Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Criminal Law (19)
- Constitutional Law (18)
- Labor and Employment Law (13)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (10)
- Environmental Law (9)
-
- Intellectual Property Law (9)
- Evidence (4)
- Other Law (4)
- Immigration Law (3)
- Jurisprudence (3)
- Civil Law (2)
- Education Law (2)
- Judges (2)
- Commercial Law (1)
- Communications Law (1)
- Contracts (1)
- Courts (1)
- Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law (1)
- Family Law (1)
- Health Law and Policy (1)
- Housing Law (1)
- International Law (1)
- International Trade Law (1)
- Juvenile Law (1)
- Legal Biography (1)
- Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility (1)
- Military, War, and Peace (1)
- Property Law and Real Estate (1)
- Securities Law (1)
- Publication Type
Articles 31 - 60 of 100
Full-Text Articles in Law
Nonconsensual Waiver Of A Jury Trial: Closing The Door, But Not Completely: United States V. United States District Court, Dije Ndreu
Golden Gate University Law Review
In United States v. United States District Court, the Ninth Circuit held that the circumstances of a child sexual abuse case did not warrant an exception to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which requires the government's consent for a defendant to waive a jury trial. The court determined that the district court's ruling, which allowed the defendant to waive a jury trial without the government's consent, was clearly erroneous as a matter of law, and granted the government's petition for a writ of mandamus to require the district court to hold a jury trial.
An Employer's Use Of Federal Safety Standards To Exclude Individuals With Disabilities: Bates V. United Parcel Service, Inc., Ian Hansen
Golden Gate University Law Review
In Bates v. United Parcel Service, Inc., the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a plaintiff challenging a categorical safety-based "qualification standard" under the Americans with Disabilities Act does not have the burden of establishing that she could perform the essential function of generally performing the job "safely." The plaintiff is instead merely required to show that she is "qualified" in the sense that she has satisfied all prerequisites for the position, including any safety-related prerequisites not connected with the challenged criterion. The burden will then shift to the defendant to establish that the challenged …
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 …
Why Fight Fought?: A Missed Erisa Opportunity In The Ninth Circuit, Jill V. Cartwright
Why Fight Fought?: A Missed Erisa Opportunity In The Ninth Circuit, Jill V. Cartwright
Golden Gate University Law Review
This Note analyzes the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's standard of review in cases in which a conflicted administrator has denied benefits. Part I of this Note examines early standards of review prior to ERISA. Part II sets forth the split among the circuits in evaluating a conflicted administrator's denial of benefits and explains the Ninth Circuit's former standard. Part ill compares the Ninth Circuit's prior standard of finding such denials presumptively void with its recent holding in Abatie v. Alta Health & Life Insurance Company, in which the court effectively adopted a unique standard similar …
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, …
Asylum For A Minor Child Of Persecuted Parents In Zhang V. Gonzales, Roxana M. Smith
Asylum For A Minor Child Of Persecuted Parents In Zhang V. Gonzales, Roxana M. Smith
Golden Gate University Law Review
In Zhang v. Gonzales, the Ninth Circuit considered for the first time whether an unaccompanied minor child of a parent who was forcibly sterilized should be automatically eligible to apply for asylum. Deferring to the statutory interpretation adopted by the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA"), the court found against the child. The court's opinion retreated from earlier dictum suggesting that the refugee statute could reasonably be extended to grant automatic eligibility to a child. However, the court went on to hold that the parents' political opinion - in the form of resistance to coercive population controls - could still be …
Making-Up Conditions Of Employment: The Unequal Burdens Test As A Flawed Mode Of Analysis In Jespersen V. Harrah's Operating Co., Megan Kelly
Golden Gate University Law Review
Part I of this Note reviews Title VII and foundational caselaw, including cases regarding sex discrimination and appearance standards. Part II examines the Ninth Circuit's Jespersen opinion. Part III compares the Supreme Court decision in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, which expanded Title VII protection to include gender stereotyping, with the Jespersen holding. Part III also explores a Seventh Circuit case, Carroll v. Talman Federal Savings and Loan Association of Chicago, and Judge Thomas's dissent in Jespersen, which both argue for inclusion of less tangible factors such as gender stereotyping in the unequal burdens test. Part III finally contends that the …
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.
Newton V. Diamond: When A Composer's Market Is Not The Average Joe: The Inadequacy Of The Average-Audience Test, Reid Miller
Newton V. Diamond: When A Composer's Market Is Not The Average Joe: The Inadequacy Of The Average-Audience Test, Reid Miller
Golden Gate University Law Review
This Note will discuss how the Ninth Circuit incorrectly adopted the average-audience test because the test has become overbroad in its application, is ill-equipped to deal with the issues of complex modern music, and has drifted from the fundamental purpose of copyright law. The Ninth Circuit should have adopted the intended- audience test, which looks to the reaction of those with the expertise required to understand the language of the work and more truly reflects the fundamental purpose of copyright law: the protection of the creator's market.
Posthumously Conceived Children And Social Security Survivor's Benefits: Implications Of The Ninth Circuit's Novel Approach For Determining Eligibility In Gillett-Netting V. Barnhart, Karen Minor
Golden Gate University Law Review
Part I of this Note describes the technology of assisted reproduction, the requirements and purpose of the Act, and the challenges that arise when interpreting the Act using the variety of state statutes. Part II describes the instant case and explores the reasoning of both the district court and the Ninth Circuit. The implications of the decision are discussed in Part IlI.
What Does Diversity Mean In Seattle?: Parents Involved In Community Schools V. Seattle School District Number 1 Strikes Down The Use Of A Racial Tiebreaker, Katie York
Golden Gate University Law Review
This Note examines the Ninth Circuit decision in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District Number 1. The introduction provides an overview of the evolution of race-based jurisprudence. In addition, the introduction describes the "open choice" policy established by the School District. Part I explains the progression to strict scrutiny as the applicable standard of review for race-conscious admissions policies. Part II analyzes the procedural history of the Parents Involved cases. Part III compares the admissions policies between public high schools and universities. Part IV proposes a constitutionally permissible race-conscious placement policy for secondary education. Part V concludes …
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.
Challenges To Establishing Jurisdiction Over Holocaust Era Claims In Federal Court, Svetlana Shirinova
Challenges To Establishing Jurisdiction Over Holocaust Era Claims In Federal Court, Svetlana Shirinova
Golden Gate University Law Review
This Comment contends that jurisdiction over Austria cannot be established retroactively by application of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. The purpose of this Comment is to call the attention of the legal community and the general public to the need to resolve the remaining Holocaust Era claims. Many U.S. citizens fought to preserve democratic rights during the Second World War. Many gave their lives to protect the world from fascism. Now it is time for the legislature and the judiciary to complete this noble task. This Comment is divided into four parts. Part I provides a brief overview of Holocaust …
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 …
Toward A Future Of Enforcement: A Critique Of The Ninth Circuit's Invalidation Of Mandatory Arbitration Agreements In Employment Contracts, Kerri Bandics
Golden Gate University Law Review
This Comment focuses on mandatory pre-dispute arbitration agreements that prospective employees must sign in order to be hired, or even considered, for a given position. Growing numbers of employers are implementing mandatory arbitration programs to resolve workplace disputes in response to recent case law upholding the enforceability of arbitration agreements. Employers may present arbitration agreements in employment contracts, employment handbooks, or in job applications. This Comment posits that while arbitration is an efficient method of adjudicating many claims, mandatory arbitration agreements in employment contracts are potentially unfair to employees for three reasons. These three concerns arise because employers typically control …
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 …
Let's All Go To The Movies, And Put An End To Disability Discrimination: Oregon Paralyzed Veterans Of America V. Regal Cinemas, Inc. Requires Comparable Viewing Angles For Wheelchair Seating, Joshua D. Watts
Golden Gate University Law Review
This Note contends that the Ninth Circuit was correct in finding that in order to ensure comparable lines of sight for disabled and non-disabled patrons, viewing angles must be taken into account. Part I provides a general background of Title III of the ADA, and specifically addresses section 4.33.3 of the ADAAG and its history. Additionally, Part I examines the Fifth Circuit's decision in Lara, as it played a major role in the outcome of the Ninth Circuit's decision in Regal. Part II analyzes both the majority and the dissenting opinions offered in Regal. Part III defends the majority opinion …
Rico Conspiracy: The Ninth Circuit Distinguishes Itself From The Rising Costs Of Guilty Thoughts, Stephanie Profitt
Rico Conspiracy: The Ninth Circuit Distinguishes Itself From The Rising Costs Of Guilty Thoughts, Stephanie Profitt
Golden Gate University Law Review
Part I of this Comment briefly surveys the legislative development of the RICO statute. It discusses the elements of a RICO cause of action and disputes that have arisen among the circuit courts over its interpretation. Part II of this Comment examines the development of civil liability for conspiring to participate in a RICO enterprise. It focuses on cases that have significantly shaped civil RICO conspiracy liability throughout the circuit courts. Part III explores the split that has developed among the circuits over the definition of RICO conspiracy liability, specifically, the difference between the Ninth Circuit's definition and that of …
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 …
Criminal Procedure - United States V. Buckland, Brian Feinberg
Criminal Procedure - United States V. Buckland, Brian Feinberg
Golden Gate University Law Review
In United States v. Buckland, the defendant appealed his drug conviction, arguing that the penalty provisions of the federal drug statute under which he was convicted and sentenced was facially unconstitutional. In light of the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Apprendi v. New Jersey, the primary issue was whether Calvin Wayne Buckland's sentence could be enhanced without the enhancement factor, in this case the quantity of the drugs he was responsible for, being determined by a jury. After rehearing the case en banc, the court concluded that the statute was not unconstitutional on its face. However, the court concluded …
Just Desserts, Or A Rotten Apple? Will The Ninth Circuit's Decision In Doe V. Otte Stand To Ensure That Convicted Sex Offenders Are Not Excessively Punished?, Colleen Miles
Golden Gate University Law Review
In Doe v. Otte, the Ninth Circuit addressed the constitutionality of Alaska's sex offender registration and notification statute. In finding that Alaska's statute violated the Ex Post Facto Clause, the Ninth Circuit focused on the legislature's intent and the statute's punitive effect in deciding how far a state, and more specifically Alaska, can go to inform its citizens of the whereabouts of released sex offenders.
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.
First Amendment - Alameda Books V. City Of Los Angeles, Katia Lazzara
First Amendment - Alameda Books V. City Of Los Angeles, Katia Lazzara
Golden Gate University Law Review
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects freedom of speech. Courts categorize government restrictions of speech as either content based or content neutral. Content-based regulations restrict speech because of the specific idea or message conveyed. Because content-based regulations greatly restrain a person's right to free speech, they must serve a compelling government interest and be narrowly tailored to accomplish that interest. Content-neutral regulations, on the other hand, regulate conduct that indirectly impacts speech. In order to pass muster, content-neutral regulations must advance a significant state interest unrelated to the suppression of speech and not substantially burden more speech …