United States Supreme Court (1 summary)
Helix Energy Sol. Grp., Inc. v. Hewitt
An employee is not considered salaried under 29 CFR 搂541.602(a) if his compensation is based on a daily rate. 搂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
鈥淟eave to amend should be granted generously, after considering 鈥榖ad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of amendment, and whether the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint.鈥欌 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. 搂 1003.3(a) does not expressly address cross-appeals, the rule requiring separate cross-appeals is an 鈥渦nwritten 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鈥 under the PLRA where a district court has already attempted to remedy the situation 鈥渢hrough less intrusive means, and those attempts have failed.鈥 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 搂 3583 is unconstitutional (1) 鈥渁pplies only when a defendant commits a discrete set of federal criminal offenses specified鈥, (2) 鈥渢akes away the judge鈥檚 discretion to decide whether violation of a condition of supervised release should result in imprisonment and for how long鈥, and (3) 鈥渓imits the judge鈥檚 discretion in a particular manner: by imposing a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of 鈥榥ot less than 5 years.鈥欌 United States v. Haymond, 139 S. Ct. 2369, 2386 (2019). 鈥淸A] district court has discretion to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences after revocation of multiple concurrent terms of supervised release.鈥 United States v. Xinidakis, 598 F.3d 1213, 1217 (9th Cir. 2010).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Center for Community Action v. FAA
鈥淛udicial 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 鈥榓rbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.鈥欌 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 鈥渁rticulate 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鈥檚 character.鈥 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, 鈥渋t 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.鈥 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 鈥渇ocuses on whether present circumstances cause present detriment to the child,鈥 and the circumstances must 鈥減ose a serious present risk of psychological, emotional, or physical harm.鈥 O鈥橠onnell-Lamont and Lamont, 337 Or 86, 112-13, 91 P3d 721 (2004), cert den, 543 US 1050 (2005).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law