. Grp., Inc. v. Hewitt

An employee is not considered salaried under 29 CFR §541.602(a) if his compensation is based on a daily rate. §541.604(b) allows an alternative for employees paid hourly or daily to qualify as salaried, but only if they also earn an additional guaranteed and predetermined weekly payment.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

9th Circuit Court of Appeals (7 summaries)

Bolden-Hardge v. California State Controller

“Leave to amend should be granted generously, after considering ‘bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of amendment, and whether the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint.’” Bolden-Hardge v. California State Controller, 63 F.4th 1215, 1221 (2023) (quoting United States v. Corinthian Colls., 655 F.3d 984, 995 (9th Cir. 2011)).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment 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

Lopez v. Garland

Though 8 C.F.R. § 1003.3(a) does not expressly address cross-appeals, the rule requiring separate cross-appeals is an “unwritten but longstanding rule" that the BIA has consistently chosen to apply in its decisions. Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U.S 237, 244 (2008).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Armstrong v. Newsom

"Relief prescribing more specific mechanisms of compliance is appropriate” under the PLRA where a district court has already attempted to remedy the situation “through less intrusive means, and those attempts have failed.” Armstrong v. Brown, 768 F.3d 975, 983-984 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Armstrong v. Shwarzenegger, 622 F.3d 1058,1071).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Disability 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

United States v. Richards

The finding that a provision under § 3583 is unconstitutional (1) “applies only when a defendant commits a discrete set of federal criminal offenses specified”, (2) “takes away the judge’s discretion to decide whether violation of a condition of supervised release should result in imprisonment and for how long”, and (3) “limits the judge’s discretion in a particular manner: by imposing a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of ‘not less than 5 years.’” United States v. Haymond, 139 S. Ct. 2369, 2386 (2019). “[A] district court has discretion to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences after revocation of multiple concurrent terms of supervised release.” United States v. Xinidakis, 598 F.3d 1213, 1217 (9th Cir. 2010).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Center for Community Action v. FAA

“Judicial review of agency decisions under [NEPA] is governed by the Administrative Procedure Act, which specifies that an agency action may only be overturned when it is ‘arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.’” Earth Island Inst. v. United States Forest Serv., 351 F.3d 1291, 1300 (9th Cir. 2003).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Oregon Court of Appeals (3 summaries)

State v. Taylor

To admit evidence of other acts under OEC 404(3), the proponent must “articulate the chain of inferences that makes the evidence relevant to [an identified] purpose and explain how that chain of inferences does not depend on the actor’s character.” State v. Jackson, 368 Or 705, 733, 498 P3d 788 (2021).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. J.D.B.

Even in juvenile proceedings, “it is a fundamental violation of due process for the state to withhold evidence that is favorable to an accused where the evidence is material to either guilt or punishment.” Brady v. Maryland, 373 US 83, 87 S Ct 1194, 10 L Ed 2d 215 (1963).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

Pulley v. Herndon

ORS 109.119 “focuses on whether present circumstances cause present detriment to the child,” and the circumstances must “pose a serious present risk of psychological, emotional, or physical harm.” O’Donnell-Lamont and Lamont, 337 Or 86, 112-13, 91 P3d 721 (2004), cert den, 543 US 1050 (2005).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

Back to Top