Edward Dean Price

The case involves a defendant charged with illegal reentry after deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 who moved to dismiss the indictment, claiming her 1994 deportation violated due process. The defendant argued that the government failed to provide written notice terminating her 1989 parole, should have pursued exclusion rather than deportation proceedings upon her return to custody, and that she qualified for derivative citizenship through her father. The court denied the motion, concluding that collateral estoppel barred relitigation of issues already decided in prior habeas and injunction proceedings, that deportation proceedings were properly resumed, and that no evidence supported the derivative citizenship claim.

immigrationcriminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a challenge by gun owner organizations, individuals, and firearm manufacturers to California's Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act, which took effect in 1990 and restricted the possession, sale, and manufacture of certain firearms under the state penal code. Plaintiffs sought declaratory relief and a preliminary injunction against enforcement by the state Attorney General, primarily arguing that the Act violated the Second Amendment. The court denied the motion for preliminary injunction and granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the Second Amendment claims. Its core reasoning was that, under longstanding Supreme Court precedents such as United States v. Cruikshank and Presser v. Illinois, the Second Amendment restricts only the federal government and has no application to state laws.

gunscriminal lawfederal power

The case involved the IRS's efforts to enforce an administrative summons against the Universal Life Church to examine records and determine whether the church qualified for tax-exempt status under federal law. After the church partially complied with the summons but then filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, triggering an automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362, the government sought to hold the church in contempt for halting the examination. The court found the question of whether the bankruptcy stay applied to the IRS's church tax inquiry under 26 U.S.C. § 7611 to be a close one that had not been previously addressed by courts, and concluded that the church's position did not demonstrate the willful disregard needed for a contempt finding. The court therefore declined to impose further sanctions but ordered the church to resume compliance with the summons within ten days.

taxesfederal powerprocedure

The case involved a South Dakota wine distributor, Premier, suing its California winery supplier, Gallo, after Gallo terminated their long-standing distributorship agreement with 30 days notice. Premier alleged violations of South Dakota and California franchise laws, breach of fiduciary duty, tortious breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, wrongful termination, and sought declaratory relief that the termination clause was unconscionable. The court granted summary judgment to Gallo on all claims, reasoning that the mutual 30-day termination provision was enforceable and not unconscionable under California law, that Premier was not a franchisee protected by the relevant statutes, and that no fiduciary duty existed between the parties in this commercial relationship.

business & regulatory

The case involved Tiffany Heath, who was born in 1980 with severe birth defects, and her parents, who were active-duty U.S. Air Force members treated by Air Force medical personnel during the pregnancy. The plaintiffs sued under the Federal Tort Claims Act, alleging that the negligent prescription of bendectin caused the injuries. The court granted the government's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It held that the Feres doctrine bars FTCA claims by service members for injuries incident to service and extends to derivative claims by their children, based on Supreme Court precedent in Feres v. United States and Ninth Circuit precedent in Monaco v. United States.

torts & liabilityfederal powerprocedure

This case involves allegations by cantaloupe purchasers against sellers who allegedly colluded to fix and raise separate cooling and palletizing charges added to invoices, claimed to violate federal antitrust prohibitions on price-fixing. Certain defendants moved for summary judgment, contending that the charges were inseparable from cantaloupe sales, that any overcharge would necessarily be offset by reductions elsewhere in the price, and that only growers rather than direct purchasers were harmed. The court denied the motion, holding that defendants failed to meet their burden of establishing the absence of triable factual issues on these points and that precedent permits claims based on fixed component charges. The reasoning emphasized that summary judgment movants must exclude genuine disputes of material fact, that direct purchasers have standing under the Sherman Act to seek recovery for alleged overcharges, and that economic assumptions about price offsets or inseparability remained unproven.

business & regulatory

In United States v. Sealey, the court considered the defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized from his home after officers responded to a domestic violence call. Officers facilitated a citizen's arrest of the defendant by his wife Julie, then searched for a reported gun with her consent and discovered drugs, cash, and marijuana; they later obtained her further consent for a narcotics search that also yielded a firearm. The court held that the evidence was admissible because Julie voluntarily consented to the searches and possessed common authority over the residence as a co-owner and resident. The core reasoning focused on the Fourth Amendment standard for voluntary consent by a third party, Julie's apparent control over searched areas such as the bedroom, and the officers' reasonable belief in her authority.

criminal lawprocedure

This case under the Federal Tort Claims Act involved the heirs of Sanford Norton, an employee of contractor Claude C. Wood Company, suing the United States for wrongful death after Norton was killed in a cement mixer truck accident during a Bureau of Reclamation canal lining project in 1982. The court found the United States 10 percent liable for the death, with the contractor responsible for the remaining 90 percent, and held that plaintiffs were entitled to judgment against the government on the liability issue. The core reasoning was that federal employees on site observed and failed to stop unsafe practices, such as operating the truck without neutral gear and emergency brakes engaged, in violation of contract safety specifications and standards that the government had a duty to enforce. The contract's indemnity clause also allowed the United States to recover from the contractor for its share of fault.

torts & liabilityfederal power

The case involved a dispute over a 1976 non-exclusive distributorship agreement between plaintiff C. Pappas Co., a Massachusetts wholesaler of Gallo wine products, and defendant E. & J. Gallo Winery, which allowed termination on 30 days' notice and was governed by California law. After Pappas experienced financial difficulties and negotiated a sale of assets to Whitehall (contingent on Gallo approving the transfer), Gallo declined to appoint Whitehall, instead entered a similar agreement with defendant McKesson, and later terminated Pappas upon learning of related contract details; Pappas sued alleging breach of contract, interference with prospective business relations, breach of fiduciary duty, antitrust violations, and related claims. The court granted defendants' motions for summary judgment on multiple counts, finding no triable issues because the contract expressly permitted non-exclusive distribution and termination, imposed no fiduciary obligations, and lacked evidence of malice, fraud, or prohibited anticompetitive conduct under California precedents. The decision emphasized that business relationships alone do not create fiduciary duties or restrict a supplier's right to appoint additional distributors.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involved a federal securities lawsuit by dozens of plaintiffs against accountants, attorneys, and others involved in promoting a limited partnership called the Treasury Vault of West Covina, with claims under federal securities laws, California corporations code, fraud, negligence, and breach of contract. Plaintiffs settled with defendant Sampson for $75,000 under a stipulated agreement that included a potential default judgment of $1.1 million if unpaid, and moved to have the settlement declared in good faith under California Code of Civil Procedure § 877.6 to bar contribution or indemnity claims by other defendants. The court held that the settlement was made in good faith as to the state-law tort claims, which would bar contribution from joint tortfeasors under California law, and that the California Corporate Securities Act claims were governed by Corporations Code § 25505. For the federal securities claims, however, the court ruled that the non-settling defendants could retain rights to contribution or indemnity depending on the facts established at trial, because federal securities law implies such remedies among joint violators. The remaining causes of action were deemed governed by California substantive law.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involved a Chapter 7 bankruptcy filed by David and Karen Graves in 1981, in which the trustee sought to recover three monthly payments of $1,235 made to secured creditor Advance Loan Co. on a consolidated loan secured by the debtors' residence and consumer goods. The Bankruptcy Court, whose decision was reviewed on appeal, held that the trustee could not recover the payments as preferential transfers under §547 or as post-petition transfers under §549. The court reasoned that the first payment fell within the 45-day ordinary-course exception after the debt was incurred, that most of the later payments represented interest that had not yet accrued and thus was not due when paid, and that recovering even a small principal portion would raise constitutional concerns under the Fifth Amendment regarding uncompensated takings of the creditor's property rights in an undersecured loan.

procedurepropertybusiness & regulatory

This case involved a California appliance distributor, D & R, suing Chambers Corporation, its former supplier, along with Amana, R & K Distributors, and others, alleging that the 1980 termination of its exclusive distributorship violated the Sherman Antitrust Act through a conspiracy to fix prices, tie products, and engage in discriminatory pricing, plus a related state-law claim for interference with prospective economic advantage. The court reviewed multiple summary judgment motions de novo or for clear error and denied D & R's motion for summary judgment on its Sherman Act claims as well as the defendants' motions for summary judgment on the price-fixing allegations. The core reasoning was that, drawing all inferences in the plaintiff's favor, its interrogatory answers and other evidence showed some proof of injury and a basis for calculating damages, creating triable issues of fact that precluded summary disposition.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Phillip Randy Castiglione's motion to quash federal grand jury subpoenas duces tecum served on financial institutions and others seeking records tied to his contested Federal Crop Insurance claims for 1983 crop losses, which were under administrative investigation by the Department of Agriculture. The court found that instructions accompanying the subpoenas to financial institutions violated 12 U.S.C. § 3420 by permitting delivery of records to investigating agents rather than requiring personal presentation to the grand jury, limiting their use strictly to grand jury purposes, and imposing unauthorized confidentiality rules. It quashed the existing subpoenas but authorized reissuance of new ones to financial institutions that direct custodians to appear personally before the grand jury, maintain records solely in grand jury custody, restrict use and disclosure per the statute and Rule 6(e), and allow optional customer notification. The ruling emphasized that grand juries may obtain such records but must follow the statutory procedures exactly, while non-financial institution subpoenas received less detailed scrutiny in the excerpt.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involves plaintiff Dimidowich, an independent service provider for micro-imagery equipment, who sued defendant Bell & Howell after the manufacturer refused to sell replacement parts needed to fulfill service contracts with state agencies and other customers. Plaintiff alleged multiple trade-restraint claims under antitrust laws and sought a mandatory temporary injunction along with summary judgment. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment, noting undisputed facts that Bell & Howell sells parts only to equipment owners or through its own service organization, with limited exceptions for certain large customers and regional partners. The court reasoned that a manufacturer may lawfully choose to distribute its own goods and service its products directly, absent improper motive or anticompetitive effects in the relevant market, and found insufficient evidence of market power or antitrust violation by Bell & Howell in the service sector. It therefore denied plaintiff's motions and resolved the claims in defendant's favor.

business & regulatory

The case involved an unincorporated tenants' association and an individual resident seeking a preliminary injunction to block rental increases for government-owned living quarters in Yosemite National Park pending a full merits decision. The court reviewed the statutory framework of 5 U.S.C. § 5911, which requires rental rates to be based on reasonable value determined through private market surveys, along with implementing OMB and Interior Department regulations that call for periodic adjustments, amenity adjustments, and tenant involvement in the process. The opinion highlighted the Department's failure to follow its own procedural guidelines on employee participation and noted a lack of evidence on key issues such as the adequacy of prior rates or market comparability.

propertyprocedurefederal power

The case concerned three defendants initially charged in California state court with violations of state controlled substances laws involving possession and sale. After state court dismissals due to the prosecution's inability to produce a confidential informant as required under state procedure, local law enforcement contacted federal authorities to pursue the matter federally, resulting in a federal grand jury indictment on conspiracy and drug distribution charges. The court reviewed the sequence of events, including communications between state and federal officials and the awareness that federal penalties were more severe, to assess pending motions regarding the propriety of the federal prosecution. The core reasoning focused on whether the referral to federal authorities was motivated by the state dismissals and evidentiary issues rather than improper retaliation, while noting concurrent jurisdiction and differences in procedural requirements between state and federal systems.

criminal lawfederal power

This case involves a malicious prosecution lawsuit filed by the City of Fresno and several police officers against attorneys who had represented plaintiffs in an earlier unsuccessful federal civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging unlawful arrest. The defendants moved to dismiss, contending the complaint failed to establish federal jurisdiction despite references to civil rights statutes and constitutional provisions, and plaintiffs sought leave to amend to invoke 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice and denied amendment, ruling that the claims presented only a state-law tort that did not arise under federal law for purposes of federal question jurisdiction and that California law separately bars governmental entities from pursuing malicious prosecution suits. The core reasoning centered on the absence of a federal jurisdictional hook and the policy risks of allowing such actions to chill legitimate § 1983 litigation.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

This case concerns a claim for Social Security survivor benefits by plaintiff Corinna Gonzales, who sought to establish that she was the legitimated child of her deceased father under applicable law. The court held that California law governed the determination pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(2)(A) and that the father’s actions—public acknowledgment, support of the mother during pregnancy, and treatment of the unborn child as his own—satisfied the requirements of former California Civil Code § 230 as interpreted in cases such as Estate of Lund and Lavell v. Adoption Institute. The court rejected the defendant’s argument that additional post-birth steps, such as bringing the child into a new marital home, were strictly necessary, reasoning that California policy strongly favors legitimation and that the father had done all that was possible under the circumstances. Accordingly, the court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff.

family lawfederal power

The case concerned the extent to which California could impose conditions on federal permits to appropriate water for the New Melones multi-purpose reclamation project after determining that unappropriated water was available. Following a Supreme Court remand, the district court examined the State Water Resources Control Board's permit terms regarding uses such as irrigation, power generation, and flood control. The court held that state conditions consistent with the Reclamation Act's requirements for beneficial use and appurtenance to the land are enforceable, but conditions that conflict with specific congressional directives, such as those preventing power production needed to amortize project costs, are invalid. The reasoning rested on the principle that while state water law generally governs appropriation, it yields when inconsistent with federal statutory objectives for the project.

federal powerenvironmentproperty

The case concerned defendant Barnett, who was indicted on charges of aiding and abetting the attempted manufacture of PCP and using the mail to facilitate that felony after selling chemical formulas and instructions to an individual later arrested for operating a drug lab. The court considered the defendant's motions to dismiss the indictment and to suppress evidence obtained from a search of his Brooklyn residence pursuant to a federal warrant. It denied the motion to dismiss, holding that whether the defendant's advertising and sales activities demonstrated the requisite criminal intent presented a factual question for the trier of fact that could not be resolved as a matter of law on a pretrial motion under Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b). The opinion also addressed related issues concerning the scope and validity of the search warrant and the admissibility of seized materials.

criminal lawprocedurefree speech