Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 30 of 39
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Benay V. Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc.: New Standard Needed For Determining Actual Use, Brian Casido
Benay V. Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc.: New Standard Needed For Determining Actual Use, Brian Casido
Golden Gate University Law Review
This Note examines Benay v. Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc., and the substantial-similarity standard under a California breach of an implied-in-fact contract claim and a federal copyright infringement claim. The standard used in Benay will hinder the free flow of ideas by deterring producers from accepting an author’s screenplay for fear of breaching an implied-in-fact contract. Part I of this Note summarizes the history and development of the protection of rights to creative works. Part II provides the facts and procedural history of Benay v. Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. Part III analyzes and criticizes the Ninth Circuit’s holding in Benay …
Rodriguez V. Hayes: Government Accountability For Immigrants In Prolonged Detention, Otis Carl Landerholm
Rodriguez V. Hayes: Government Accountability For Immigrants In Prolonged Detention, Otis Carl Landerholm
Golden Gate University Law Review
United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) chooses to keep many immigrants incarcerated while they await the results of their hearings before immigration judges, appeals to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), or second appeals to the federal courts of appeals. Starting with Zadvydas v. Davis in 2001, federal courts have been facing the question of whether such lengthy detentions are permissible under either the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) or the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court in Zadvydas held that indefinite detention “would raise serious constitutional concerns” and decided to construe the prolonged-detention statute at issue “to contain …
“When Can I Tase Him, Bro?”: Bryan V. Mcpherson And The Propriety Of Police Use Of Tasers, Sam W. Wu
“When Can I Tase Him, Bro?”: Bryan V. Mcpherson And The Propriety Of Police Use Of Tasers, Sam W. Wu
Golden Gate University Law Review
This Case Summary begins by detailing the factual and procedural history of Bryan. Next, it outlines the “reasonable use of force” analysis of the Ninth Circuit as applied to Tasers. Finally, it concludes by briefly discussing the broad implications of Bryan, both for law enforcement and for every individual who may someday find himself or herself facing a police officer armed with a Taser.
Limits Of The Inevitable Discovery Doctrine In United States V. Young: The Intersection Of Private Security Guards, Hotel Guests, And The Fourth Amendment, Lauren Young Epstein
Limits Of The Inevitable Discovery Doctrine In United States V. Young: The Intersection Of Private Security Guards, Hotel Guests, And The Fourth Amendment, Lauren Young Epstein
Golden Gate University Law Review
This Note analyzes the Young court’s opinion and the potential consequences of the majority’s cursory rejection of the government’s inevitable discovery argument. This Note also reconciles the differing applications of the inevitable discovery doctrine by the Young majority and dissent and highlights the speculative nature of employing the inevitable discovery doctrine based on the facts of Young. Part I of this Note presents the background of the case and the historical development of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, focusing on the inevitable discovery doctrine as articulated by the Supreme Court in Nix v. Williams. Part II outlines the Young decision and analyzes …
Giving Employers Guidance: The Proper Response To No-Match Letters Under Aramark Facility Services V. Service Employees International Union, Local 1877, Steffanie Bevington
Giving Employers Guidance: The Proper Response To No-Match Letters Under Aramark Facility Services V. Service Employees International Union, Local 1877, Steffanie Bevington
Golden Gate University Law Review
In Aramark Facility Services v. Service Employees International Union, Local 1877, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit provided some guidance to employers in receipt of a no-match letter. Finding that receipt of a no-match letter does not give an employer "constructive knowledge" that an employee is unauthorized to work in the United States, the Ninth Circuit upheld an arbitration award reinstating employees who were terminated after their employer received a no-match letter. The Ninth Circuit held that termination of the employees was unwarranted under the circumstances because the company did not have sufficient information that it …
Dissent, Judge William A. Fletcher
Dissent, Judge William A. Fletcher
Golden Gate University Law Review
No abstract provided.
Requiring Exhaustion: An International Law Perspective Of The Alien Tort Claims Act In Sarei V. Rio Tinto, Steffanie Bevington
Requiring Exhaustion: An International Law Perspective Of The Alien Tort Claims Act In Sarei V. Rio Tinto, Steffanie Bevington
Golden Gate University Law Review
This Note will analyze the opinion of the three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit regarding exhaustion of local remedies in Sarei. The panel majority concluded that the court could not read an exhaustion requirement into the ATCA "where Congress has declined to do so, and in an area of international law where the Supreme Court has called for the exercise of judicial caution rather than innovation." The Ninth Circuit has granted en banc rehearing in Sarei, and the matter remained pending as this Note went to press. However, regardless of whether the en banc panel can or should read an …
"On Certiorari To The Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals": The Supreme Court's Review Of Ninth Circuit Cases During The October 2006 Term, Jessica L. Hannah, Kevan P. Mclaughlin
"On Certiorari To The Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals": The Supreme Court's Review Of Ninth Circuit Cases During The October 2006 Term, Jessica L. Hannah, Kevan P. Mclaughlin
Golden Gate University Law Review
Whether reversed, affirmed, vacated, or remanded, a review of the interaction between the two courts over twenty-two cases reveals several fundamental differences between the two courts on key issues. This Comment examines these differences by exploring twenty of those decisions and how they illustrate the relationship between the Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court. Part I examines the decisions that arose from the Supreme Court's review of Ninth Circuit decisions. Part II ties these decisions and conclusions into a larger motif emerging between the Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court, and Part III ultimately concludes that the future is likely to continue …
A Crime Victim's Right To Be "Reasonably Heard": Kenna V. United States District Court, Michael P. Vidmar
A Crime Victim's Right To Be "Reasonably Heard": Kenna V. United States District Court, Michael P. Vidmar
Golden Gate University Law Review
In Kenna v. United States District Court, the Ninth Circuit held that under the Crime Victim's Rights Act ("CYRA"), a crime victim's right to be "reasonably heard" during sentencing was not limited to written impact statements, but included the right to allocute at any public proceeding. This was an issue of first impression in the Ninth Circuit. "No court of appeals had addressed the scope of this particular CVRA right." Two district courts had considered this issue and had reached contrary decisions. The Ninth Circuit agreed with the United States District Court for the District of Utah that a plausible …
Voir Dire Racial Discrimination Under A "Comparative Juror Analysis" In Kesser V. Cambra, Andje Morovich
Voir Dire Racial Discrimination Under A "Comparative Juror Analysis" In Kesser V. Cambra, Andje Morovich
Golden Gate University Law Review
In Kesser v. Cambra, the en banc Ninth Circuit panel held that a California State Prosecutor's justifications for peremptory challenges during jury voir dire were pretexts for purposeful discrimination. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the California Court of Appeal failed to apply the proper Supreme Court test under Batson v. Kentucky to determine whether the prosecutor's nonracial motives were pretextual. Applying a "comparative juror analysis" (comparing the characteristics of a stricken juror with an impaneled juror), the Ninth Circuit majority held that the California Court of Appeal improperly relied solely on the prosecutor's own self-serving testimony as to his race-neutral …
Defining "Ordinary Prudential Doctrines" After Booker: Why The Limited Remand Is The Least Of Many Evils, Michael Guasco
Defining "Ordinary Prudential Doctrines" After Booker: Why The Limited Remand Is The Least Of Many Evils, Michael Guasco
Golden Gate University Law Review
This Note examines the limited-remand approach in comparison with the approaches taken by the different circuits. Part I discusses the history of the Sentencing Guidelines and the cases, up to and including Booker, that completely changed the way the Sentencing Guidelines were used. Part II sets forth the history of the traditional plain error standard of review and the contemporary "Plain Error Problem." Part III examines the limited-remand approach and compares it with the approach taken in other circuits. Part IV argues that the limited-remand approach is the best of a list of bad possible choices but that the Ninth …
United States V. Thomas: Ninth Circuit Misunder-"Standing": Why Permission To Drive Should Not Be Necessary To Create An Expectation Of Privacy In A Rental Car, Matthew M. Shafae
United States V. Thomas: Ninth Circuit Misunder-"Standing": Why Permission To Drive Should Not Be Necessary To Create An Expectation Of Privacy In A Rental Car, Matthew M. Shafae
Golden Gate University Law Review
This Note argues that the proper inquiry for determining whether a defendant has a legitimate expectation of privacy in a rental vehicle when that defendant is the unauthorized driver of a rental car is the totality-of-the-circumstances test, not the permission test adopted by the Ninth Circuit. A test requiring permission is unsupported by Supreme Court precedent and will yield inconsistent results when applied. Part I provides a brief historical background for challenges to Fourth Amendment searches. Part II sets forth the background and analysis of the opinion in focus, United States v. Thomas. Part III evaluates the court's analysis in …
Violence In The Courts: The Ninth Circuit's Attempt To Grapple With And Pin Down What Is A "Crime Of Violence" In United States V. Serna, Daniel S. Cho
Golden Gate University Law Review
This Note examines the limitations of the strict categorical approach; the method by which sentencing courts and courts of review determine whether an offense is a crime of violence for sentence enhancement purposes. Part I of this Note examines the "crime of violence" sentence enhancement under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines ("Guidelines"). Part II examines the Ninth Circuit's analysis of what constitutes a crime of violence in United States v. Serna. Part III proposes that the types of sources available to sentencing courts when analyzing whether an offense is a violent crime should be expanded based on Justice O'Connor's dissenting opinion …
United States V. Howard: Refocusing Probable Cause For Probationers And Parolees, Sean A. Kersten
United States V. Howard: Refocusing Probable Cause For Probationers And Parolees, Sean A. Kersten
Golden Gate University Law Review
This Note argues that the Ninth Circuit rigidly followed circuit precedent to create and apply an incorrect standard to determine whether probable cause existed to believe that Howard resided at an unreported address. The court should have determined the reasonableness of the search by balancing Howard's reduced expectation of privacy as a probationer with legitimate governmental interests. Furthermore, the court's analysis served to protect the property at the unreported address rather than Howard's Fourth Amendment privacy rights. This decision is contrary to the principle articulated in Katz v. United States, which states the Fourth Amendment is intended to protect people, …
Property, War Objectives, And Slave Labor Claims: The Ninth Circuit's Political Question Analysis In Alperin V. Vatican Bank, Reuben Hart
Golden Gate University Law Review
This Note will analyze the Ninth Circuit's decision in Alperin v. Vatican Bank, and propose that while the court's demarcation between property claims and war objectives claims may be a sound analytical method for addressing political question doctrine issues, the slave labor claims should not have been excluded from the scope of the property claims.
Dangerous Balance: The Ninth Circuit's Validation Of Expansive Dna Testing Of Federal Parolees, Claire S. Hulse
Dangerous Balance: The Ninth Circuit's Validation Of Expansive Dna Testing Of Federal Parolees, Claire S. Hulse
Golden Gate University Law Review
Part I provides a background of federal DNA testing legislation, the Fourth Amendment implications of DNA testing and two DNA testing cases leading up to the U.S. v. Kincade decision. Part II analyzes the plurality and dissenting opinions of the U.S. v. Kincade decision. Part III argues that the plurality's balancing test has a potential for inappropriate application. Finally, Part IV concludes that the Kincade balancing test should be narrowly applied as precedent after a meaningful balancing of interests, and not as a facade for ever-expanding government interests.
An Unreasonable Online Search: How A Sheriffs Webcams Strengthened Fourth Amendment Privacy Rights Of Pretrial Detainees, Ian Wood
Golden Gate University Law Review
This Note will discuss how courts approach pretrial detainees' claims of punishment, exploring both Fourteenth Amendment Due Process claims and privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment. It will go on to discuss Demery's implications for Fourth Amendment privacy rights of pretrial detainees. Part I explores the protections pretrial detainees are afforded under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause." Part l.A discusses the general differences between pretrial detainees and convicted prisoners. Part I.B considers two Supreme Court cases - Bell v. Wolfish and Block v. Rutherford - that address the standards used in evaluating punishment claims in a pretrial detention context …
Throw A Dog A Suspect: When Using Police Dogs Becomes An Unreasonable Use Of Force Under The Fourth Amendment, Lisa K. Sloman
Throw A Dog A Suspect: When Using Police Dogs Becomes An Unreasonable Use Of Force Under The Fourth Amendment, Lisa K. Sloman
Golden Gate University Law Review
This Note contends that a dog bite lasting up to a minute is excessive force under these circumstances and violated Miller's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizures. Part I of this Note provides a general synthesis of current Fourth Amendment seizure law as it applies to using police dogs. Part II discusses the facts of Miller and the court's application of current case law to those facts. Finally, Part III argues that the court failed to properly apply existing Fourth Amendment seizure law to the facts in Miller, and therefore, the force used was unreasonable.
Customizing The Reasonable-Woman Standard To Fit Emotionally And Financially Disabled Plaintiffs Is Outside The Scope Of The Civil Rights Act's Prohibition On Sex-Based Discrimination: Holly D. V. California Institute Of Technology, Amanda M. Jarratt
Golden Gate University Law Review
Tailoring the reasonable-woman standard to include select disabilities is problematic because employer liability would improperly depend upon the effect that the victim's disability had on the victim's perception, instead of on the agency relationship between the supervisor and the employer. Furthermore, these subjective standards would prevent employers from successfully invoking the reasonable care defense. Using these tailored standards would also result in discriminatory treatment under the law for women who did not qualify for one of these customized standards. Finally, customized standards would sterilize American workplaces. In support of this Comment's assertions against factoring the emotional and financial difficulties of …
Expert Testimony And "Subtle Discrimination" In The Workplace: Do We Now Need A Weatherman To Know Which Way The Wind Blows?, Deborah Dyson
Expert Testimony And "Subtle Discrimination" In The Workplace: Do We Now Need A Weatherman To Know Which Way The Wind Blows?, Deborah Dyson
Golden Gate University Law Review
This Comment studies Elsayed in order to investigate these questions. The Background discussion traces the two great lines of cases whose trajectories cross in Elsayed, the Daubert v. Merrell Dow expert testimony jurisprudence under the Federal Rules of Evidence and the McDonnell Douglas v. Green line of cases establishing the "pretext" model of proof for individual employment discrimination claims under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Then, turning to the opinion proper, the Analysis considers Elsayed under the following headings: (A) The Crux: The Court's Harmless-Error Determination, (B) Decoding in the Pretext Context, (C) Substituting the Mixed-Motives Regime …
Sticks And Stones May Break Your Bones ... But Words May Break The Bank: Monetary Damages For 'True Threats' And The Future Of Free Speech After Planned Parenthood Of The Columbia/Willamette V. American Coalition Of Life Activists, Randall D. Nicholson
Golden Gate University Law Review
This Note is divided into five parts. Part I introduces the plaintiffs and defendants in Planned Parenthood and provides a detailed description of the content of the posters as well as the other evidence used to find the defendants liable for threatening speech. Part II presents a brief description of the details of, and impetus for, the enactment of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act ("FACE"), as the act provides the basis for liability. To highlight that the majority's position in Planned Parenthood did not comport with current First Amendment jurisprudence, Part III analyzes the major decisions handed …
Eighth Amendment - Andrade V. Attorney General, Renee Ross
Eighth Amendment - Andrade V. Attorney General, Renee Ross
Golden Gate University Law Review
A large majority of states have enacted recidivist statutes requiring increased punishment for repeat offenders. California's controversial recidivist statute, the Three Strikes and You're Out Law (the Three Strikes Law), was approved by ballot initiative and enacted by the state legislature in 1994. Defendants have challenged the constitutionality of sentences under habitual offender statutes for at least twenty years. In Harmelin v. Helm, the United States Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of a life sentence without the possibility of parole for a first time drug offender convicted of possession of 650 grams of cocaine. Justice Kennedy's concurrence in Harmelin set …
United States V. Ruiz: Are Plea Agreements Conditioned On Brady Waivers Unconstitutional?, Shane Cahill
United States V. Ruiz: Are Plea Agreements Conditioned On Brady Waivers Unconstitutional?, Shane Cahill
Golden Gate University Law Review
In United States u. Ruiz, the Ninth Circuit ruled that such waivers are unconstitutional, violating the principle that defendants in criminal cases must knowingly and voluntarily plead guilty for the plea to be constitutionally valid. The purpose of this article is to discuss the law leading up to the Ninth Circuit's ruling in Ruiz, to examine the court's ruling itself, and to analyze the impact this decision could have on plea bargaining, an integral part of the criminal justice system. In Part II, this Note discusses Ruiz's facts and procedural history. Part III, section A outlines the prosecution's duty to …
Criminal Procedure - United States V. Nordby, Adriano Hrvatin
Criminal Procedure - United States V. Nordby, Adriano Hrvatin
Golden Gate University Law Review
The Nordby court held that a finding of drug quantity under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b) by the district court at sentencing pursuant to a preponderance of the evidence violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the notice and jury-trial guarantees of the Sixth Amendment when drug quantity was used to increase the prescribed statutory maximum penalty. In requiring that drug quantity be submitted to the jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the Ninth Circuit overruled nearly fifteen years of its own precedent.
Lajoie V. Thompson: Does The Ninth Circuit Grant Young Victims Less Protection Under Rape Shield Statutes?, Crystal Dykman
Lajoie V. Thompson: Does The Ninth Circuit Grant Young Victims Less Protection Under Rape Shield Statutes?, Crystal Dykman
Golden Gate University Law Review
In LaJoie v. Thompson, the Ninth Circuit held that the trial court's preclusion of evidence regarding the victim's prior sexual abuse by others as a sanction for LaJoie's failure to comply with the 15-day notice requirement in Oregon's rape shield law violated LaJoie's Sixth Amendment rights. The Ninth Circuit further held that the preclusion of this evidence regarding the prior sexual abuse of the victim warranted habeas relief. In Part II, this Note discusses LaJoie's facts and procedural history. Part III outlines the history of the Habeas Corpus statutes and discusses the Oregon and Federal rape shield statutes, with an …
Criminal Procedure - Powers V. Plumas Unified School District, Marnee Milner
Criminal Procedure - Powers V. Plumas Unified School District, Marnee Milner
Golden Gate University Law Review
In a matter of first impression, the Ninth Circuit in Powers v. Plumas Unified School District addresses whether a dog sniff of a person constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. Because the United States Supreme Court has yet to address this issue, there is a split among circuit courts. The Fifth Circuit, contrary to the Seventh Circuit, holds that a dog sniff of a person constitutes a search. The Ninth Circuit agrees with the Fifth Circuit. In Powers, the Ninth Circuit found that a dog sniff of the plaintiff deprived him of his constitutional right to be free from …
Exercising The Right To Self-Representation In United States V. Farhad: Issues In Waiving A Criminal Defendant's Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel, Kenneth R. Sogabe
Exercising The Right To Self-Representation In United States V. Farhad: Issues In Waiving A Criminal Defendant's Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel, Kenneth R. Sogabe
Golden Gate University Law Review
Though all U.S. courts recognize the right to self-representation as a result of the Supreme Court's decision in Faretta, constitutional and procedural issues affect its effective implementation. This note explores the Sixth Amendment's right to waive counsel and its effect on a criminal defendant's Fifth Amendment right to receive a fair trial. The Ninth Circuit's decision in Farhad is critiqued on two issues: first, the failure to address standby counsel in sharing duties of representation with the defendant; and second, the court's failure to address Farhad's lack of access to the means of developing his case. Lastly, this note proposes …
Criminal Procedure - Macfarlane V. Walter, Jennifer Benesis
Criminal Procedure - Macfarlane V. Walter, Jennifer Benesis
Golden Gate University Law Review
In Macfarlane v. Walter, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that Washington state and county early-release credit systems for prisoners violate the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution. The early-release credit systems unconstitutionally provide fewer early-release credits to pre-trial detainees who cannot afford to post bail than to similarly-situated prisoners who post bail and serve their entire sentences after trial in state prison. The court held that awarding fewer good behavior credits for time served in county jail than for time served in state prison denies equal protection of the law to pre-trial …
Undocumented Workers Are Entitled To Vote In Union Elections - But Are They "Employees" Under The Law?, Beth Wolf Mora
Undocumented Workers Are Entitled To Vote In Union Elections - But Are They "Employees" Under The Law?, Beth Wolf Mora
Golden Gate University Law Review
This note discusses the facts and procedural history of Kolkka. Part III provides a detailed legal and historical analysis of the applicable statutes, case law, and debates surrounding undocumented workers rights. Part IV describes the Ninth Circuit's analysis in Kolkka. Part V critiques the Ninth Circuit's holding in Kolkka asserting that undocumented workers have the right to vote in union elections. Finally, Part VI concludes that judicial decisions supporting undocumented workers rights as an "employees," outweighs the political opposition to rights for undocumented workers. Therefore, to protect undocumented workers, statutory language should expressly state that they are "employees."
United States V. Covarrubias: Does The Ninth Circuit Add To The Ambiguity Of The Inextricably Intertwined Exception?, Holly Larsen
United States V. Covarrubias: Does The Ninth Circuit Add To The Ambiguity Of The Inextricably Intertwined Exception?, Holly Larsen
Golden Gate University Law Review
This Note discusses Covarrubias' facts and procedural history. Part III outlines the history of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, with an emphasis on the inextricably intertwined exception. Part IV analyzes the Ninth Circuit's reasoning in Covarrubias. Part V critiques this reasoning in light of the strong presumption against the finding of the application of the inextricably intertwined exception. Finally, Part VI concludes that the Ninth Circuit properly suppressed the defendant's incriminating statements obtained by I.N.S. Agent Gonzalez, but would have set forth a stronger position had the Ninth Circuit evaluated in addition, or, in the alternative, under the circumvention …