News

Case Summaries

Administrative Law

[03/09] Tampubolon v. Holder
In a petition for review of the BIA's denial of petitioners' asylum application, the petition is granted in part where the BIA erred in failing to apply disfavored group analysis to petitioners' withholding claim because the record compelled a finding that Christians in Indonesia are a disfavored group. However, the petition is denied in part where the BIA's failure to address two irrelevant cases did not render the proceeding fundamentally unfair.

[03/09] Native Ecosystems Council v. Tidwell
In an action challenging the Forest Service's approval of a project to update grazing allotments in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where: 1) because the Forest Service's environmental assessment was based on a nonexistent management indicator species, its habitat proxy analysis was not reliable; and 2) the Forest Service failed to take the requisite "hard look" at the project as required by the National Environmental Policy Act.

[03/09] Najmabadi v. Holder
In a petition for review of the BIA's order denying petitioner's motion to reopen her removal proceedings on the basis of changed conditions in Iran, the petition is denied where: 1) substantial evidence supported the Board's finding that the evidence petitioner submitted in her motion to reopen was not qualitatively different from the evidence presented at the original hearing; and 2) there was no evidence establishing that returnees from the U.S. would likely face persecution.

More...

Injury & Tort Law

[03/09] Zia Trust Co. v. Montoya
In an action for excessive force brought by family members of a man defendant-officer shot and killed while responding to a domestic disturbance, denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is affirmed where the court could not say that a van fifteen feet away, which according to the plaintiffs was clearly stuck on a pile of rocks, gave defendant probable cause to believe that there was a threat of serious physical harm to himself or others that would justify his use of force.

[03/09] Espinosa v. City & County of San Francisco
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action claiming excessive force by defendants-officers, denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is affirmed where: 1) defendants failed to show as a matter of law that plaintiff's decedent did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy; 2) the district court properly found that defendants failed to show as a matter of law that the emergency and exigency exceptions to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement applied; 3) defendants failed to show that there were no questions of fact regarding whether a security guard had apparent authority to consent and implied consent; and 4) the district court did not err in finding that there were genuine issues of fact regarding whether the officers intentionally or recklessly provoked a confrontation.

[03/05] Doe v. S. Carolina Dep't of Soc. Servs.
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action brought by a minor child and her adoptive parents against defendant, an Adoption Specialist with the South Carolina Department of Social Services (SCDSS), alleging violations of their substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and state law claims against SCDSS under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act (SCTCA), judgment is affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded where: 1) when a state involuntarily removes a child from her home, thereby taking the child into its custody and care, the state has taken an affirmative act to restrain the child's liberty, triggering the protections of the Due Process Clause and imposing "some responsibility for the child's safety and general well being"; 2) because it would not have been apparent to a reasonable social worker in defendant's position that her actions violated the Fourteenth Amendment, she is entitled to qualified immunity; 3) prospective adoptive parents have no substantive due process right to the disclosure of a child's history of sexual abuse; and 4) district court's grant of defendants' motion for summary judgment on the state law claims for gross negligence against SCDSS is vacated and remanded for consideration of the applicability of section 15-78-60(25).

More...

Workers' Comp

[03/05] Rhine v. Stevedoring Servs. of Am.
In a petition for review of a decision of the Benefits Review Board under 33 U.S.C. section 921(c) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, the petition is denied where: 1) a reasonable mind could have concluded that the Pacific Maritime Association Average adequately represented petitioner's annual earning capacity; and 2) the availability of alternative employment was determined by reference to two criteria: the claimant's physical abilities and the economic availability of particular jobs in the market.

[03/03] City of Laguna Beach v. California Ins. Guarantee Ass'n
In a city's action against an insurance company seeking reimbursement for incurring workers' compensation liability that exceeded its self-insured retention, grant of insurance company's motion for summary judgment is affirmed where: 1) the addition of subdivision (c)(13) to Ins. Code section 1063.1 did not abrogate Denny's Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., 104 Cal.App.4th 1433 (2003); 2) the trial court properly invoked the Denny's rule when it granted summary judgment and concluded that the city cannot obtain reimbursement from defendant under section 1063.1(c)(13) as, although this provision renders the obligation of an insolvent excess workers' compensation insurer a "covered claim" that defendant must ordinarily reimburse, defendant need not reimburse a permissibly self-insured employer for benefits paid to an employee for cumulative injury if the employer's liability is based in part on a period of time when the employer was self-insured and chose not to buy excess insurance for the particular risk.

[02/26] Lara v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's decision against the petitioner and in favor of the defendant is affirmed as, the petitioner, hired twice in the space of 12 months to prune bushes for a diner, was not an employee of the diner at the time he sustained injury, but rather, he was an independent contractor exempt from workers' compensation coverage.

More...