Perez-Portillo v. Garland
The test for whether an individual produced sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of service by regular mail is 鈥減ractical and commonsensical rather than rigidly formulaic,鈥 and that in many cases the only proof may be the individual鈥檚 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 鈥渞easonable opportunity to reject [the] offered services.鈥 Jones v. Brisbin, 247 P.2d 891, 894 (Wash. 1952).
Area(s) of Law:- Arbitration
Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe v. City of Seattle
鈥淎ny 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.鈥 16 U.S.C. 搂 825l(b) (emphasis added).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Smith v. Agdeppa
When other evidence in the record, 鈥渟uch as medical reports, contemporaneous statements by the officer, the available physical evidence, and any expert testimony proffered by the plaintiff鈥 is inconsistent with material evidence offered by the defendant, 鈥淸q]ualified immunity should not be granted.鈥 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 鈥渋nherently controversial鈥 and quintessential protected speech. See Nat鈥檒 Ass鈥檔 for Gun Rights, Inc., v. Mangan, 933 F.3d 1102, 1111鈥12 (9th Cir. 2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights 搂 1983
U.S. v. Anderson
鈥淯nder the community caretaking exception, police officers may impound vehicles that jeopardize public safety and the efficient movement of vehicular traffic.鈥 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鈥檚 Online Privacy Protection Act (鈥淐OPPA鈥), 15 U.S.C. 搂搂 6501鈥06, gives the Federal Trade Commission (鈥淔TC鈥) 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, 鈥渢he prior order of removal is reinstated from its original date and is not subject to being reopened or reviewed.鈥 8 U.S.C. 搂 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 鈥渃ost-benefit analysis to ensure that there is no unreasonable risk created for people or the environment from a pesticide.鈥 Wash. Toxics Coal. v. EPA, 413 F.3d 1024, 1032 (9th Cir. 2005).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Pino v. Cardone Capital, LLC
鈥淎 person may be liable as a 鈥渟eller鈥 under the predecessor version of 搂 12(a) if the person either: (1) passes title to the securities to the plaintiff; or (2) 鈥渆ngages in solicitation,鈥 i.e., 鈥渟olicits 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.鈥 Pinter v. Dahl, 486 U.S. 622, 643, 647鈥48 (1988).
Area(s) of Law:- Business Law
U.S. v. Fisher/Fisher
鈥淧robable cause exists if 鈥榠t 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. 搂 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 [鈥渘umerosity鈥漖; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class [鈥渃ommonality鈥漖; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class [鈥渢ypicality鈥漖; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class [鈥渁dequacy鈥漖. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
United States v. Barai
鈥淲hen 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.鈥 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.鈥 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 interest. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976). To establish a property interest in a benefit, 鈥渁 person clearly must have. . . a legitimate claim of entitlement to it.鈥 Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 (1974). Although 鈥淸a] state-created right can, in some circumstances, beget yet other rights to procedures essential to the realization of the parent right,鈥 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鈥檡鈥檚 Off. for Third Jud. Dist. v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52, 67鈥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鈥檚 protected conduct, and the action (4) chilled the inmate鈥檚 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 鈥渕ust show that his protected conduct was the substantial or motivating factor behind the defendant鈥檚 conduct.鈥 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 鈥(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. 搂1252(g), 鈥渘o 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.鈥
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鈥檚 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 搂 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鈥檚 鈥減ermissible construction.鈥 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
鈥淧ullman abstention is 鈥榓n 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.鈥 San Remo Hotel v. City & County of San Franscisco, 145 F.3d (9th Cir. 1998). 鈥淸Abstention] is appropriate where (1) the federal constitutional claim 鈥榯ouches a sensitive area of social policy,鈥 (2) 鈥檆onstitutional adjudication plainly can be avoided by a state court,鈥 and (3) a 鈥榩ossibly determinative issue of state law is doubtful.鈥 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. 搂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
鈥淲hile 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.鈥 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), 鈥淸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.鈥 8 U.S.C. 搂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 鈥渨hen a petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error.鈥 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 鈥減rotectable under some law,鈥 which has a relationship with the 鈥渃laims at issue.鈥 Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2); see Wilderness Soc鈥檡 v. U.S. Forest Serv., 630 F.3d 1173, 1179 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure