Danielle J. Forrest
How Judge Forrest rules, drawn from 43 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
How Judge Forrest decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
When statutory text uses a causation term with an established meaning, she applies that textual rule unless the provision's text or context points elsewhere.
“In the end, the only question we must answer is simple. Section 105(c)’s unambiguous text requires a miner asserting a discrimination claim under Section 105(c) to prove but-for causation.”
She treats a comprehensive federal statutory scheme as displacing parallel common-law doctrines for entities that Congress placed outside the statute's protected definition.
“We hold that the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act (FSIA or Act) occupies the field of foreign sovereign immunity as applied to entities and categorically forecloses extending immunity to any entity that falls outside the FSIA’s broad definition of ‘foreign state.’”
Under the categorical approach, she follows the statutory elements even when their application to the real-world conduct produces a counterintuitive classification.
“No doubt it is strange to classify placing a bomb in an alleyway for the purpose of causing harm to another person or their property as not a crime of violence, particularly where the bomb was picked up by an innocent bystander who was seriously injured by the detonation. But that is what the law requires of us in this case.”
For standing under the unconstitutional-conditions doctrine, she recognizes a present injury when a license forces an applicant to choose between a constitutional right and the government benefit.
“Therefore, the Falconers’ alleged injury in fact is the forced choice: retention of their Fourth Amendment rights or receipt of a falconry license, which is required to lawfully practice falconry.”
Cautions
When a challenged enactment has been repealed and reenactment is not reasonably likely, she treats the controversy as moot and directs dismissal rather than reaching the merits.
“Because there is no indication that California is reasonably likely to reenact AB 2098 or anything substantially similar to it”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“We also hold that Colbert does not satisfy the requirements for filing a second or successive habeas petition, and we deny his application.”
“The panel affirmed the National Labor Relations Board's findings that: (a) the employer ... effectively retracted its claim of inability to pay the union's wage and benefit proposals ...; and (b) [the employer's] conduct did not constitute bad faith bargaining in violation of the National Labor Relations Act.”
“he argues the district court miscalculated the amount-of-loss enhancement and improperly imposed the leadership-role and number-of-victims enhancements. We affirm.”
“we hold that Qazi did properly challenge his indictment, and we direct the district court to dismiss his indictment, as we must.”
“We conclude that Kroytor is not entitled to coram nobis relief because, after learning that the only way he could avoid removal was to challenge his conviction, he waited two years, without a valid reason, before filing his petition for writ of error coram nobis.”
“We reverse in part, affirm in part, and remand.”
“we reverse in part the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of CoreCivic and remand for further proceedings.”
“Because we conclude that Walls does not extend to this circumstance, we reverse and remand.”
“We conclude the district court did not err because Merchant repeatedly failed to meet his disclosure obligations, the district court reasonably concluded Merchant's failures were not substantially justified or harmless, and Merchant never moved for a lesser sanction.”
“Interpreting Section 105(c) in light of recent Supreme Court precedent, we conclude the Commission applied the wrong causation standard, and we grant the petition and remand.”
“Therefore, we affirm the district court's denial of the alleged employer's motion to compel arbitration.”
“The district court dismissed this claim for lack of jurisdiction because the Declaratory Judgment Act prohibits courts from entering declaratory judgments related to federal taxation obligations. We affirm.”
Draft for Judge Forrest with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Forrest, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Forrest's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace