Thursday, December 31, 2009

People v. Murphy (Cal. Ct. App. - Dec. 28, 2009)

›
No opinions on New Year's Eve, of course. Nonetheless, as a public service, here's a timely reminder from an opinion earlier this we...
Wednesday, December 30, 2009

Traschel v. Rogers Terminal & Shipping Corp. (9th Cir. - Dec. 30, 2009)

›
First -- and important -- principles first. Everyone's entitled to their day in court. In the trial court as well as on appeal. We al...

U.S. v. No Runner (9th Cir. - Dec. 30, 2009)

›
Two quick points about this case. First, it's ironic that the defendant, who's charged with stealing a sports utility vehicle and cr...
Tuesday, December 29, 2009

Jasmine Networks v. Superior Court (Cal. Ct. App. - Dec. 29, 2009)

›
I like it when the Court of Appeal spells out crystal clearly at the outset of the opinion what we're talking about. J ustice Rushing d...

People v. Pham (Cal. Ct. App. - Dec. 28, 2009)

›
Justice Bedsworth begins this opinion with the following opening line : "There appears to be no limit to the ability of our species to...
Monday, December 28, 2009

People v. Moret (Cal. Ct. App. - Dec. 28, 2009)

›
"What?! Just because I'm 19, was fired for embezzlement, and am carrying a loaded Smith & Wesson .38, you have the audacity to...

Bryan v. McPherson (9th Cir. - Dec. 28, 2009)

›
Ah, Southern California. The fun. The sun. The unnecessary tasering . Judge Wardlaw writes this one like a novel, so all I have to do to tel...
Thursday, December 24, 2009

People v. Taylor (Cal. Ct. App. - Dec. 24, 2009)

›
I'm no sentimentalist. But the case has been pending since 1996, and it's now Christmas Eve. Can't the California Supreme Cour...
Wednesday, December 23, 2009

Park 100 Inv. Group v. Ryan (Cal. Ct. App. - Dec. 23, 2009)

›
There's not much selection on the last working day before Christmas. Nothing from the Ninth Circuit today, and slim pickings from the C...
Tuesday, December 22, 2009

People v. Franco (Cal. Ct. App. - Dec. 22, 2009)

›
All you apartment dwellers out there: Listen up. Let's say that your lease (like the one in this case ) allows the landlord to inspect...

American Meat Institute v. Lehman (Cal. Ct. App. - Dec. 12, 2009)

›
Proposition 65 requires consumer warnings in California regarding various health risks. The American Meat Institute doesn't like 'e...
Monday, December 21, 2009

Hamazaspyan v. Holder (9th Cir. - Dec. 21, 2009)

›
Thank you, Judge Bea. Sometimes you've got to explain things to the slow-witted. Like me. This case involves an immigration petitioner ...

Independent Living Center v. Maxwell-Jolly (9th Cir. - Dec. 21, 2009)

›
Judges Reinhardt, Willie Fletcher and Milan Smith are not exactly dummies. In the slightest. So when you say something to them that they k...
Thursday, December 17, 2009

People v. Hernandez (Cal. Ct. App. - Dec. 17, 2009)

›
The facts are five double-spaced pages . Read them. Decide (1) what you think the proper sentence should be, and (2) whether they influenc...

People v. Saleem (Cal. Ct. App. - Dec. 17, 2009)

›
What's "body armor"? California makes it illegal to wear body armor if you're a serious violent felon. Which makes sense ...
Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Walton v. Mueller (Cal. Ct. App. - Dec. 15, 2009)

›
I imagine that people will have varying reactions to this one . Timothy J. Walton is an attorney here in California. He gets 40 different ...
Monday, December 14, 2009

Pelayo-Garcia v. Holder (9th Cir. - Dec. 14, 2009)

›
Here's an example of the problem with the categorical (and modified categorical approach) , at least when applied to particular statutes...
Friday, December 11, 2009

People v. Cason (Cal. Ct. App. - Dec. 7, 2009)

›
I've got no real problem with Justice Ramirez's opinion . I recognize that there's a lingering question regarding whether Califo...
Thursday, December 10, 2009

Mayfield v. United States (9th Cir. - Dec. 10, 2009)

›
You always think it couldn't possibly happen to you. Until it does. I'm sure that's what Brandon Mayfield thought, anyway. Ch...

Robinson v. Kramer (9th Cir. - Dec. 9, 2009)

›
Is this an unintentional reference to Seinfeld ? It's a California habeas case, so I'm pretty sure that the respondent in this one i...