Administrative Law
[09/03]
Luna v. Holder
Petitions for review of final orders of removal are transferred to the district court for further proceedings where: 1) although the petitions are untimely, the REAL ID Act did not divest district courts of habeas jurisdiction to consider petitioners' claims that they were prevented by circumstances beyond their control from filing timely petitions for review; and 2) thus, the circuit court need not decide whether the statutory 30-day filing requirement violates the Suspension Clause of the U.S. Constitution in cases in which an alien misses the deadline because of ineffective assistance of counsel or circumstances created by the government.
[09/02]
Bale Chevrolet Co. v. US
In a petition for review of intentional disregard penalties issued against petitioner for failing to file required Forms 8300 information returns with the IRS, the petition is denied where the government's positions were substantially justified.
[09/02]
Galindo-Romero v. Holder
In a petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing petitioner's appeal of an Immigration Judge's (IJ) decision terminating his formal removal proceedings, the petition is dismissed where the court lacked jurisdiction to decide the merits of petitioner's petition for review because the decisions of the BIA and IJ resulted in no final order of removal.
[09/02]
Camacho-Cruz v. Holder
In a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) denial of cancellation of removal because of petitioner's conviction for assault with a deadly weapon under Nevada state law, the petition is dismissed where petitioner’s conviction was categorically a crime of violence.
[09/01]
Morse v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd.
In plaintiff's action claiming that the Transportation Security Administration violated his veterans' preference rights when it declined to waive its maximum entry age requirement in connection with his application for employment as a Federal Air Marshal, the Merit Systems Protection Board's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is affirmed as the TSA is exempt from section 3330(a) of Title 5, which provides Board appeal rights for preference eligible veterans.
[09/01]
Hongsermeier v. Comm'r of Internal Rev.
The tax court's determination of petitioners' federal income tax deficiencies and liability for underpayment of interest is affirmed where: 1) the tax court's determination of the percentage deduction in the taxpayers' deficiencies, plus other benefits, accorded with the court's mandate in Dixon and was not an abuse of discretion; 2) the IRS Commissioner's position did not constitute fraud on the court or bad faith; and 3) the Tax Court did not abuse its discretion in relying on the materials available to determine a settlement fraction.
[09/01]
Western Watersheds Project v. Kraayenbrink
In a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) challenge to eighteen amendments to the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) grazing regulations, partial summary judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed in part where: 1) the BLM failed to address concerns raised by its own experts, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the EPA, and state agencies; and 2) there was resounding evidence from agency experts that the eighteen amendments to the BLM's grazing regulations may affect listed species and their habitat. However, the order is vacated in part where the district court failed to consider plaintiffs' Federal Land Policy and Management Act claim under the framework and with the deference set forth in Chevron.
[09/01]
Garcia v. Holder
In a petition for review of the BIA's order denying petitioners' motion to reopen their removal proceedings, the petition is granted in part where the BIA erred by failing to exercise its discretion to consider or decline to consider petitioners' supplemental brief and the attached exhibit relating to a new medical condition allegedly incurred by mother. However, the petition is denied in part where the BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that petitioners' daughter's new medical condition did not warrant reopening.
[08/31]
Roberts v. Doyle
An order of the Second Circuit enjoining the Secretary of State from placing Amendment 3 on the November 2010 general election ballot is affirmed where: 1) the ballot title and summary are confusing to the average voter as the lack of an effective date renders it impossible for a voter to know which homeowners would qualify for the exemption; 2) the ballot title and summary fail to mention that a married person could fail to qualify for the exemption because his or her spouse previously owned a residence; and 3) a voter reading the title and summary could easily conclude that in order to be eligible for the additional homestead, a property owner would have to meet two conditions.
[08/31]
Florida Dep't of State v. Florida State Conference of NAACP Branches
Judgment of the circuit court striking a legislatively proposed constitutional amendment from the November 2010 general election ballot is affirmed as, based upon the provisions of section 101.161(1), Florida Statutes, article XI, section 5, of the Florida Constitution, the ballot language setting forth the substance of Amendment 7, related to legislative and congressional redistricting, does not inform the voter of the true purpose and effect of the amendment on existing constitutional provisions and, is misleading.
[08/31]
Great W. Contractors, Inc. v. Irvine Unified Sch. Dist.
In plaintiff-contractor's suit against a school district (District), challenging the District's rejection of plaintiff's bid to remodel two elementary schools, trial court's judgment in favor of the District is reversed where: 1) trial court was incorrect in rejecting plaintiff's lowest bid as nonresponsive as, under D.H. Williams, 146 Cal.App.4th 757 (2007), a public agency cannot reject the bid of the lowest bidder on a public works project on the theory that the bid is nonresponsive to the agency's request for bids when, in substance, the real reason for the rejection is that the agency thinks the lowest bidder is "not responsible" - at least not without giving the lowest bidder the chance for a hearing on whether the lowest bidder really is "not responsible"; and 2) the trial court abused its discretion in rejecting plaintiff's admittedly belated request to amend.
[08/31]
Colony Cove Properties, LLC. v. City of Carson
In a mobilehome park owner's challenge to a city ordinance specifying conditions permitting conversion of a mobilehome park from landlord ownership to resident ownership, trial court's conclusion that the city's responsibilities when faced with a mobilehome park conversion application were essentially ministerial, in issuing a writ directing the city to vacate the ordinance in its entirety and to vacate an ordinance imposing a moratorium on mobilehome park conversions while the city studied the issue is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) trial court's conclusion that the city's role under section 66427.5 is purely ministerial is incorrect; 2) the ordinance at issue conflicted with section 66427.5 and is therefore invalid; and 3) the issue of the validity of the moratorium was moot at the time the writ was granted.
[08/31]
Pac. Palisades Bowl Mobile Estates LLC. v. City of Los Angeles
In a developer's suit against the City of Los Angeles for rejecting as incomplete an application for conversion of its mobilehome park because the application failed to include an application for clearance under the Mello Act and an application for a coastal development permit under the Coastal Act, trial court's entry of judgment directing issuance of a peremptory writ of mandamus commanding the city to deem plaintiff's application complete is reversed and vacated as, in light of the paramount concern for protecting coastal resources by regulating development as expressed in the Coastal Act, section 66427.5 does not preclude the city from imposing conditions and requirements mandated by the Mello Act and Coastal Act on a subdivider seeking to convert to resident ownership a mobilehome park located in the coastal zone.
[08/31]
Jones v. Astrue
In plaintiff's appeal from the district court's judgment upholding the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of her application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income, the order is affirmed where: 1) the ALJ had no need to contact plaintiff's treating physician because there was no ambiguity to resolve in her report, and the report contained all the necessary information, including the results of diagnostic testing; 2) the ALJ appropriately considered plaintiff's subjective complaints of pain under Polaski; and 3) substantial evidence on the record as a whole supported the ALJ's decision.
[08/30]
Doe v. Lincoln Unified Sch. Dist.
In plaintiff-teacher's suit against a school district and various school officials, seeking a writ of mandate to compel the defendants to initiate proceedings under Education Code section 44942, trial court's conclusion that the school district was required to initiate section 44942 proceedings before placing plaintiff on involuntary sick leave and ordering defendants to pay plaintiff's full salary during the period she was forced to use sick leave credits and to reinstate any other accumulated benefits lost during the period is affirmed as defendants' standing argument is not well taken and they have forfeited any other argument they may have regarding plaintiff's use of a fictitious name.
Back to Main Menu
