LATEST SUMMARIES

ATTORNEY'S FEES, CIVIL PROCEDURE, CIVIL RIGHTS, FOOD & BEVERAGES, HEALTH LAW
• Hubbard v. SoBreck, LLC

CIVIL PROCEDURE, CIVIL RIGHTS, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, GOVERNMENT LAW, TRANSPORTATION
• Fogel v. Collins

CIVIL PROCEDURE, CIVIL RIGHTS, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, PER CURIAM
• Cuevas v. de Roco

CIVIL PROCEDURE, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, INDIAN LAW
• US v. FMC Corp.

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, INDIAN LAW, PER CURIAM
• US v. Vasquez-Ramos

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE, HABEAS CORPUS, HEALTH LAW, SENTENCING
• Brown v. Lambert

EVIDENCE, IMMIGRATION LAW
• Mousa v. Mukasey

HEALTH LAW, LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW, REMEDIES
• Farrell v. Tri-County Metro. Transp. Dist. of Oregon

LATEST SUMMARIES

ATTORNEY'S FEES, CIVIL PROCEDURE, CIVIL RIGHTS, FOOD & BEVERAGES, HEALTH LAW
Hubbard v. SoBreck, LLC, No. 06-56870
In an action claiming violations of both the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the California Disabled Persons Act (CDPA) arising from alleged barriers that deprived plaintiffs of full and equal access to a restaurant operated by defendants, the circuit court rules that, to the extent that Section 55 of the CDPA does authorize the award of fees to a prevailing defendant on nonfrivolous CDPA state claims that parallel nonfrivolous ADA claims, the ADA preempts Section 55 of the CDPA. Read more...

CIVIL PROCEDURE, CIVIL RIGHTS, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, GOVERNMENT LAW, TRANSPORTATION
Fogel v. Collins, No. 06-15395
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 case arising after police officers arrested plaintiff and impounded his van because of messages painted on the vehicle, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) although the individual defendants in the case violated his First Amendment rights by arresting him, impounding his van, and making him paint over his message; nevertheless, 2) defendant-city had not implemented an unconstitutional policy or custom, and defendants-police officers were entitled to qualified immunity. Read more...

CIVIL PROCEDURE, CIVIL RIGHTS, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, PER CURIAM
Cuevas v. de Roco, No. 06-15403
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action arising out of a botched attempt by law enforcement to locate a parolee, wherein plaintiffs alleged that a warrantless entry into their residence was unlawful under the Fourth Amendment, summary judgment for defendants is reversed in part where, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, one of deputy sheriff defendants violated plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights and was not entitled to qualified immunity. Read more...

CIVIL PROCEDURE, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, INDIAN LAW
US v. FMC Corp., No. 06-35429
In an action brought by Indian tribes against a mining company to enforce a Consent Decree that had been entered into by the company and the government, orders finding that the tribes could enforce the Consent Decree as third-party beneficiaries and that the Consent Decree required the company to apply for tribal permits are vacated and remanded for dismissal of the action where the tribes lacked standing to enforce the Consent Decree. Read more...

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, INDIAN LAW, PER CURIAM
US v. Vasquez-Ramos, No. 06-50553, 06-50694
Denial of defendants' motion to dismiss their indictments for possessing feathers and talons of bald and golden eagles and other migratory birds without a permit in violation of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA), and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), is affirmed where, pursuant to prior circuit precedent which remains binding, the prosecutions did not violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). (Substituted opinion) Read more...

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE, HABEAS CORPUS, HEALTH LAW, SENTENCING
Brown v. Lambert, No. 04-35998
In a death penalty case on remand from the Supreme Court, denial of habeas relief is affirmed where: 1) the district court properly ruled that the Washington death penalty statute is facially valid; 2) the jury selection for petitioner's trial was constitutional; 3) petitioner's counsel weren't objectively deficient, as they made reasonable strategic decisions by not calling a psychiatrist, not calling a licensed professional counselor and not cross-examining a psychiatrist; and 4) there was no abuse of discretion in excluding death penalty trial reports. Read more...

EVIDENCE, IMMIGRATION LAW
Mousa v. Mukasey, No. 04-75998
Christian Iraqi citizen's petition for review of an order denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal is granted where: 1) petitioner offered a credible explanation for her reluctance to talk about her rape and thus her testimony about her rape could not support an adverse credibility finding; 2) the remaining reasons supporting the adverse credibility determination failed; 3) the government did not meet its burden of establishing that changed country conditions were a basis for denying the application; and 4) a remand was necessary to determine whether, accepting her testimony as true, petitioner established past persecution and was eligible for relief. Read more...

HEALTH LAW, LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW, REMEDIES
Farrell v. Tri-County Metro. Transp. Dist. of Oregon, No. 06-35484
A trial verdict awarding plaintiff $1,110 in lost wages under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) is affirmed where the jury's verdict was limited to wages actually lost as a result of defendant's FMLA violation, and thus, the award was not "a back-door means of recovery for psychic injuries." Read more...