California appellate court reverses juvenile’s commitment to a Secure Youth Treatment Facility because the minor’s most recent offense by date was not a qualifying crime under section 707(b).
California appellate court rules that defendants must be allowed to argue aggravating sentencing factors to a jury, reversing an upper-term firearm enhancement where the trial court denied closing argument on those factors.
The Ninth Circuit held that federal agencies likely violated the First Amendment by terminating University of California research grants based on recipients’ perceived viewpoints on DEI and environmental justice, while ruling that a separate class of grant termination challenges falls outside
The Ninth Circuit held that hash-value matches between a suspect’s files and known child pornography can establish probable cause for a search warrant without agents first downloading and visually confirming the files.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of motel owners’ constitutional challenge to Los Angeles’s revocation of their use permit after the city declared the property a public nuisance linked to prostitution and criminal activity.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed denial of “Shrimp Boy” Chow’s habeas petition, finding his defense team’s strategic decisions did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel despite acknowledged shortcomings in trial performance.
Ninth Circuit affirms denial of Section 2255 habeas petition by former CEO convicted of wire fraud, money laundering, and obstruction, finding overwhelming trial evidence defeated ineffective assistance and right-to-maintain-innocence claims.
The Supreme Court declines to hear Florida’s original jurisdiction challenge to California and Washington CDL licensing practices for noncitizen drivers, over a dissent from Justices Thomas and Alito arguing the Court must exercise its original jurisdiction.
California’s First District Court of Appeal holds that the doctrine of substantial compliance applies to Proposition 65 pre-suit notice requirements, reversing a trial court that dismissed a toxic-substances lawsuit for failing to identify a responsible individual by name in the notice.
The Ninth Circuit holds that under its binding precedent in Filice, California state claim preclusion law—not federal law—governs the preclusive effect of FTCA judgments, and a statute-of-limitations dismissal has no preclusive effect under California law.