Federal Circuit: Rogers v. US

Takings, Property conveyance

Where the language of the deed is clear, under Florida law, no statute, policy, or fact can operate to convert an interest in fee simple for the purpose of running a railway to an easement.

http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/13-5098.Opinion.12-22-2015.1.PDF


Federal Circuit: Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.

Patent, Appellate Procedure

Retained on remand after Supreme Court review of the question whether belief of non-infringement operates as a bar to inducement liability, the Court finds no infringement - either direct or inducement -  as the processes are not identical.

[Standard patent caveat: None of this is legal advice, but Patent is one of the areas in which it's not merely likely that we're wrong about this stuff, but it's almost certain that we're ludicrously off-base. -CB]


http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/12-1042.Opinion.12-22-2015.1.PDF



DC Circuit: Ayanna Blue v. District of Columbia

S1983, Title IX

A municipality's retention of an employee after an offense does not establish that the municipality is liable under S1983 for similar offenses.

Allegation of insufficient screening is not enough to state a claim for S1983.

As there was no actual notice of improper relationship during the pendency of the relationship, no Title IX violation.

School investigation is not an adequate substitute for notice of claim requirement that requires, at minimum, a written police report.

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/A69B5A2CB744D2E485257F2A005480B2/$file/14-7189-1590902.pdf

DC Circuit: Penelope Minter v. DC

ADA

No merit to claim based on denial of accommodation, as the agency initially engaged in an interactive process and the bona fides of the claim weren't established at the time of eventual denial.

Ending of employment not a valid basis for claim of retaliation, as plaintiff has burden to prove actual connection, and not just temporal proximity.

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/A307330F9F02514885257F2A0054809C/$file/14-7118-1590897.pdf


DC Circuit: Washington Regional Medicorp v. Sylvia Burwell

Chevron, Auer deference, rulemaking.

Where the stated intent of Congress is to implement a change, an inability to transition certain elements within the desired timeframe permits agencies to devise rules for the intersticial elements; these rules are not per se impermissible because they incorporate lapsed statutory elements of past systems.

Rules that derive from the previous statutory mandate, however, may be modified at the discretion of the agency.

A rule establishing that a value be derived from a certain other value does not require the two to be equal (or vary equally).

A rulemaking is sometimes not retroactive when the organic statute of the superseded rule has lapsed.

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/28EC0B9175C966AF85257F2A00548088/$file/14-5330-1590892.pdf


DC Circuit: Walter Jackson, Jr. v. Raymond Mabus, Jr.

Denial of amendment to military record was not arbitrary & capricious; although the written decision was perfunctory, there was sufficient basis in the record for the decision.

Denial of reconsideration reasonable.

No Due Process violation.

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/EBB3DC0B4C7630ED85257F2A00548069/$file/14-5224-1590906.pdf

Tenth Circuit: Henderson v. Glanz

S1983 - prisons.

Appellate court cannot re-evaluate sufficiency of evidence on interlocutory appeal of denial of qualified immunity - where the court's finding is not contradicted in the record, it is presumed to be adequate.

Undisputed facts in the record that blatantly contradict the factual findings of the court on qualified immunity can be reviewed on interlocutory appeal.

As prison employee had no knowledge of the unlocked door before leaving to attend to another emergency, no denial of clearly established right.

https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/14/14-5077.pdf

Ninth Circuit: Jonathon Castro v. County of Los Angeles

Ordered en banc.

https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2015/12/28/12-56829.pdf

Eighth Circuit: United States v. Levon Dean, Jr.

Hobbs Act robbery.

Where a statute has an express nexus to interstate commerce, the actual connection can be small; in this case, it suffices that the robbery affected the victim's ability to participate in interstate drug purchases.

Sufficient connection between the crimes for a common conspiracy, but harmless error, as participants were principals in both actions.

Because victim was hit rather hard on the head, there was sufficient bodily injury for the carjacking statute - injury need not be in or near the car.

As codeft had a distinctive walk while carrying a gun, sufficient evidence for knowledge of the gun.

Intent to affect interstate drug commerce not a necessary jury instruction for conspiracy count.

Constructive possession / vehicle instruction upheld.

Hearsay evidence properly considered in sentencing.

Sentencing court's denial of de minimis sentence for counts not subject to mandatory minimums was proper, despite the fact that the court stated that it did not have the power to impose a de minimis sentence.

http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/15/12/151263P.pdf

Eighth Circuit: Bonnie Hasenwinkel v. Mosaic

FMLA.

Claim for denial of leave properly dismissed, as the maximum period of leave under the statute had already been exhausted.

As employee was incapable of returning to work, no basis for challenging ending of employment.

Although a suspension with later backpay can be the basis for an FMLA claim, plaintiff did not allege any monetary harm from the act, and it was therefore properly dismissed as a matter of law.

No material adverse action in workplace generally.

A federal statute with an express right of action cannot serve as the "public policy" basis for a state tort claim of wrongful discharge.

http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/15/12/143786P.pdf




Seventh Circuit: John Tate v. SCR Medical Transportation Inc

Pleading.
Court erred in dismissing a pro se complaint alleging discrimination because of gender and disability (that did not specify the disability in question) within the period of time in which a plaintiff can unilaterally amend the claim.

Court should have instructed plaintiff to amend claim.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2015/D12-28/C:15-1447:J:Posner:aut:T:fnOp:N:1677902:S:0

Seventh Circuit: Joshua Howard v. William Pollard

Prison overcrowding -  class certification.

Denial of class certification and appointment of counsel upheld.  Although presence of counsel would make the class representative a more adequate plaintiff, denial of counsel does not prejudice the consideration of class certification, as counsel is provided to prosecute the claim, not ensure the adequacy of the representative.

Per curiam.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2015/D12-29/C:15-8025:J:PerCuriam:aut:T:fnOp:N:1678422:S:0

Fifth Circuit: Machete Productions, L.L.C. v. Heather Page, et al

S1983 - State film incentives program / First Amendment

Although removal from state to federal forum operated as a voluntary waiver of sovereign immunity, monetary damages against a state don't lie under S1983, and as the film franchise has no plans for another project, there is no basis for injunctive relief.

Qualified immunity - by requiring films to depict the state in a positive manner in order to qualify for funding, the state violated no clearly established constitutional law.

No due process violation, as the filmmaker did not have a right to the discretionary grants.

No prior restraint of speech under the Texas Constitution.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-50120-CV0.pdf

Second Circuit: In Re: Coudert Bros. LLP

Appellate procedure, choice of law.
Where a court of appeals instructs that a lower court should apply a specific law on remand and does not mention alternative bases for judgment, the lower court is necessarily foreclosed from deciding the case on an alternative basis that makes the choice of law not dispositive.

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/9e364f88-21ef-41ef-9e67-557990941445/1/doc/14-3688_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/9e364f88-21ef-41ef-9e67-557990941445/1/hilite/