Patent
Claim construction drawn from patent prosecution history and given as part of jury charge was not a clear and unambiguous disavowal of claim scope.
Or something like that.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1246.Opinion.1-27-2016.1.PDF
Since 2011. An occasional commonplacing of the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
Neither an authoritative statement of the law nor legal advice. Quick work.
Federal Circuit: AKZO NOBEL COATINGS, INC. v. DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY
Patent
Correct construction of "collection" as place where things accumulate, no literal or equivalent infringement.
Decision not rewritten to match law.
[Again, we don't know many things, but we especially don't know Patent.]
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1331.Opinion.1-27-2016.1.PDF
Correct construction of "collection" as place where things accumulate, no literal or equivalent infringement.
Decision not rewritten to match law.
[Again, we don't know many things, but we especially don't know Patent.]
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1331.Opinion.1-27-2016.1.PDF
DC Circuit: Rosalie Simon v. Republic of Hungary
International law
(Srinivasan)
WWII treaty not a categorical bar to claims against Hungarian government, railroad under FSIA, as the treaty does not claim to be an exlusive remedy -- the Allied nations could not waive the rights of non-nationals.
Takings of property incident to the deportations are themselves genocide, and state a claim within the expropriation exception to the FSIA.
Plausible inference of commercial activity, as the funds were later commingled, but insufficient proof in pleadings of US nexus for Hungarian government activities.
Genocidal takings have no internal exhaustion requirements, as insufficient compensation is not the underlying harm.
Comity an open question.
Justiciable Article III claims. (Citing Zivitofsky)
Concurrence: Hungary's implementation of treaty insufficient to bar FSIA claim.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/0CE6088155B448E285257F490054E55A/$file/14-7082-1596075.pdf
(Srinivasan)
WWII treaty not a categorical bar to claims against Hungarian government, railroad under FSIA, as the treaty does not claim to be an exlusive remedy -- the Allied nations could not waive the rights of non-nationals.
Takings of property incident to the deportations are themselves genocide, and state a claim within the expropriation exception to the FSIA.
Plausible inference of commercial activity, as the funds were later commingled, but insufficient proof in pleadings of US nexus for Hungarian government activities.
Genocidal takings have no internal exhaustion requirements, as insufficient compensation is not the underlying harm.
Comity an open question.
Justiciable Article III claims. (Citing Zivitofsky)
Concurrence: Hungary's implementation of treaty insufficient to bar FSIA claim.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/0CE6088155B448E285257F490054E55A/$file/14-7082-1596075.pdf
DC Circuit: In re: Idaho Conservation League, et al.
Administrative, environment
Plaintiff has standing, as he lives near a mine, and regulations would incentivize reduced emissions and mean quicker cleanups.
Other plaintiffs have standing due to living near rivers.
Putative intervenors do no have Article III standing, as the order merely sets a date for rulemaking, and there is no showing that notice and comment would be insufficient. No statutory standing, as there's no impairment of interests.
Putative intervenors' arguments construed as amici, rejected.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/1F012EA1238D7A3C85257F490054E52E/$file/14-1149-1596081.pdf
Order here:
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/735DB53755E54B5085257F490054E579/$file/14-1149-1596091.pdf
Plaintiff has standing, as he lives near a mine, and regulations would incentivize reduced emissions and mean quicker cleanups.
Other plaintiffs have standing due to living near rivers.
Putative intervenors do no have Article III standing, as the order merely sets a date for rulemaking, and there is no showing that notice and comment would be insufficient. No statutory standing, as there's no impairment of interests.
Putative intervenors' arguments construed as amici, rejected.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/1F012EA1238D7A3C85257F490054E52E/$file/14-1149-1596081.pdf
Order here:
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/735DB53755E54B5085257F490054E579/$file/14-1149-1596091.pdf
Ninth Circuit: MICHAEL NOZZI V. HACLA
Amended opinion, denial of en banc.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/29/13-56223.pdf
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/29/13-56223.pdf
Ninth Circuit: YUN LIAO V. MAURICE JUNIOUS
Habeas, Ineffective Assistance
Habeas for ineffective assistance based on defense counsel's acceptance of late-night, telephoned denial of permission for medical study, information that later proved to be incorrect. State habeas finding of lack of prejudice objectively unreasonable given centrality of issue.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/29/14-55897.pdf
Habeas for ineffective assistance based on defense counsel's acceptance of late-night, telephoned denial of permission for medical study, information that later proved to be incorrect. State habeas finding of lack of prejudice objectively unreasonable given centrality of issue.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/29/14-55897.pdf
Eighth Circuit: James Saylor v. Randy Kohl, M.D
S1983, Prisons
Qualified immunity for physicians treating inmate with PTSD, given lack of deliberate indifference.
No 1A, 14A retaliation claims based on ending of medication and transfer, as there were legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for both.
Dissent: Genuine dispute.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/143889P.pdf
Qualified immunity for physicians treating inmate with PTSD, given lack of deliberate indifference.
No 1A, 14A retaliation claims based on ending of medication and transfer, as there were legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for both.
Dissent: Genuine dispute.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/143889P.pdf
Eighth Circuit: Sriram Rajasekaran v. Mark Hazuda
Administrative, Immigration
No subject matter jurisdiction over challenge to the level of detail in the agency's notice, as it is fundamentally a statutory procedural rule designed to instruct the agency.
Petitioner not eligible for portability.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/143623P.pdf
No subject matter jurisdiction over challenge to the level of detail in the agency's notice, as it is fundamentally a statutory procedural rule designed to instruct the agency.
Petitioner not eligible for portability.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/143623P.pdf
Eighth Circuit: Theodore Ingram v. Terminal Railroad Association
ERISA
Where additional evidence is admitted during the proceedings, a court can retain the abuse of discretion standard by making its decision from the administrative record.
Administrator's characterization of relocation expenses was reasonable.
District court did not abuse discretion in finding that Administrator's offset of prior plan's benefits for full vesting -as opposed to the actual early retirement payments - was reasonable.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/143589P.pdf
Where additional evidence is admitted during the proceedings, a court can retain the abuse of discretion standard by making its decision from the administrative record.
Administrator's characterization of relocation expenses was reasonable.
District court did not abuse discretion in finding that Administrator's offset of prior plan's benefits for full vesting -as opposed to the actual early retirement payments - was reasonable.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/143589P.pdf
Eighth Circuit: Jose Refugio Gomez-Gutierrez v. Loretta E. Lynch
Immigration
State solicitation of prostitution statute categorically a crime of moral turpitude.
Sufficient consideration by board.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/143374P.pdf
State solicitation of prostitution statute categorically a crime of moral turpitude.
Sufficient consideration by board.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/143374P.pdf
Eighth Circuit: United States v. Brandon Lovell
Sentencing
Above-guidelines sentence not substantively unreasonable when additional counts were dismissed as part of the deal.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/143277P.pdf
Above-guidelines sentence not substantively unreasonable when additional counts were dismissed as part of the deal.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/143277P.pdf
Sixth Circuit: USA v. Shawn Bivens
Sentencing
No error in court's not grouping multiple crimes based on an ongoing relationship.
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/16a0021p-06.pdf
No error in court's not grouping multiple crimes based on an ongoing relationship.
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/16a0021p-06.pdf
Sixth Circuit: Ronald Miller v. Comm'r of Social Security
SSA
Insufficient evidence for ALJ finding, given medical facts in evidence.
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/16a0020p-06.pdf
Insufficient evidence for ALJ finding, given medical facts in evidence.
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/16a0020p-06.pdf
Fourth Circuit: Frederick Aikens v. William Ingram, Jr
S1983, Military
S1983 Fourth Amendment claim for monitoring national guardsman's email barred by military abstention, as the harm was incident to military service.
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/142419.P.pdf
S1983 Fourth Amendment claim for monitoring national guardsman's email barred by military abstention, as the harm was incident to military service.
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/142419.P.pdf
Fourth Circuit: United States ex rel. Steven May v. Purdue Pharma
FCA
FCA claim prevented by prior claim bar where counsel for qui tam plaintiff had knowledge of prior claims.
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/142299.P.pdf
FCA claim prevented by prior claim bar where counsel for qui tam plaintiff had knowledge of prior claims.
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/142299.P.pdf
Fourth Circuit: Central Radio Company Inc. v. City of Norfolk
First Amendment
Municipal sign ordinance was a content-based restriction on speech as it targeted commercial speech.
Aesthetics and traffic safety considerations don't satisfy strict scrutiny.
Insufficient bad intent for selective enforcement claim.
(Appendix: Sign was a protest against pending eminent domain action.)
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/131996A.P.pdf
Municipal sign ordinance was a content-based restriction on speech as it targeted commercial speech.
Aesthetics and traffic safety considerations don't satisfy strict scrutiny.
Insufficient bad intent for selective enforcement claim.
(Appendix: Sign was a protest against pending eminent domain action.)
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/131996A.P.pdf
Second Circuit: United States v. Allen
Fourth Amendment
Absent exigent circumstance, a warrantless arrest made across the threshold - where the police are outside and arrestee inside after being summoned to the door by the police - violates the Fourth Amendment.
Compelled by earlier circuit precedent.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/d4b80e2f-29b7-4b35-941f-313aacb7b3f6/1/doc/13-3333_complete_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/d4b80e2f-29b7-4b35-941f-313aacb7b3f6/1/hilite/
Absent exigent circumstance, a warrantless arrest made across the threshold - where the police are outside and arrestee inside after being summoned to the door by the police - violates the Fourth Amendment.
Compelled by earlier circuit precedent.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/d4b80e2f-29b7-4b35-941f-313aacb7b3f6/1/doc/13-3333_complete_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/d4b80e2f-29b7-4b35-941f-313aacb7b3f6/1/hilite/
Second Circuit: United States v. Liddon Young
Sentencing
No error in denial of downward departure.
Sentencing court erred in double counting trafficking and subsequent-use-in-felony enhancements, as there was insufficient connection between the trafficking and the eventual offense. Expressio unius.
Error in Obstruction enhancement, as specific intent is necessary for unsworn out of court statements.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/d4b80e2f-29b7-4b35-941f-313aacb7b3f6/2/doc/14-2383_complete_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/d4b80e2f-29b7-4b35-941f-313aacb7b3f6/2/hilite/
No error in denial of downward departure.
Sentencing court erred in double counting trafficking and subsequent-use-in-felony enhancements, as there was insufficient connection between the trafficking and the eventual offense. Expressio unius.
Error in Obstruction enhancement, as specific intent is necessary for unsworn out of court statements.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/d4b80e2f-29b7-4b35-941f-313aacb7b3f6/2/doc/14-2383_complete_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/d4b80e2f-29b7-4b35-941f-313aacb7b3f6/2/hilite/
Eleventh Circuit: Brandon Jones v. GDCP Warden
AEDPA, Habeas
Petition for recall of madate resulting from earlier Habeas is a second/successive petition.
No merit in stay pending upcoming en banc holding on whether summary/brief affirmance by highest state court is the final state decision for purposes of federal habeas review, as it would not alter the merits of the underlying Strickland claim.
Insufficient miscarriage of justice to justify recall of mandate sua sponte.
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201114774.ord.pdf
[CB Editorial: The death penalty is morally unjustifiable.]
Petition for recall of madate resulting from earlier Habeas is a second/successive petition.
No merit in stay pending upcoming en banc holding on whether summary/brief affirmance by highest state court is the final state decision for purposes of federal habeas review, as it would not alter the merits of the underlying Strickland claim.
Insufficient miscarriage of justice to justify recall of mandate sua sponte.
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201114774.ord.pdf
[CB Editorial: The death penalty is morally unjustifiable.]
Ninth Circuit: David Zachary v. California Bank and Trust
Bankruptcy
Petitioner can cram down plans over the objection of a dissenting class of unsecured creditors while retaining post-petition property but not while retaining pre-petition property .
(From summary)
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/28/13-16402.pdf
Petitioner can cram down plans over the objection of a dissenting class of unsecured creditors while retaining post-petition property but not while retaining pre-petition property .
(From summary)
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/28/13-16402.pdf
Eighth Circuit: United States v. Quincy Jackson
Immigration
Agency Violence Against Women Act finding that underlying marriage was bona fide did not compel the IJ to accept that finding when balancing deportation arguments (including VAWA) when the IJ had already issued an opinion that the marriage was fraudulent.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/143671P.pdf
Agency Violence Against Women Act finding that underlying marriage was bona fide did not compel the IJ to accept that finding when balancing deportation arguments (including VAWA) when the IJ had already issued an opinion that the marriage was fraudulent.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/143671P.pdf
Eighth Circuit: Judith Mutie-Timothy v. Loretta E. Lynch
Fourth Amendment
Probable cause for search of aircraft after drug dog alert.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/143756P.pdf
Probable cause for search of aircraft after drug dog alert.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/143756P.pdf
Seventh Circuit: Charles Donelson v. Randy Pfister
Administrative, Habeas
State denial of claim that witnesses were not provided during prison disciplinary proceeding due to the fact that a form was copied and sent intact as opposed to detached from the receipt portion was not an adequate and independent state ground for denial.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-28/C:14-3395:J:Hamilton:aut:T:fnOp:N:1694237:S:0
State denial of claim that witnesses were not provided during prison disciplinary proceeding due to the fact that a form was copied and sent intact as opposed to detached from the receipt portion was not an adequate and independent state ground for denial.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-28/C:14-3395:J:Hamilton:aut:T:fnOp:N:1694237:S:0
Seventh Circuit: USA v. Terry Smith
Sentencing
Substantial evidence supporting conviction.
Below-guidelines sentence vacated for insufficient explanation of reason for downward departure & conditions on supervised release.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-28/C:14-3744:J:Posner:aut:T:fnOp:N:1693902:S:0
Substantial evidence supporting conviction.
Below-guidelines sentence vacated for insufficient explanation of reason for downward departure & conditions on supervised release.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-28/C:14-3744:J:Posner:aut:T:fnOp:N:1693902:S:0
Seventh Circuit: USA v. Ambrose Clayton
Sentencing
Court did not need to consider deft's postconviction conduct at denial of resentencing, as deft did not raise postconviction behavior at sentencing, and there is no guarantee of effective counsel at that stage of appeal.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-28/C:15-2553:J:PerCuriam:aut:T:fnOp:N:1694235:S:0
Court did not need to consider deft's postconviction conduct at denial of resentencing, as deft did not raise postconviction behavior at sentencing, and there is no guarantee of effective counsel at that stage of appeal.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-28/C:15-2553:J:PerCuriam:aut:T:fnOp:N:1694235:S:0
Seventh Circuit: Hedeen International, LLC v. Zing Toys, Inc.
FRCP
21 Day limit for challenging personal jurisdiction isn't jurisdictional limit on subsequent motions.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-27/C:15-1749:J:Rovner:aut:T:fnOp:N:1693702:S:0
21 Day limit for challenging personal jurisdiction isn't jurisdictional limit on subsequent motions.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-27/C:15-1749:J:Rovner:aut:T:fnOp:N:1693702:S:0
Sixth Circuit: David Eaton v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County
S1983, FRCP
Summary judgment upheld against S1983 challenge to effectiveness of municipality's drug testing program.
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/16a0019p-06.pdf
Summary judgment upheld against S1983 challenge to effectiveness of municipality's drug testing program.
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/16a0019p-06.pdf
Fifth Circuit: Marilyn Garner v. Knoll, Incorporated
Bankruptcy, UCC
Although the first claim on the funds transferred into the deposit account survived any secured interest against the acount, a subsequent commingling created a burden on the Trustee to establish that the funds remained identifiable.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-10274-CV0.pdf
Although the first claim on the funds transferred into the deposit account survived any secured interest against the acount, a subsequent commingling created a burden on the Trustee to establish that the funds remained identifiable.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-10274-CV0.pdf
Fifth Circuit: USA v. Roberth Rojas, et al
Crim
Drug statute constitutional, extraterritorial application valid, extraterritorial application did not violate due process.
Venue was proper in the first judicial district that the defts entered. (Not Cuba.)
Insufficient connection between defts and US at time of foreign wiretap to invoke Fourth Amendment.
Many other challenges, including conspiracy exit instruction, variance from indictment.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/13/13-40998-CR0.pdf
Drug statute constitutional, extraterritorial application valid, extraterritorial application did not violate due process.
Venue was proper in the first judicial district that the defts entered. (Not Cuba.)
Insufficient connection between defts and US at time of foreign wiretap to invoke Fourth Amendment.
Many other challenges, including conspiracy exit instruction, variance from indictment.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/13/13-40998-CR0.pdf
Fourth Circuit: US v. David Williams, III
Sentencing
No procedural error in sentencing colloquy.
Sentences imposed as a result of plea agreements based on a specific rule of procedure are not appealable on grounds of substantive unreasonableness unless they expressly incorporate an element of the Guidelines. Circuit split flagged.
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/144680.P.pdf
No procedural error in sentencing colloquy.
Sentences imposed as a result of plea agreements based on a specific rule of procedure are not appealable on grounds of substantive unreasonableness unless they expressly incorporate an element of the Guidelines. Circuit split flagged.
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/144680.P.pdf
Third Circuit: In re: Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam
FRCP
Action seeking Mandamus for judicial disqualification in patent action transferred to the Federal Circuit, as it would have jurisdiction over the final order in the action.
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/153569p.pdf
Action seeking Mandamus for judicial disqualification in patent action transferred to the Federal Circuit, as it would have jurisdiction over the final order in the action.
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/153569p.pdf
Second Circuit: Lynch v. Ackley
First Amendment, S 1983
Qualified immunity for deft in police labor dispute, as:
Telling reporters to investigate the officer's civil rights complaints was an exercise of speech rights.
Unclear as to whether filing union grievance is a matter of public concern.
No showing of sufficient nexus on free association retaliation.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/8d2937c2-ab0e-4998-8a3a-4d871f79f592/1/doc/14-3751_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/8d2937c2-ab0e-4998-8a3a-4d871f79f592/1/hilite/
Qualified immunity for deft in police labor dispute, as:
Telling reporters to investigate the officer's civil rights complaints was an exercise of speech rights.
Unclear as to whether filing union grievance is a matter of public concern.
No showing of sufficient nexus on free association retaliation.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/8d2937c2-ab0e-4998-8a3a-4d871f79f592/1/doc/14-3751_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/8d2937c2-ab0e-4998-8a3a-4d871f79f592/1/hilite/
Second Circuit: Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Team Tankers A.S.
Arbitration, fees
Arbitration did not disregard law.
Although arbitrator's nondisclosure if illness violated the rules of the arbitration, insufficient for vacatur.
Fee-shifting to prevailing party vacated, as consent to arbitration implies consent to challenge in court of competent jurisdiction and if it doesn't, it's unenforcable.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/8d2937c2-ab0e-4998-8a3a-4d871f79f592/2/doc/14-4036_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/8d2937c2-ab0e-4998-8a3a-4d871f79f592/2/hilite/
Arbitration did not disregard law.
Although arbitrator's nondisclosure if illness violated the rules of the arbitration, insufficient for vacatur.
Fee-shifting to prevailing party vacated, as consent to arbitration implies consent to challenge in court of competent jurisdiction and if it doesn't, it's unenforcable.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/8d2937c2-ab0e-4998-8a3a-4d871f79f592/2/doc/14-4036_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/8d2937c2-ab0e-4998-8a3a-4d871f79f592/2/hilite/
Second Circuit: Credit Suisse Secs. LLC v. Tracy, et al.
FINRA, Arbitration
FINRA arbitration code does not bar voluntary pre-dispute waiver of FINRA arbitral forum.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/8d2937c2-ab0e-4998-8a3a-4d871f79f592/3/doc/15-345_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/8d2937c2-ab0e-4998-8a3a-4d871f79f592/3/hilite/
FINRA arbitration code does not bar voluntary pre-dispute waiver of FINRA arbitral forum.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/8d2937c2-ab0e-4998-8a3a-4d871f79f592/3/doc/15-345_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/8d2937c2-ab0e-4998-8a3a-4d871f79f592/3/hilite/
First Circuit: Sena Silva v. Lynch
Immigration
No denial of Due Process when IJ denied continuance in present action to allow a challenge to an earlier action based on insufficiency of counsel.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/15-1526U-01A.pdf
No denial of Due Process when IJ denied continuance in present action to allow a challenge to an earlier action based on insufficiency of counsel.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/15-1526U-01A.pdf
First Circuit: US v. Peter, Jr.
Sentencing
Counsel's recitation of cooperation at sentencing establishes that judge considered it absent prosecution motion.
Insufficient proof for minor participant reduction.
Judge does not have to itemize mitigating factors at sentencing.
Substantively reasonable.
(Bit of an odd tone to this one. CB)
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/14-2126U-01A.pdf
Counsel's recitation of cooperation at sentencing establishes that judge considered it absent prosecution motion.
Insufficient proof for minor participant reduction.
Judge does not have to itemize mitigating factors at sentencing.
Substantively reasonable.
(Bit of an odd tone to this one. CB)
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/14-2126U-01A.pdf
First Circuit: Barbosa v. Mitchell
FRE
Habeas denied for Confrontation Clause challenge to the admission of expert testimony that incorporated research not subject to challenge.
Court declines to assess procedural default against petitioner for lack of contemporaneous objection that resulted in review standard of miscarriage of justice.
Admission of underlying research results themselves ruled harmless error, as the expert testimony referencing it was introduced.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/14-1926P-01A.pdf
Habeas denied for Confrontation Clause challenge to the admission of expert testimony that incorporated research not subject to challenge.
Court declines to assess procedural default against petitioner for lack of contemporaneous objection that resulted in review standard of miscarriage of justice.
Admission of underlying research results themselves ruled harmless error, as the expert testimony referencing it was introduced.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/14-1926P-01A.pdf
Eleventh Circuit: Johnny Overstreet, Jr. v. Warden
Ineffective assistance
Habeas for ineffective assistance on direct appeal that characterized an issue certain to require reversal as a substantial evidence challenge.
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201314995.pdf
Habeas for ineffective assistance on direct appeal that characterized an issue certain to require reversal as a substantial evidence challenge.
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201314995.pdf
Ninth Circuit: Randolph Wolfson v. Colleen Concannon
Elections, First Amendment, En banc
Strict scrutiny for judicial speech restrictions.
Compelling state interest in personal solicitations regulations for judges.
Recusal doesn't solve perception problems.
Everything upheld under strict scrutiny.
Concurrence - justifiable distinctions between sitting and nonsitting judges.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/27/11-17634.pdf
Strict scrutiny for judicial speech restrictions.
Compelling state interest in personal solicitations regulations for judges.
Recusal doesn't solve perception problems.
Everything upheld under strict scrutiny.
Concurrence - justifiable distinctions between sitting and nonsitting judges.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/27/11-17634.pdf
Ninth Circuit: Presidio Historical Assn v. Presidio Trust
Administrative, Deference
Agency's interpretation of ambiguous statute requiring equivalent rebuilding as "one up, one down" anywhere on the site is unreasonable.
Current plans for building, however, are congruent with statute.
Statute requiring agency consideration does not impose a substantive change in scrutiny on judicial review -- it merely requires that the agency demonstrate that it considered alternatives.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/27/13-16554.pdf
Agency's interpretation of ambiguous statute requiring equivalent rebuilding as "one up, one down" anywhere on the site is unreasonable.
Current plans for building, however, are congruent with statute.
Statute requiring agency consideration does not impose a substantive change in scrutiny on judicial review -- it merely requires that the agency demonstrate that it considered alternatives.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/27/13-16554.pdf
Ninth Circuit: USA v. Raul Cruz-Mendez
Sentencing
Pilot/captain enhancement upheld against fellow at tiller of small open craft.
Sentence generally not unreasonable.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/27/14-50154.pdf
Pilot/captain enhancement upheld against fellow at tiller of small open craft.
Sentence generally not unreasonable.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/27/14-50154.pdf
Ninth Circuit: Dale Bozzio v. EMI Group, LTD.
FRCP, Contracts, Corporations
Under state law, third party beneficiary might be able to state a claim for breach where the promisee is an interposed suspended corporation and the beneficiary has relinquished individual right of action against the counterparty.
Error to dismiss with prejudice, as legal uncertainty might have made amendment of claim worthwhile.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/26/13-15685.pdf
Under state law, third party beneficiary might be able to state a claim for breach where the promisee is an interposed suspended corporation and the beneficiary has relinquished individual right of action against the counterparty.
Error to dismiss with prejudice, as legal uncertainty might have made amendment of claim worthwhile.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/26/13-15685.pdf
Eighth Circuit: United States v. Brent Englehart
Fourth Amendment
When a police officer has a conversation that is at least partially consensual with a person asked to sit in the patrol car while a traffic citation is being written, if the person admits possession of contraband in he first three minutes after the ticket is written, the intrusion is de minimis.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/152343P.pdf
When a police officer has a conversation that is at least partially consensual with a person asked to sit in the patrol car while a traffic citation is being written, if the person admits possession of contraband in he first three minutes after the ticket is written, the intrusion is de minimis.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/152343P.pdf
Seventh Circuit: Window World of Chicagoland v. Window World, Inc.
FRCP
Where issues raised in a subsequent suit are compulsory counterclaims in a prior suit resulting in a default judgment, and the earlier decision is temporarily vacated for excusable neglect and then reinstated, claim preclusion bars the claims in the subsequent suit when the subsequent suit is administratively joined to the prior action and law of the case bars the claim if the caption numbers are joined.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-27/C:15-2224:J:Easterbrook:aut:T:fnOp:N:1693131:S:0
Where issues raised in a subsequent suit are compulsory counterclaims in a prior suit resulting in a default judgment, and the earlier decision is temporarily vacated for excusable neglect and then reinstated, claim preclusion bars the claims in the subsequent suit when the subsequent suit is administratively joined to the prior action and law of the case bars the claim if the caption numbers are joined.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-27/C:15-2224:J:Easterbrook:aut:T:fnOp:N:1693131:S:0
Seventh Circuit: Ratna Bagwe v. Sedgwick Claims Management Service
Employment, discrimination
Where rebuttal of nondiscriminatory motive includes both direct and indirect methods of proof, appellate review analyses both separately.
No direct evidence, insufficient comparators.
Small pay decision is timely, can be considered separately.
Employer response on compensation that only discussed raises suffices to challenge broad compensation argument.
Insufficient proof of retaliation.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-26/C:14-3201:J:Ripple:aut:T:fnOp:N:1692303:S:0
Where rebuttal of nondiscriminatory motive includes both direct and indirect methods of proof, appellate review analyses both separately.
No direct evidence, insufficient comparators.
Small pay decision is timely, can be considered separately.
Employer response on compensation that only discussed raises suffices to challenge broad compensation argument.
Insufficient proof of retaliation.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-26/C:14-3201:J:Ripple:aut:T:fnOp:N:1692303:S:0
Seventh Circuit: Estate of Harold Stuller v. USA
FRE, Tax
Barring of horse breeder's testimony under Daubert upheld, as offered to prove that the farm was intended to be run successfully, and the breeder had no knowledge of farm financing.
Poor record-keeping, extensive losses, and tax benefits accrued in horse breeding operation run by Steak & Shake franchisees sufficient for finding that the operation was not run for a profit.
Insufficient nexus of cause and timing to justify finding of untimely tax return.
Denial of corporate deduction for S corporation does not justify amendment of personal return to remove income. Or something like that.
Equitable adjustment claim forfeited.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-26/C:15-1545:J:Shah:aut:T:fnOp:N:1693035:S:0
Barring of horse breeder's testimony under Daubert upheld, as offered to prove that the farm was intended to be run successfully, and the breeder had no knowledge of farm financing.
Poor record-keeping, extensive losses, and tax benefits accrued in horse breeding operation run by Steak & Shake franchisees sufficient for finding that the operation was not run for a profit.
Insufficient nexus of cause and timing to justify finding of untimely tax return.
Denial of corporate deduction for S corporation does not justify amendment of personal return to remove income. Or something like that.
Equitable adjustment claim forfeited.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-26/C:15-1545:J:Shah:aut:T:fnOp:N:1693035:S:0
Sixth Circuit: Village Green I, GP v. Federal Nat'l Mortgage Assoc.
Bankruptcy
Bankruptcy plan is not proposed in good faith when it impairs a minor class of creditors consisting of its former legal representation by delaying payment two weeks when there is evidence of present means that make the minor debt insignificant.
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/16a0018p-06.pdf
Bankruptcy plan is not proposed in good faith when it impairs a minor class of creditors consisting of its former legal representation by delaying payment two weeks when there is evidence of present means that make the minor debt insignificant.
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/16a0018p-06.pdf
Fifth Circuit: Ambrea Fairchild v. All Amer Check Cashing, Inc.
Employment, FRE
FLSA requires actual knowledge by the employer that the emplyee is working overtime - possible discovery in computer usage records is insufficient to impute.
No abuse of discretion in barring party-opponent hearsay exception for non-workplace statement by supervisor not directly involved in the case's statement of improper reason for dismissal.
Sufficient showing of non-pretextual nondiscriminatory reason for action.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-60190-CV0.pdf
FLSA requires actual knowledge by the employer that the emplyee is working overtime - possible discovery in computer usage records is insufficient to impute.
No abuse of discretion in barring party-opponent hearsay exception for non-workplace statement by supervisor not directly involved in the case's statement of improper reason for dismissal.
Sufficient showing of non-pretextual nondiscriminatory reason for action.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-60190-CV0.pdf
Fourth Circuit: James Angell v. Stubbs & Perdue, P.A.
Bankruptcy, Retroactive application
As Bankruptcy petition changed from reorganization to liquidation subsequent to the change in the statute regulating subordination of secured debts in liquidation proceedings, administrative expenses incurred in reorganization phase cannot gain priority through the equitable subordination of secured debts.
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/151316.P.pdf
As Bankruptcy petition changed from reorganization to liquidation subsequent to the change in the statute regulating subordination of secured debts in liquidation proceedings, administrative expenses incurred in reorganization phase cannot gain priority through the equitable subordination of secured debts.
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/151316.P.pdf
Second Circuit: Friends of Animals v. Clay et al.
Administrative, environment
Statute's requirement of a specific permit for the taking of a member of a protected species is satisfied by specificity in the situation, not necessarily specificity in the species.
Employees of a multijurisdictional authority would be protected by the justification of necessity when taking animals outside the statute in order to prevent death or serious bodily harm.
Facepalm pun at peroration.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/8ff2d324-fcfa-460d-953a-74b3a3021a4f/2/doc/14-4071_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/8ff2d324-fcfa-460d-953a-74b3a3021a4f/2/hilite/
Statute's requirement of a specific permit for the taking of a member of a protected species is satisfied by specificity in the situation, not necessarily specificity in the species.
Employees of a multijurisdictional authority would be protected by the justification of necessity when taking animals outside the statute in order to prevent death or serious bodily harm.
Facepalm pun at peroration.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/8ff2d324-fcfa-460d-953a-74b3a3021a4f/2/doc/14-4071_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/8ff2d324-fcfa-460d-953a-74b3a3021a4f/2/hilite/
Eleventh Circuit: James Edward Hoefling, Jr. v. City of Miami, et al.
S1983
No heightened pleading for FRCP - Iqbal/Twombly prevails.
Plaintiff's attachment of police reports to complaint does not bar plaintiff from challenging substance of the reports.
Second amendement to claim for for purpose of challenging substance of previously attached reports not barred by judicial estoppel.
A S1983 municipal liability suit states a claim despite not identifying the policymaker that adopted the unconstitutional policy.
Unlawful seizure of houseboat is fourth amendment claim, not a due process claim.
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201412482.pdf
No heightened pleading for FRCP - Iqbal/Twombly prevails.
Plaintiff's attachment of police reports to complaint does not bar plaintiff from challenging substance of the reports.
Second amendement to claim for for purpose of challenging substance of previously attached reports not barred by judicial estoppel.
A S1983 municipal liability suit states a claim despite not identifying the policymaker that adopted the unconstitutional policy.
Unlawful seizure of houseboat is fourth amendment claim, not a due process claim.
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201412482.pdf
Ninth Circuit: Allen Davis v. USA
Tax
Closing agreements sound in contract, and therefore do not bar subsequent assessments to the contrary, as the tax authority is a direct exercise of statutory authority. The disparity provides a basis for challenge according to the usual means.
All members of a partnership are not parties to a settlement agreement with the Tax Partner of a partnership, so the relevant statute of limitations runs from the entry of stipulated judgment.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/25/13-16458.pdf
Closing agreements sound in contract, and therefore do not bar subsequent assessments to the contrary, as the tax authority is a direct exercise of statutory authority. The disparity provides a basis for challenge according to the usual means.
All members of a partnership are not parties to a settlement agreement with the Tax Partner of a partnership, so the relevant statute of limitations runs from the entry of stipulated judgment.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/25/13-16458.pdf
Fifth Circuit: USA v. Michael Gluk, et al
Securities, FRE
Error to exclude SEC report exonerating defts, as it is an administrative report made with expertise -- would not inappropriately sway jury on issues of disputed fact.
Introduction of uncharged bad behaviour incidental to the fraud should have been more carefully policed at trial.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/14/14-51012-CR0.pdf
Error to exclude SEC report exonerating defts, as it is an administrative report made with expertise -- would not inappropriately sway jury on issues of disputed fact.
Introduction of uncharged bad behaviour incidental to the fraud should have been more carefully policed at trial.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/14/14-51012-CR0.pdf
Second Circuit: Main Street Legal Services v. National Security Council
FOIA
The NSA is not an agency subject to FOIA.
The sole statutory function of the agency is to advise the President.
Precedent suggesting that it is an agency subject to FOIA derives from the time when it ran the CIA.
No additional APA jurisdiction from staff structure, Presidential directives, prior rulemmakings, etc.
Dismissal on merits proper, because the FOIA requirements are not jurisdictional but instead speak to the remedies available to the court.
Discovery properly denied, as there was no showing of eventual remedy.
"X-Files" Bonus: No caption on the Circuits's web page - just linked from a hyphen in the upper-left.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/5cfcaf68-de00-4f91-ab9b-7ae48aa36f61/1/doc/13-3792comb_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/5cfcaf68-de00-4f91-ab9b-7ae48aa36f61/1/hilite/
The NSA is not an agency subject to FOIA.
The sole statutory function of the agency is to advise the President.
Precedent suggesting that it is an agency subject to FOIA derives from the time when it ran the CIA.
No additional APA jurisdiction from staff structure, Presidential directives, prior rulemmakings, etc.
Dismissal on merits proper, because the FOIA requirements are not jurisdictional but instead speak to the remedies available to the court.
Discovery properly denied, as there was no showing of eventual remedy.
"X-Files" Bonus: No caption on the Circuits's web page - just linked from a hyphen in the upper-left.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/5cfcaf68-de00-4f91-ab9b-7ae48aa36f61/1/doc/13-3792comb_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/5cfcaf68-de00-4f91-ab9b-7ae48aa36f61/1/hilite/
First Circuit: Reyes-Orta v. Highway and Transportation
Free Speech, employment
Letter by co-worker sufficient proof that employer was aware of political affiliation.
Genuine issue of material fact as to whether adverse employment actions created a cause of action.
Bona fide reason for ending of employment does not mean that there is no issue of material fact as to whether the ending of employment would have happened but for the political speech.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/14-2172P-01A.pdf
Letter by co-worker sufficient proof that employer was aware of political affiliation.
Genuine issue of material fact as to whether adverse employment actions created a cause of action.
Bona fide reason for ending of employment does not mean that there is no issue of material fact as to whether the ending of employment would have happened but for the political speech.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/14-2172P-01A.pdf
First Circuit: Rivera-Carrasquillo v. Calderon-Lozano
Statute of Limitations
Remanded for explanation of whether SOL defense was disallowed as sanction or denied on merits and specific findings on liability.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/14-1047P-01A.pdf
Remanded for explanation of whether SOL defense was disallowed as sanction or denied on merits and specific findings on liability.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/14-1047P-01A.pdf
Eleventh Circuit: Murray Energy Corporation, et al. v. Secretary of Labor, et al.
Employment, safety
Agency rulemaking on mine dust upheld.
Earlier action in concert with another agency did not mandate a joint revision of the standard, as the joint action was an interim step based on another statutory provision. Stare decisis based on prior Article III review as well.
Substantively, the regulation is not an abuse of discretion.
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201411942.pdf
Agency rulemaking on mine dust upheld.
Earlier action in concert with another agency did not mandate a joint revision of the standard, as the joint action was an interim step based on another statutory provision. Stare decisis based on prior Article III review as well.
Substantively, the regulation is not an abuse of discretion.
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201411942.pdf
Eighth Circuit: James Clifford Slick Basham v. United States
Habeas, Fourth Amendment, (Plea process)
Allegedly favorable plea deal is not a bar to finding prejudice under Strickland in later collateral challenge.
No ineffective assistance Habeas for not challenging the cell phone search two years before Riley.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/151980P.pdf
Allegedly favorable plea deal is not a bar to finding prejudice under Strickland in later collateral challenge.
No ineffective assistance Habeas for not challenging the cell phone search two years before Riley.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/151980P.pdf
Seventh Circuit: Cesar Flores-Ramirez v. Brian Foster
Habeas
Habeas based on a de-certified court translator barred, as the claim was available at the time of first Habeas petition.
Habeas claim alleging insufficient process during initial collateral proceedings barred, as it does not allege a freestanding redressible constitutional harm in the first proceedings.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-22/C:15-1594:J:PerCuriam:aut:T:fnOp:N:1691484:S:0
Habeas based on a de-certified court translator barred, as the claim was available at the time of first Habeas petition.
Habeas claim alleging insufficient process during initial collateral proceedings barred, as it does not allege a freestanding redressible constitutional harm in the first proceedings.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-22/C:15-1594:J:PerCuriam:aut:T:fnOp:N:1691484:S:0
Sixth Circuit: USA v. Arnaldo Cabrera
Sentencing.
Twofold plain error in judges' imposition of maximum guidelines sentence due to deft's (1) not taking the stand to support his (2) theory of evidence manipulation.
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/16a0017p-06.pdf
Twofold plain error in judges' imposition of maximum guidelines sentence due to deft's (1) not taking the stand to support his (2) theory of evidence manipulation.
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/16a0017p-06.pdf
Sixth Circuit: Jason Blesedell v. Chillicothe Telephone Company
Labor, defamation
No arbitrary breach of the duty of fair representation by the union, as the lack of advocacy stemmed from union's considered adverse decisions on credibility.
No actual malice in statements about plaintiff, as conclusions were reasonable from facts.
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/16a0016p-06.pdf
No arbitrary breach of the duty of fair representation by the union, as the lack of advocacy stemmed from union's considered adverse decisions on credibility.
No actual malice in statements about plaintiff, as conclusions were reasonable from facts.
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/16a0016p-06.pdf
Fifth Circuit: Sanderson Farms, Incorporated v. OSHC
Administrative / OSHA
Presumption of hazard properly attaches in initial safety proceedings, as de minimis risk is an affirmative defense later on.
Substantial evidence for agency's abattoir citations.
Agency considered violation of a key projecting at the end of a shaft as being that of a projected shaft. The correct regulation is that regulating keys.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-60215-CV0.pdf
Presumption of hazard properly attaches in initial safety proceedings, as de minimis risk is an affirmative defense later on.
Substantial evidence for agency's abattoir citations.
Agency considered violation of a key projecting at the end of a shaft as being that of a projected shaft. The correct regulation is that regulating keys.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-60215-CV0.pdf
Second Circuit: Glatt et al. v. Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc. et al.
Employment / Unpaid interns
No Skidmore deference to DOL definition of an employee.
Internships distinguished from employment by identifying the primary beneficiary of the relationship.
This standard bars the formation of the class due to predominance concerns.
Bonus: cameo by prominent Hollywood pillow.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/2b78c6ab-9a30-46d4-b200-629fd5966190/1/doc/13-4478a_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/2b78c6ab-9a30-46d4-b200-629fd5966190/1/hilite/
No Skidmore deference to DOL definition of an employee.
Internships distinguished from employment by identifying the primary beneficiary of the relationship.
This standard bars the formation of the class due to predominance concerns.
Bonus: cameo by prominent Hollywood pillow.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/2b78c6ab-9a30-46d4-b200-629fd5966190/1/doc/13-4478a_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/2b78c6ab-9a30-46d4-b200-629fd5966190/1/hilite/
First Circuit: Carrasquillo-Ortiz v. American Airlines, Inc.
Employment
Question certified to Puerto Rico Supreme Court as to whether the frequent transfer of employees within a single corporate entity counts for severance classification as transfers within P.R. or as international transfers.
(Translated version of relevant PR Court decision attached.)
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/15-1424P-01A.pdf
Question certified to Puerto Rico Supreme Court as to whether the frequent transfer of employees within a single corporate entity counts for severance classification as transfers within P.R. or as international transfers.
(Translated version of relevant PR Court decision attached.)
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/15-1424P-01A.pdf
First Circuit: US v. Collins
Fourth Amendment, Sentencing
As deft did not concede possession of the bag at suppression hearing, he has no standing to challenge the search of the bag found in a third party bailee's car.
Threatening with a weapon is a crime of violence for purposes of the career offender sentencing predicate.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/15-1292P-01A.pdf
As deft did not concede possession of the bag at suppression hearing, he has no standing to challenge the search of the bag found in a third party bailee's car.
Threatening with a weapon is a crime of violence for purposes of the career offender sentencing predicate.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/15-1292P-01A.pdf
First Circuit: US v. Soto-Rivera
Sentencing - Guidelines / Johnson / (ACCA)
Given govt stipulation that Guidelines residual clause is unconstitutionally vague Post-Johnson, an on-point note to the Guidelines doesn't save the predicate, as the note referred to an offense type that appears nowhere outside of the residual clause.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/14-1216P-01A.pdf
Given govt stipulation that Guidelines residual clause is unconstitutionally vague Post-Johnson, an on-point note to the Guidelines doesn't save the predicate, as the note referred to an offense type that appears nowhere outside of the residual clause.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/14-1216P-01A.pdf
Federal Circuit: Pfizer v. Lee
Patent, Procedure
Claim not waived, as it was referenced in briefs and at argument below.
The time that should have been added to the end of the patent was appropriately tolled during the interval between the notice of insufficiency and the revised notice of insufficiency, as the initial notice put the petitioner on notice of the shortcomings in the claim.
Dissent: A response to an incomplete notice might have itself been incomplete.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1265.Opinion.1-20-2016.1.PDF
Claim not waived, as it was referenced in briefs and at argument below.
The time that should have been added to the end of the patent was appropriately tolled during the interval between the notice of insufficiency and the revised notice of insufficiency, as the initial notice put the petitioner on notice of the shortcomings in the claim.
Dissent: A response to an incomplete notice might have itself been incomplete.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1265.Opinion.1-20-2016.1.PDF
Federal Circuit: Lumen View Technollgy v. FindTheBest.com
Patent, Fees
No abuse of discretion in award of fees, given ill-supported allegations of infringement.
While deterrence is to be considered in whether to award fees, it is not a permissible basis for adjusting the lodestar award.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1275.Opinion.1-20-2016.1.PDF
No abuse of discretion in award of fees, given ill-supported allegations of infringement.
While deterrence is to be considered in whether to award fees, it is not a permissible basis for adjusting the lodestar award.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1275.Opinion.1-20-2016.1.PDF
DC Circuit: Christopher Van Hollen, Jr. v. FEC
Administrative
Agency rulemaking that election contributions must be for the purpose of furthering electioneering electoral communications was a permissible and persuasive exercise of authority.
Not A&C.
Bonus: odd Yeats quote in peroration.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/E90D7BF9ECC39D1085257F41006AF4EC/$file/15-5016-1594896.pdf
Agency rulemaking that election contributions must be for the purpose of furthering electioneering electoral communications was a permissible and persuasive exercise of authority.
Not A&C.
Bonus: odd Yeats quote in peroration.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/E90D7BF9ECC39D1085257F41006AF4EC/$file/15-5016-1594896.pdf
DC Circuit: Jefferson Morley v. CIA
FOIA, Fees
Fees should be partially denied for FOIA proceedings that partially result in records already in the public domain only where the fees that resulted in public documents are segregable and whether the difficulties encountered militate against denial of fees.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/3D5B77098A5F717385257F41006AF4C8/$file/14-5230-1594919.pdf
Fees should be partially denied for FOIA proceedings that partially result in records already in the public domain only where the fees that resulted in public documents are segregable and whether the difficulties encountered militate against denial of fees.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/3D5B77098A5F717385257F41006AF4C8/$file/14-5230-1594919.pdf
DC Circuit: USA v. Eddie Burroughs
Fourth Amendment, FRCrimP
No plain error in a court's declining to give preclusive effect in the same proceeding to a pretrial determination of another court's finding of lack of probable cause for a search.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/14051A07C66684D585257F41006AF4AC/$file/13-3031-1594913.pdf
No plain error in a court's declining to give preclusive effect in the same proceeding to a pretrial determination of another court's finding of lack of probable cause for a search.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/14051A07C66684D585257F41006AF4AC/$file/13-3031-1594913.pdf
DC Circuit: DHL Express, Inc. v. NLRB
Labor
Mixed use space ruling contested at ALJ stage, but not before Board - issue (apparently somewhat) preserved for appeal.
Substantial evidence for Board finding that hallway is a mixed-use area.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/A5D074B128A1960A85257F41006AF48E/$file/12-1072-1594886.pdf
Mixed use space ruling contested at ALJ stage, but not before Board - issue (apparently somewhat) preserved for appeal.
Substantial evidence for Board finding that hallway is a mixed-use area.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/A5D074B128A1960A85257F41006AF48E/$file/12-1072-1594886.pdf
Eleventh Circuit: USA v. Demetrius Renaldo Bowers
FRCrimP
No error in denial of severance of joined counts, as motion was untimely, and no compelling prejudice resulted.
Sufficient evidence.
ACCA upheld against SOP, other constitutional challenges.
Mandatory 187 year sentence for brandishing firearm during robberies not grossly disproportionate.
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201411585.pdf
No error in denial of severance of joined counts, as motion was untimely, and no compelling prejudice resulted.
Sufficient evidence.
ACCA upheld against SOP, other constitutional challenges.
Mandatory 187 year sentence for brandishing firearm during robberies not grossly disproportionate.
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201411585.pdf
Eleventh Circuit:Ernest Edgar Black, et al. Jeff Wigington, et al
S1983
Qualified immunity on trespass, as no actual malice established.
Exclusionary rule does not bar use of illegally obtained evidence to establish probable cause in a civil suit. (!)
No sovereign immunity for Sheriff in ADA claim.
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201510848.pdf
Qualified immunity on trespass, as no actual malice established.
Exclusionary rule does not bar use of illegally obtained evidence to establish probable cause in a civil suit. (!)
No sovereign immunity for Sheriff in ADA claim.
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201510848.pdf
Ninth Circuit: Ronald Taylor v. Matthew Cate, Secretary CDCR
Habeas
De novo/ non-AEDPA review, as no state court has considered the specific constitutional claim.
Where the jury is instructed on aiding and abetting, but instead votes to convict on actual murder, but with a special verdict supporting felony murder that is later vacated, a resentencing for aiding and abetting based on subsequent admissions by deft doesn't sufficiently violate 6A to justify Habeas relief, as the resentencing judge is relying on the earlier verdict.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/21/11-55247.pdf
De novo/ non-AEDPA review, as no state court has considered the specific constitutional claim.
Where the jury is instructed on aiding and abetting, but instead votes to convict on actual murder, but with a special verdict supporting felony murder that is later vacated, a resentencing for aiding and abetting based on subsequent admissions by deft doesn't sufficiently violate 6A to justify Habeas relief, as the resentencing judge is relying on the earlier verdict.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/21/11-55247.pdf
Eighth Circuit: O&S Trucking, Inc. v. Mercedes Benz Financial Serv.
Bankruptcy
While a person can appeal their own Chapter 11 amended bankruptcy plan if it incorporates adverse elements, there must be sufficient objection to the plan, and this isn't achieved by referring to an already-filed appeal and any subsequent appeals.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/152048P.pdf
While a person can appeal their own Chapter 11 amended bankruptcy plan if it incorporates adverse elements, there must be sufficient objection to the plan, and this isn't achieved by referring to an already-filed appeal and any subsequent appeals.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/152048P.pdf
Eighth Circuit: Munna Godfrey v. Loretta E. Lynch
Immigration
Petitioner has burden to prove that checking a box indicating citizen/national reflected an intent to select the latter -- here, petitioners other representations to the contrary bar the claim.
Late introduction of the I9 in the immigration proceedings doesn't violate Due Process.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/151027P.pdf
Petitioner has burden to prove that checking a box indicating citizen/national reflected an intent to select the latter -- here, petitioners other representations to the contrary bar the claim.
Late introduction of the I9 in the immigration proceedings doesn't violate Due Process.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/151027P.pdf
Seventh Circuit: Fidlar Technologies v. LPS Real Estate Data Solutions
Civil CFAA
Direct access to data layer by licensed party bypassing the web interface did not violate statutes barring unauthorized computer access.
Interfering with tracking doesn't violate statute / constitute trespass to chattels.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-21/C:15-1830:J:Flaum:aut:T:fnOp:N:1690861:S:0
Direct access to data layer by licensed party bypassing the web interface did not violate statutes barring unauthorized computer access.
Interfering with tracking doesn't violate statute / constitute trespass to chattels.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-21/C:15-1830:J:Flaum:aut:T:fnOp:N:1690861:S:0
Seventh Circuit: USA v. Tyree Neal, Sr.
Sentencing
Deft can make substantive, but not procedural, challenges to sentencing conditions not challenged earlier on direct appeal.
Conditions here (warrantless entry) were reasonably related to legitimate goals.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-21/C:14-3473:J:Hamilton:aut:T:fnOp:N:1690666:S:0
Deft can make substantive, but not procedural, challenges to sentencing conditions not challenged earlier on direct appeal.
Conditions here (warrantless entry) were reasonably related to legitimate goals.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-21/C:14-3473:J:Hamilton:aut:T:fnOp:N:1690666:S:0
Seventh Circuit: VLM Food Trading International v. Illinois Trading Company
Contracts
Transnational contract was formed under Convention by agreement by the parties, and subsequent inclusion of attorney's fees by one party did not become a binding modification, as it was not mirrored or acknowledged in the return invoice or communications.
Attorney's statement that something had been admitted and was in the record isn't sufficient basis for waiver of claim.
Not raising issue of waiver until the reply brief waived the issue of prior default.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-21/C:14-2776:J:Sykes:aut:T:fnOp:N:1690495:S:0
Transnational contract was formed under Convention by agreement by the parties, and subsequent inclusion of attorney's fees by one party did not become a binding modification, as it was not mirrored or acknowledged in the return invoice or communications.
Attorney's statement that something had been admitted and was in the record isn't sufficient basis for waiver of claim.
Not raising issue of waiver until the reply brief waived the issue of prior default.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-21/C:14-2776:J:Sykes:aut:T:fnOp:N:1690495:S:0
Seventh Circuit: USA v. Michael Segal
Sentencing/restitution
No error in denial of extension ot purchase insurance policies, as the funds were held up elsewhere in in the settlement by deft's actions.
Although an offer to purchase an asset does not have to be capable of acceptance by simple affirmation in order to be considered commercially acceptable, the deft's right of first refusal gave him an equitable stake in the transaction, and his rights were impaired by having to match a third party's freely revocable offer.
Deft counsel can properly testify as to having seen or not seen the listing of an asset on a list of properties to be seized when the issue turns on a question of inadvertent omission that was not brought to the government's attention.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-21/C:14-3533:J:Posner:aut:T:fnOp:N:1690615:S:0
No error in denial of extension ot purchase insurance policies, as the funds were held up elsewhere in in the settlement by deft's actions.
Although an offer to purchase an asset does not have to be capable of acceptance by simple affirmation in order to be considered commercially acceptable, the deft's right of first refusal gave him an equitable stake in the transaction, and his rights were impaired by having to match a third party's freely revocable offer.
Deft counsel can properly testify as to having seen or not seen the listing of an asset on a list of properties to be seized when the issue turns on a question of inadvertent omission that was not brought to the government's attention.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-21/C:14-3533:J:Posner:aut:T:fnOp:N:1690615:S:0
Sixth Circuit: Jose Zaldana Menijar v. Loretta Lynch
From December, but on today's list. Revised, perhaps.
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/16a0015p-06.pdf
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/16a0015p-06.pdf
Sixth Circuit: Hobert Tackett v. M&G Polymers USA, LLC
Contracts
Vesting of retirees in pension plan should follow normal rules of contractual interpretation, with only a thumb on the scales in favor of vesting. Remanded from Scotus, with a helpful list of such rules.
Remanded to District Court to consider relevance and weight of writings outside the corners of the agreement.
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/16a0014p-06.pdf
Vesting of retirees in pension plan should follow normal rules of contractual interpretation, with only a thumb on the scales in favor of vesting. Remanded from Scotus, with a helpful list of such rules.
Remanded to District Court to consider relevance and weight of writings outside the corners of the agreement.
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/16a0014p-06.pdf
Fifth Circuit: USA v. Larry Thompson
Offender registration
Statute is not an unconstitutional regulation of purely intrastate commerce.
Statute requires timely registration when present in an area - acquisition of a domicile or extended habitation is not necessary.
Conversation in which US Marshall explained the registration requirement was not testimonial in nature, and therefore was not subject to Miranda.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-40370-CR0.pdf
Statute is not an unconstitutional regulation of purely intrastate commerce.
Statute requires timely registration when present in an area - acquisition of a domicile or extended habitation is not necessary.
Conversation in which US Marshall explained the registration requirement was not testimonial in nature, and therefore was not subject to Miranda.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-40370-CR0.pdf
Fourth Circuit: Knox Creek Coal Corporation v. Secretary of Labor
Administrative
Commission review of ALJ's decisions did not overreach by reversing on the basis that the ALJ had only considered a snapshot view of the circumstance, and that the ALJ had improperly weighed the possibility disaster actually occurring from the violation of the rules. Findings of fact were not contradicted in the reversal.
Where commission adopts factual findings of ALJ but reverses, review is for substantial error.
Litigating decisions (adjudications?) of the Secretary are not subject to Chevron deference. (!)
As the gravity of events resulting from a violation are considered in another prong of the rule, the gravity of the prong under consideration refers to the degree of the material violation itself.
Contemplated - but not implemented - improvements are not mitigations.
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/142313.P.pdf
Commission review of ALJ's decisions did not overreach by reversing on the basis that the ALJ had only considered a snapshot view of the circumstance, and that the ALJ had improperly weighed the possibility disaster actually occurring from the violation of the rules. Findings of fact were not contradicted in the reversal.
Where commission adopts factual findings of ALJ but reverses, review is for substantial error.
Litigating decisions (adjudications?) of the Secretary are not subject to Chevron deference. (!)
As the gravity of events resulting from a violation are considered in another prong of the rule, the gravity of the prong under consideration refers to the degree of the material violation itself.
Contemplated - but not implemented - improvements are not mitigations.
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/142313.P.pdf
Fourth Circuit: Colon Health Centers v. Bill Hazel
Commerce clause
State medical facility licensing statute does not facially violate dormant commerce clause, as there is no demonstrable statistical proof of discrimination in favor of in-state providers.
State of incorporation is a valid, testable criterion.
Bias in favor of incumbent businesses is not a proxy for discrimination against out of state businesses.
Sufficient policy benefits to justify policy in a balancing test against de facto dormant commerce clause challenge.
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/142283.P.pdf
State medical facility licensing statute does not facially violate dormant commerce clause, as there is no demonstrable statistical proof of discrimination in favor of in-state providers.
State of incorporation is a valid, testable criterion.
Bias in favor of incumbent businesses is not a proxy for discrimination against out of state businesses.
Sufficient policy benefits to justify policy in a balancing test against de facto dormant commerce clause challenge.
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/142283.P.pdf
Third Circuit: Elnor Whitehead v. Pullman Group LLC
Arbitration
Arbitrator's likely application of statute precluding testimony about unrecorded transactions with deceased party was not an error sufficient to vacate the arbitration.
As the arbitrator likely filtered out barred testimony, opposing party's use of spoken parole evidence to the contrary didn't open the door to use by plaintff.
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/151627p.pdf
Arbitrator's likely application of statute precluding testimony about unrecorded transactions with deceased party was not an error sufficient to vacate the arbitration.
As the arbitrator likely filtered out barred testimony, opposing party's use of spoken parole evidence to the contrary didn't open the door to use by plaintff.
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/151627p.pdf
Second Circuit: Yale-New Haven Hospital v. Nicholls, et al.
ERISA
Denial of en banc, with dissent from denial.
ERISA annuity/lump sum benefits / posthumous domestic orders. Or something like that.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/78742b70-321c-4ada-8a3a-2b2b4f09d6b8/1/doc/13-4725comb_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/78742b70-321c-4ada-8a3a-2b2b4f09d6b8/1/hilite/
Denial of en banc, with dissent from denial.
ERISA annuity/lump sum benefits / posthumous domestic orders. Or something like that.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/78742b70-321c-4ada-8a3a-2b2b4f09d6b8/1/doc/13-4725comb_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/78742b70-321c-4ada-8a3a-2b2b4f09d6b8/1/hilite/
Eleventh Circuit: USA v. Harvey Zitron
Tax, FrCrimP
No error in joining tax crimes with fraud crimes in the indictment, as prejudice was speculative.
Comment elicited on cross about hypothetical silence of deft didn't violate 5A, shift burdens.
Where deft has in the past opened credit accounts for family, doing so with unlawful intent suffices for statutory bar on knowingly opening the account with unlawful authority.
No plain error in court's determining amount of fraud based on scope of fraud versus funds deposited by deft.
Leadership enhancement upheld.
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201410009.pdf
No error in joining tax crimes with fraud crimes in the indictment, as prejudice was speculative.
Comment elicited on cross about hypothetical silence of deft didn't violate 5A, shift burdens.
Where deft has in the past opened credit accounts for family, doing so with unlawful intent suffices for statutory bar on knowingly opening the account with unlawful authority.
No plain error in court's determining amount of fraud based on scope of fraud versus funds deposited by deft.
Leadership enhancement upheld.
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201410009.pdf
Eleventh Circuit: In re: Anthony Johnson
Habeas, AEDPA
30 Day limit for consideration of second or successive petitions is advisory, not jurisdictional.
Johnson retroactivity: petition held in abeyance pending S.Ct. ruling.
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201610011.order.pdf
30 Day limit for consideration of second or successive petitions is advisory, not jurisdictional.
Johnson retroactivity: petition held in abeyance pending S.Ct. ruling.
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201610011.order.pdf
Eleventh Circuit: Dan Carmichael McCarthan v. Warden, FCC Coleman - Medium
Habeas
S. Ct. holding that state escape statute is not categorically a violent crime for purposes of the ACCA predicate conviction is a substantive change in the law to be made retroactively available on collateral review.
Circuit precedent that escape was a violent crime for purposes of one statute had a preclusive effect on whether it was a crime of violence with reference to another statute.
Very complex - here's our best guess: Access to S2241 Habeas depends on there being no effective remedy by a Habeas claim on motion. Where a deft has multiple potential predicates in the PSR and the indictment only lists three, but neither the sentencing court nor the PSR identifies the ones to be used in the ACCA enhancement, all potentially valid predicates are counted against the deft in considering jurisdiction for a S2241 writ unless petitioner can affirmatively establish that prior Habeas on motion would have been ineffective against the uncharged predicates. The argument that a challenge to a predicate was waived for procedural default, however, is a an affirmative defense on the merits - the relevant jurisdictional question for the S2241 writ is whether the writ on motion would have been an effective challenge.
[Again, don't rely on any of this for anything.]
Concurrence: No access to writ, as alternate bases for the enhancement establish that sentencing court did not rely on the challenged offense.
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201214989.pdf
S. Ct. holding that state escape statute is not categorically a violent crime for purposes of the ACCA predicate conviction is a substantive change in the law to be made retroactively available on collateral review.
Circuit precedent that escape was a violent crime for purposes of one statute had a preclusive effect on whether it was a crime of violence with reference to another statute.
Very complex - here's our best guess: Access to S2241 Habeas depends on there being no effective remedy by a Habeas claim on motion. Where a deft has multiple potential predicates in the PSR and the indictment only lists three, but neither the sentencing court nor the PSR identifies the ones to be used in the ACCA enhancement, all potentially valid predicates are counted against the deft in considering jurisdiction for a S2241 writ unless petitioner can affirmatively establish that prior Habeas on motion would have been ineffective against the uncharged predicates. The argument that a challenge to a predicate was waived for procedural default, however, is a an affirmative defense on the merits - the relevant jurisdictional question for the S2241 writ is whether the writ on motion would have been an effective challenge.
[Again, don't rely on any of this for anything.]
Concurrence: No access to writ, as alternate bases for the enhancement establish that sentencing court did not rely on the challenged offense.
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201214989.pdf
Eighth Circuit: United States v. Joshua Welch
Fourth Amendment
30 Day time period for notification of warrant ran from execution of warrant, not identification of the subject.
No clear error in holding the error harmless, given good faith and lack of prejudice.
Barring use of prior affidavit on cross was harmless error, if error.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/151993P.pdf
30 Day time period for notification of warrant ran from execution of warrant, not identification of the subject.
No clear error in holding the error harmless, given good faith and lack of prejudice.
Barring use of prior affidavit on cross was harmless error, if error.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/151993P.pdf
Eighth Circuit: National Parks Conservation v. EPA
Administrative, environment
Circuit has statutory jurisdiction over challenge to local component of national plan.
Offsets plan upheld as not arbitrary and capricious.
Rational basis for agency modification of statutory goals.
Concur in J: No circuit jurisdiction over national plan.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/122910P.pdf
Circuit has statutory jurisdiction over challenge to local component of national plan.
Offsets plan upheld as not arbitrary and capricious.
Rational basis for agency modification of statutory goals.
Concur in J: No circuit jurisdiction over national plan.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/122910P.pdf
Seventh Circuit: Larry Nelson v. City of Chicago
FRE
Admission of plaintiff's prior arrests on the theory that they spoke to his good law-abiding citizenship was error; also not probative of damages mitigation on 4A claim
Admission of plaintiff's prior lawsuits against the city error, as it didn't contradict testimony at trial; also not cured by limiting instruction.
Admission of police officer's extended hypothetical as to reasons for drawing a weapon in a traffic stop was error.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-20/C:12-3401:J:Sykes:aut:T:fnOp:N:1689820:S:0
Admission of plaintiff's prior arrests on the theory that they spoke to his good law-abiding citizenship was error; also not probative of damages mitigation on 4A claim
Admission of plaintiff's prior lawsuits against the city error, as it didn't contradict testimony at trial; also not cured by limiting instruction.
Admission of police officer's extended hypothetical as to reasons for drawing a weapon in a traffic stop was error.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-20/C:12-3401:J:Sykes:aut:T:fnOp:N:1689820:S:0
Seventh Circuit: Smith, Keith v. Sipi, LLC
Bankruptcy, standing
State tax sale isn't a transfer for value, as the purchasers bid on the lien obligation without explicit reference to the value of the property.
Both parties have standing, where one was the initial plaintiff, and the other was later joined prior to their divorce, which left the joined plaintiff with sole rights in the property but other issues unresolved.
Plaintiff's recovery limited to homestead exception.
Purchaser of the lien obligation was the initial transferee, as the state merely facilitated the transfer.
Second purchaser had no constructive knowledge of fraudulence of transfer in the circumstances.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-20/C:15-1166:J:Hamilton:aut:T:fnOp:N:1689637:S:0
State tax sale isn't a transfer for value, as the purchasers bid on the lien obligation without explicit reference to the value of the property.
Both parties have standing, where one was the initial plaintiff, and the other was later joined prior to their divorce, which left the joined plaintiff with sole rights in the property but other issues unresolved.
Plaintiff's recovery limited to homestead exception.
Purchaser of the lien obligation was the initial transferee, as the state merely facilitated the transfer.
Second purchaser had no constructive knowledge of fraudulence of transfer in the circumstances.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-20/C:15-1166:J:Hamilton:aut:T:fnOp:N:1689637:S:0
Fourth Circuit: USA v. Wendy Annette Moore
Crim
No variance from indictment when a court instructs according to both prongs of a statute when the indictment only charged one prong of the statute.
The trustworthiness of a statement against interest hearsay exception refers to the statement actually made, not the trustworthiness of the reporting. No confrontation clause issue in statement to fellow detainee.
No plain error in admission of statements of prior bad acts/character, as gov't was required to correct.
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/144645.P.pdf
No variance from indictment when a court instructs according to both prongs of a statute when the indictment only charged one prong of the statute.
The trustworthiness of a statement against interest hearsay exception refers to the statement actually made, not the trustworthiness of the reporting. No confrontation clause issue in statement to fellow detainee.
No plain error in admission of statements of prior bad acts/character, as gov't was required to correct.
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/144645.P.pdf
First Circuit: Harrington v. Simmons
Crim, FRCrimP
Indictment not duplicative, as fraudulent schemes are inherently complex, and the scheme had a discrete sole desired outcome - a desire to score a run, not to hit a double and then steal two bases.
No variance from indictment given the diversity of interests of those who sustained losses, e.g., lenders, borrowers. No prejudice, as single theory.
The misstatements to lenders need only have a tendency to influence the lenders decisions to be considered material -- actual reliance need not be proven.
Given the structure and conduct of deft's organization, intent can be fairly inferred.
Court'd decision to deny funding for expert witness was without clear error, given concerns as to materiality and admissibility.
Where ten of the eleven counts are severed just before the case goes to the jury, a general directive to ignore the evidence offered in support of the counts sufficed.
Restitution challenge waived by spoken acceptance by counsel at trial, despite lack of victim statements.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/14-1325P-01A.pdf
Indictment not duplicative, as fraudulent schemes are inherently complex, and the scheme had a discrete sole desired outcome - a desire to score a run, not to hit a double and then steal two bases.
No variance from indictment given the diversity of interests of those who sustained losses, e.g., lenders, borrowers. No prejudice, as single theory.
The misstatements to lenders need only have a tendency to influence the lenders decisions to be considered material -- actual reliance need not be proven.
Given the structure and conduct of deft's organization, intent can be fairly inferred.
Court'd decision to deny funding for expert witness was without clear error, given concerns as to materiality and admissibility.
Where ten of the eleven counts are severed just before the case goes to the jury, a general directive to ignore the evidence offered in support of the counts sufficed.
Restitution challenge waived by spoken acceptance by counsel at trial, despite lack of victim statements.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/14-1325P-01A.pdf
First Circuit: US v. Manso-Cepeda
Bankruptcy
A denial of discharge due to insufficient record-keeping in the pre-petition period is not a strict liability standard, but can be offset by a justification that is objectively reasonable.
Claiming that the petitioner was not the true principal for the assets in question is insufficient basis for denying discharge based on the unexplained dissipation of assets.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/15-9005P-01A.pdf
A denial of discharge due to insufficient record-keeping in the pre-petition period is not a strict liability standard, but can be offset by a justification that is objectively reasonable.
Claiming that the petitioner was not the true principal for the assets in question is insufficient basis for denying discharge based on the unexplained dissipation of assets.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/15-9005P-01A.pdf
First Circuit: US v. Prieto
Crim - accessory
Sufficient evidence for conviction for accessory to use of a firearm where jury might have inferred deft's prior knowledge of possession and deft didn't stop the car and walk away after possession was revealed.
Challenge to jury instructions might have been more appropriate.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/14-2068P-01A.pdf
Sufficient evidence for conviction for accessory to use of a firearm where jury might have inferred deft's prior knowledge of possession and deft didn't stop the car and walk away after possession was revealed.
Challenge to jury instructions might have been more appropriate.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/14-2068P-01A.pdf
Federal Circuit: Mortgage Grader Inc. v. First Choice Loan Services
Patent, FRCP
Sufficient cause to overwhelm presumption of non-diligence when an element of claim dropped in initial proceedings is revived in final proceedings, given intervening holding from S.Ct.
Consideration of cause does not necessitate inquiry into prejudice.
Claims not patent-eligible, as they are directed at abstract ideas without an inventive concept.
Limited consideration of expert depositions permissible in summary judgment.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1415.Opinion.1-15-2016.1.PDF
Sufficient cause to overwhelm presumption of non-diligence when an element of claim dropped in initial proceedings is revived in final proceedings, given intervening holding from S.Ct.
Consideration of cause does not necessitate inquiry into prejudice.
Claims not patent-eligible, as they are directed at abstract ideas without an inventive concept.
Limited consideration of expert depositions permissible in summary judgment.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1415.Opinion.1-15-2016.1.PDF
Eleventh Circuit: Christopher Brooks v. Warden, et al.
Death Penalty.
District court denial of stay upheld, as petitioner didn't make sufficient showing of there being a better combination of drugs to cause death.
Claim time barred, as it accrued on the switch to lethal injection, and not when the drugs at issue changed.
The fact that other suits were challenging the method of prompting death doesn't affect the equities of considering the petitioner's delay in joining a similar suit.
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201515732.pdf
[Brief editorial: The death penalty is morally unjustifiable. -CB]
District court denial of stay upheld, as petitioner didn't make sufficient showing of there being a better combination of drugs to cause death.
Claim time barred, as it accrued on the switch to lethal injection, and not when the drugs at issue changed.
The fact that other suits were challenging the method of prompting death doesn't affect the equities of considering the petitioner's delay in joining a similar suit.
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201515732.pdf
[Brief editorial: The death penalty is morally unjustifiable. -CB]
Tenth Circuit: Christy v. Travelers Indemnity
Insurance, Contracts
Not disclosing a change of form from sole proprietorship to corporation is not, as a matter of law, a material misrepresentation under state law when renewing an insurance policy.
Questions of duty that sound in tort implicate public policy; questions of duty involving contracts don't.
Breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing is not necessarily a question of fact.
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/14/14-2168.pdf
Not disclosing a change of form from sole proprietorship to corporation is not, as a matter of law, a material misrepresentation under state law when renewing an insurance policy.
Questions of duty that sound in tort implicate public policy; questions of duty involving contracts don't.
Breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing is not necessarily a question of fact.
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/14/14-2168.pdf
Tenth Circuit: NLRB v. Community Health Services
Labor
Deference to NRLB award of back pay without offset for interim wage where the employee was adversely affected, but employment didn't end, so there was no explicit duty to mitigate.
Dissent: No basis in statute for the purposes outlined by the adjudication.
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/14/14-9614.pdf
Deference to NRLB award of back pay without offset for interim wage where the employee was adversely affected, but employment didn't end, so there was no explicit duty to mitigate.
Dissent: No basis in statute for the purposes outlined by the adjudication.
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/14/14-9614.pdf
Tenth Circuit: American Fidelity Assurance v. Bank of New York Mellon
FRCP, General Jurisdiction
Party waived general jurisdiction challenge, as it didn't raise it initially, and the recent S. Ct. holding in Daimler restated the already-prevailing standards for general jurisdiction.
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/15/15-6009.pdf
Party waived general jurisdiction challenge, as it didn't raise it initially, and the recent S. Ct. holding in Daimler restated the already-prevailing standards for general jurisdiction.
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/15/15-6009.pdf
Ninth Circuit: Hector Ramirez v. Loretta E. Lynch
Immigration, Predicates
State statute is not categorically an aggravated felony for immigration purposes, and the statute isn't divisible.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/20/08-72896.pdf
State statute is not categorically an aggravated felony for immigration purposes, and the statute isn't divisible.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/20/08-72896.pdf
Ninth Circuit: Nat'l Federation of the Blind v. United Airlines Inc.
Preemption, administration
State law claims not expressly preempted by Federal airline deregulation act, as the information kiosk at issue is an amenity peripheral to the business of transportation.
State law claims preempted by an implied field preemption manifested by a Federal regulation promulgated during the pendency of the suit.
Concurrence: no need to reach the first part of the holding.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/19/11-16240.pdf
State law claims not expressly preempted by Federal airline deregulation act, as the information kiosk at issue is an amenity peripheral to the business of transportation.
State law claims preempted by an implied field preemption manifested by a Federal regulation promulgated during the pendency of the suit.
Concurrence: no need to reach the first part of the holding.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/19/11-16240.pdf
Seventh Circuit: USA v. Julius Lawson
Crim, Brady
Single witness' testimony sufficient evidence for conviction for use of a firearm.
Jury instruction holding that deft could know of weapon either before or during the crime (proper: before) held harmless error.
Brady error in withholding of police misconduct file not material, as the officer in question provided merely forensic evidence.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-19/C:14-3276:J:Kanne:aut:T:fnOp:N:1688989:S:0
Single witness' testimony sufficient evidence for conviction for use of a firearm.
Jury instruction holding that deft could know of weapon either before or during the crime (proper: before) held harmless error.
Brady error in withholding of police misconduct file not material, as the officer in question provided merely forensic evidence.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-19/C:14-3276:J:Kanne:aut:T:fnOp:N:1688989:S:0
Seventh Circuit: Thomas Costello v. BeavEx, Incorporated
Preemption, Class Actions
Federal motor carrier act does not expressly preempt state wage law, as the purposes of the state law aren't relevant to the purposes of the Federal act.
State statute seeming to require individual assessment of plantiff's future employment doesn't categorically bar a finding of predominance for class certification.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-19/C:15-1110:J:Kanne:aut:T:fnOp:N:1689158:S:0
Federal motor carrier act does not expressly preempt state wage law, as the purposes of the state law aren't relevant to the purposes of the Federal act.
State statute seeming to require individual assessment of plantiff's future employment doesn't categorically bar a finding of predominance for class certification.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-19/C:15-1110:J:Kanne:aut:T:fnOp:N:1689158:S:0
Seventh Circuit: USA v. Rico J. Speed
Sentencing
For plain error to apply on appeal, trial court must specifically ask parties whether the main arguments in mitigation have been addressed -- a simple "anything further" doesn't suffice.
Where a condition of the sentence does not appear in the statute or guidelines, review is for abuse of discretion, not plain error.
Sentence conditions (association with those convicted of felony, consumption of alcohol, dangerous weapons) upheld.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-19/C:15-1561:J:Manion:aut:T:fnOp:N:1688655:S:0
For plain error to apply on appeal, trial court must specifically ask parties whether the main arguments in mitigation have been addressed -- a simple "anything further" doesn't suffice.
Where a condition of the sentence does not appear in the statute or guidelines, review is for abuse of discretion, not plain error.
Sentence conditions (association with those convicted of felony, consumption of alcohol, dangerous weapons) upheld.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-19/C:15-1561:J:Manion:aut:T:fnOp:N:1688655:S:0
Fifth Circuit: Jerry Hartfield v. Frank Osborne, Sheriff
Habeas
When a state prisoner's speedy trial Federal Habeas claim shifts from a pretrial Habeas to a postconviction Habeas during the pendency of the appeal, the appeals court must dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
(The only issue in the COA was the threshold question of whether the pretrial Habeas standard for state exhaustion was met.)
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-20275-CV0.pdf
When a state prisoner's speedy trial Federal Habeas claim shifts from a pretrial Habeas to a postconviction Habeas during the pendency of the appeal, the appeals court must dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
(The only issue in the COA was the threshold question of whether the pretrial Habeas standard for state exhaustion was met.)
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-20275-CV0.pdf
Third Circuit: In re: Thomas C. Wettach
Bankruptcy, Burdens
At trial, bankruptcy petitioner has production burden to show that funds transferred were used for household purposes, although the creditor still retains the burden of persuasion on the voidability of the transfer.
Burden under constructive transfer state statute is identical to the Federal.
No clear error in trial court factual findings on the transfer.
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/143140p.pdf
At trial, bankruptcy petitioner has production burden to show that funds transferred were used for household purposes, although the creditor still retains the burden of persuasion on the voidability of the transfer.
Burden under constructive transfer state statute is identical to the Federal.
No clear error in trial court factual findings on the transfer.
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/143140p.pdf
Second Circuit: T.K. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ.
IDEA
School system's refusal to discuss bullying concerns with parents was a denial of a free appropriate public education under the act.
Finding in equity that private school funds were reimbursable.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/0b6bfc4e-816c-4c93-9b12-e9c8a95d89c0/1/doc/14-3078-cv_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/0b6bfc4e-816c-4c93-9b12-e9c8a95d89c0/1/hilite/
School system's refusal to discuss bullying concerns with parents was a denial of a free appropriate public education under the act.
Finding in equity that private school funds were reimbursable.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/0b6bfc4e-816c-4c93-9b12-e9c8a95d89c0/1/doc/14-3078-cv_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/0b6bfc4e-816c-4c93-9b12-e9c8a95d89c0/1/hilite/
Federal Circuit: Nan Ya Plastics Corporation v. US
Trade, Administrative
As the plain terms of the statute permit the agency to consider any information before it in setting the rate, an unusually high benchmark does not offend the limitations of accuracy and commercial reality.
As the rate is based on a primary source, the corroboration requirement is not triggered.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1054.Opinion.1-14-2016.1.PDF
As the plain terms of the statute permit the agency to consider any information before it in setting the rate, an unusually high benchmark does not offend the limitations of accuracy and commercial reality.
As the rate is based on a primary source, the corroboration requirement is not triggered.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1054.Opinion.1-14-2016.1.PDF
DC Circuit: Douglas Huron v. Beth F. Cobert
Standing, Administrative
Absent a showing of an extraordinary circumstance, a plaintiff cannot assert Article III Standing at trial and Statutory/Procedural Standing on appeal.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/933D62CF9FD20DA485257F3F0052C5F1/$file/14-5042-1594112.pdf
Absent a showing of an extraordinary circumstance, a plaintiff cannot assert Article III Standing at trial and Statutory/Procedural Standing on appeal.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/933D62CF9FD20DA485257F3F0052C5F1/$file/14-5042-1594112.pdf
Eighth Circuit: CRP Holdings A-1, LLC v. Casey D. O'Sullivan
Property, Bankruptcy
As the unenforcable lien against a property held by a tenancy of the entirety clouded title, it was fixed for purposes of the Bankruptcy Code, and can therefore can be avoided according to the terms of the Act.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/156020P.pdf
As the unenforcable lien against a property held by a tenancy of the entirety clouded title, it was fixed for purposes of the Bankruptcy Code, and can therefore can be avoided according to the terms of the Act.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/156020P.pdf
Eighth Circuit: David Bonenberger v. St. Louis Metro. Police Dept.
Title VII, S1983 Conspiracy
Denial of sought-for promotion is an adverse employment action where the change would have been marked by a material change in working conditions.
Conspiracy verdict upheld where the jury might have inferred that knowledge of the discrimination demonstrated active complicity in the discrimination.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/143696P.pdf
Denial of sought-for promotion is an adverse employment action where the change would have been marked by a material change in working conditions.
Conspiracy verdict upheld where the jury might have inferred that knowledge of the discrimination demonstrated active complicity in the discrimination.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/143696P.pdf
Federal Circuit: Muller v. GPO
Administrative, Arbitration
Statutory time period for arbitration is a housekeeping rule, not a jurisdictional limit on the scope of arbitrablility of claim.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-3032.Opinion.1-12-2016.1.PDF
Statutory time period for arbitration is a housekeeping rule, not a jurisdictional limit on the scope of arbitrablility of claim.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-3032.Opinion.1-12-2016.1.PDF
Ninth Circuit: USA v. Estate of Wayne Hage
Property, Administrative
Water rights merely alow for access to divert the water - there are no appurtenant grazing rights implied as an easement of necessity.
Filing of government suit is not a final agency decision subject to review under the APA.
Reassigned on remand.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/15/13-16974.pdf
Water rights merely alow for access to divert the water - there are no appurtenant grazing rights implied as an easement of necessity.
Filing of government suit is not a final agency decision subject to review under the APA.
Reassigned on remand.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/15/13-16974.pdf
Eighth Circuit: United States v. Justin Janis
Tribe Law, Agency
While tribal police, as a class, are considered federal employees as a matter of law, as they are enforcing order pursuant to a contract with the BIA, the question of whether any person is acting as a tribal officer is a question of fact to be resolved at trial.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/143888P.pdf
While tribal police, as a class, are considered federal employees as a matter of law, as they are enforcing order pursuant to a contract with the BIA, the question of whether any person is acting as a tribal officer is a question of fact to be resolved at trial.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/143888P.pdf
Eighth Circuit: Shane Bailey v. Don Feltmann
S1983 - DP/4A
No error in grant of qualified immunity on claim of unconscionable delay in medical treatment, as there was no clearly established right under the Fourth Amendment or Due Process.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/143859P.pdf
No error in grant of qualified immunity on claim of unconscionable delay in medical treatment, as there was no clearly established right under the Fourth Amendment or Due Process.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/143859P.pdf
Eighth Circuit: Inoel Gonzalez Cano v. Loretta E. Lynch
Immigration
Sufficient evidence for agency finding that petitioner's social group was too ill-defined to warrant relief.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/143730P.pdf
Sufficient evidence for agency finding that petitioner's social group was too ill-defined to warrant relief.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/143730P.pdf
Seventh Circuit: Kelly Sonnenberg v. Amaya Group Holdings (IOM) Ltd
Statutory Construction
Anti-gambling statute does not have an implied cause of action for third parties to recover gambling losses from websites that hosted the game, but that were not the winning parties in the game.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-15/C:15-1887:J:Posner:aut:T:fnOp:N:1688160:S:0
Anti-gambling statute does not have an implied cause of action for third parties to recover gambling losses from websites that hosted the game, but that were not the winning parties in the game.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-15/C:15-1887:J:Posner:aut:T:fnOp:N:1688160:S:0
Fourth Circuit: Philip McFarland v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Contracts
Under state law, lack of a showing on substantive unconscionability of the agreement does not bar a finding of unconscionable inducement.
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/142126.P.pdf
Under state law, lack of a showing on substantive unconscionability of the agreement does not bar a finding of unconscionable inducement.
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/142126.P.pdf
Third Circuit: In Re Trump Entertainment Resorts
Labor / Bankruptcy
The Bankruptcy Code provisions referencing CBAs apply to the terms of the prior CBA left in place after the end of a prior CBA -- the District Court therefore had jurisdiction under the Code to allow modification of the terms of the agreement, subject to the close scrutiny of the court.
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/144807p.pdf
The Bankruptcy Code provisions referencing CBAs apply to the terms of the prior CBA left in place after the end of a prior CBA -- the District Court therefore had jurisdiction under the Code to allow modification of the terms of the agreement, subject to the close scrutiny of the court.
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/144807p.pdf
Federal Circuit: McCarthy v. MSPB
Administrative
Denial of motion to reopen a case when issued in the form of a letter is sufficiently final for review when the motion is based on an intervening change in the substantive law.
Where the statute gives the board the task of reopening a case, the decision of the board is subject to APA review.
As complaint phased the substantive issues but not the legal ones, insufficient exhaustion of administrative remedies.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-3072.Opinion.1-12-2016.1.PDF
Denial of motion to reopen a case when issued in the form of a letter is sufficiently final for review when the motion is based on an intervening change in the substantive law.
Where the statute gives the board the task of reopening a case, the decision of the board is subject to APA review.
As complaint phased the substantive issues but not the legal ones, insufficient exhaustion of administrative remedies.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-3072.Opinion.1-12-2016.1.PDF
Federal Circuit: Hymas v. US
Administrative
Cooperative agreements were initiated under permissible agency rulemaking and are therefore not procurement contracts subject to Tucker Act jurisdiction.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/14-5150.Opinion.1-12-2016.1.PDF
Cooperative agreements were initiated under permissible agency rulemaking and are therefore not procurement contracts subject to Tucker Act jurisdiction.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/14-5150.Opinion.1-12-2016.1.PDF
DC Circuit: R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Administrative
Summary judgment based on appointment of committee members with conflicts of interests was error, as the claimed harms were too remote and speculative -- there was no proof that the committee's report would prompt an eventual rulemaking, no proof of confidential disclosures, and no evidence of inappropriate shaping of the committee's report.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/4535A54A84790EC685257F3B0054CC05/$file/14-5226-1593800.pdf
Summary judgment based on appointment of committee members with conflicts of interests was error, as the claimed harms were too remote and speculative -- there was no proof that the committee's report would prompt an eventual rulemaking, no proof of confidential disclosures, and no evidence of inappropriate shaping of the committee's report.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/4535A54A84790EC685257F3B0054CC05/$file/14-5226-1593800.pdf
DC Circuit: National Security Counselors v. CIA
Fees
A bona fide corporation with an identity distinct from that of the natural person who represents it in court is eligible for fee-shifting provisions of FOIA. In house counsel presumptively distinct from corporation, despite close involvement and personal commitment.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/EBD08628AB46B5D185257F3B0054CBEF/$file/14-5171-1593790.pdf
A bona fide corporation with an identity distinct from that of the natural person who represents it in court is eligible for fee-shifting provisions of FOIA. In house counsel presumptively distinct from corporation, despite close involvement and personal commitment.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/EBD08628AB46B5D185257F3B0054CBEF/$file/14-5171-1593790.pdf
DC Circuit: Silverado Stages, Inc. v. FMCSA
Administrative
Challenge to mechanics of system for challenging material in online database insufficiently developed for review.
Auer deference to agency exempting database from regulatory process.
Notice and comment challenge to findings of safety violations waived here for not being raised in District court.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/6F8CBD8F8930A7CB85257F3B0054CBD0/$file/14-1298-1593796.pdf
Challenge to mechanics of system for challenging material in online database insufficiently developed for review.
Auer deference to agency exempting database from regulatory process.
Notice and comment challenge to findings of safety violations waived here for not being raised in District court.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/6F8CBD8F8930A7CB85257F3B0054CBD0/$file/14-1298-1593796.pdf
Ninth Circuit: Elton Mendoza Rizo v. Loretta E. Lynch
Immigration / Administrative
Remand to IJ doesn't make case insufficiently final for review, as IJ's remit is to provide for the possibility of voluntary departure.
Petitioner insufficiently developed claims against denial of asylum -- insufficient exhaustion.
No constitutional harm in aggressive questioning by IJ.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/14/13-74216.pdf
Remand to IJ doesn't make case insufficiently final for review, as IJ's remit is to provide for the possibility of voluntary departure.
Petitioner insufficiently developed claims against denial of asylum -- insufficient exhaustion.
No constitutional harm in aggressive questioning by IJ.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/14/13-74216.pdf
Ninth Circuit: Steve Klein v. City of Laguna Beach
S1983, Fees
Error to deny fees for S1983 action, as although nominal claims were awarded in a suit seeking compensatory damages, the primary goal of the suit was to change government policy.
No error in denial of fees under state statute, as the other party prevailed on the state law claims.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/14/13-56973.pdf
Error to deny fees for S1983 action, as although nominal claims were awarded in a suit seeking compensatory damages, the primary goal of the suit was to change government policy.
No error in denial of fees under state statute, as the other party prevailed on the state law claims.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/14/13-56973.pdf
Ninth Circuit: USA v. Christopher James
Statutory construction, Crim
Federal statute does not import state standards for the ability to consent -- fundamentally a decision for the jury.
Dissent: (Koz) No ambiguity in statute.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/14/13-10543.pdf
Federal statute does not import state standards for the ability to consent -- fundamentally a decision for the jury.
Dissent: (Koz) No ambiguity in statute.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/14/13-10543.pdf
Ninth Circuit: Grand Jury Investigation
At this hour, the Ninth has posted an opinion and an order appearing to revoke that opinion for redaction. As other cases have been posted since, we'll just link without comment to both the opinion and the order.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/14/15-50450o.pdf
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/01/14/15-50450.pdf
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/14/15-50450o.pdf
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/01/14/15-50450.pdf
Ninth Circuit: USA v. Mark Spengler
White collar, FRE
Deft can challenge exclusion of expert on appeal, even if deft didn't offer any witnesses at trial.
Exclusion of expert under Daubert/6A upheld, as even if investments were ultimately prudent, deft thought his acts fraudulent at the time.
Prosc witnesses' references to deft as fiduciary did not mislead jury.
No error in court not striking count from superseding indictment, despite the improper citation of statute and omission of willfulness element, as willfulness was alleged broadly in the indictment.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/15/14-30042.pdf
Deft can challenge exclusion of expert on appeal, even if deft didn't offer any witnesses at trial.
Exclusion of expert under Daubert/6A upheld, as even if investments were ultimately prudent, deft thought his acts fraudulent at the time.
Prosc witnesses' references to deft as fiduciary did not mislead jury.
No error in court not striking count from superseding indictment, despite the improper citation of statute and omission of willfulness element, as willfulness was alleged broadly in the indictment.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/15/14-30042.pdf
Ninth Circuit: Mike McGee v. China Electric Motor
Securities, Fees
No error in district court's use of lodestar as opposed to percentage of fund, but the lodestar analysis was insufficiently explained.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/15/13-56903.pdf
No error in district court's use of lodestar as opposed to percentage of fund, but the lodestar analysis was insufficiently explained.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/15/13-56903.pdf
Ninth Circuit: Steven Fue v. Marin Biter
Habeas, AEDPA
No error in denial of equitable tolling of AEDPA limit, as petitioner didn't inquire into status of state habeas for fourteen months.
Dissent: State didn't notify, policy reasons against new rule.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/15/12-55307.pdf
No error in denial of equitable tolling of AEDPA limit, as petitioner didn't inquire into status of state habeas for fourteen months.
Dissent: State didn't notify, policy reasons against new rule.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/15/12-55307.pdf
Eighth Circuit: Riceland Foods v. Don Downing
FRCP,
Res judicata effects of partial judgment below made the partial judgment sufficiently final for appeal.
A litigation-specific provision for a subset of parties in a release of claims against a larger group means that litigation-related claims against those not in the subset are not barred as a matter of law.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/143758P.pdf
Res judicata effects of partial judgment below made the partial judgment sufficiently final for appeal.
A litigation-specific provision for a subset of parties in a release of claims against a larger group means that litigation-related claims against those not in the subset are not barred as a matter of law.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/143758P.pdf
Eighth Circuit: Nicole Walker v. United States
Habeas, retroactive application
Plain error not relevant to collateral attack of conviction.
Case extending Apprendi to mandatory minimums isn't retroactive to cases on collateral appeal, because Apprendi itself isn't retroactive.
No constitutional error in lack of assistance of counsel during Certiorari. No statutory error, as the omission of the issue from the petition wouldn't have been ineffective assistance.
Inaccurate guess by deft counsel as to likely sentence did not make plea involuntary.
No error in safety valve counsel at trial and during appeal, denial of evidentiary hearing upheld.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/143700P.pdf
Plain error not relevant to collateral attack of conviction.
Case extending Apprendi to mandatory minimums isn't retroactive to cases on collateral appeal, because Apprendi itself isn't retroactive.
No constitutional error in lack of assistance of counsel during Certiorari. No statutory error, as the omission of the issue from the petition wouldn't have been ineffective assistance.
Inaccurate guess by deft counsel as to likely sentence did not make plea involuntary.
No error in safety valve counsel at trial and during appeal, denial of evidentiary hearing upheld.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/143700P.pdf
Eighth Circuit: United States v. David Tumea
Sentencing.
Within guidelines sentence upheld for weapons possession.
Supervised release condition barring possession of weapons analogues not overbroad, but specific items might be authorized by probation office.
Concurrence: BOP should provide mental health services during term of imprisonment.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/143650P.pdf
Within guidelines sentence upheld for weapons possession.
Supervised release condition barring possession of weapons analogues not overbroad, but specific items might be authorized by probation office.
Concurrence: BOP should provide mental health services during term of imprisonment.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/143650P.pdf
Eighth Circuit: Brent Ballinger v. Cedar County, MO
S1983
Since the state rule keeping prisoners in custody during the pendency of a state appeal while not staying the judicial order ordering their release does not apply to the procedural (direct, apparently) challenge on which the deft prevailed, he did not revert to the status of a pretrial detainee when he prevailed on appeal, and there is no constitutional harm in his being kept in solitary confinement during the state's appeal.
No per se constitutional harm in solitary confinement.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/143576P.pdf
Since the state rule keeping prisoners in custody during the pendency of a state appeal while not staying the judicial order ordering their release does not apply to the procedural (direct, apparently) challenge on which the deft prevailed, he did not revert to the status of a pretrial detainee when he prevailed on appeal, and there is no constitutional harm in his being kept in solitary confinement during the state's appeal.
No per se constitutional harm in solitary confinement.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/143576P.pdf
Eighth Circuit: United States v. James Robert Carlson
Analogue Act, FRE
Act not unconstitutional, per S.Ct. US.
No error in permissive inference instruction allowing jury to find knowledge of similar chemical structure of the drug based on knowledge of similar pharmacological effects, given deft's knowledge of chemical structures of the materials.
No abuse of discretion in admission of expert under Daubert, as methodological doubts go to weight of evidence and not admissibility.
Government spokesman's affirmation of industry statement that they planned to expand their distribution of unscheduled substances didn't create a defense of entrapment by estoppel.
FDCA violation established by misleading sale, not a knowing violation of the terms of the act.
No error of use of sentencing guidelines for scheduled substances as basis for sentence imposed for nonscheduled substances.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/142986P.pdf
Act not unconstitutional, per S.Ct. US.
No error in permissive inference instruction allowing jury to find knowledge of similar chemical structure of the drug based on knowledge of similar pharmacological effects, given deft's knowledge of chemical structures of the materials.
No abuse of discretion in admission of expert under Daubert, as methodological doubts go to weight of evidence and not admissibility.
Government spokesman's affirmation of industry statement that they planned to expand their distribution of unscheduled substances didn't create a defense of entrapment by estoppel.
FDCA violation established by misleading sale, not a knowing violation of the terms of the act.
No error of use of sentencing guidelines for scheduled substances as basis for sentence imposed for nonscheduled substances.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/142986P.pdf
Sixth Circuit: Juan Esquivel-Quintana v. Loretta E. Lynch
Immigration
Chevron deference to agency ruling that violations of a certain state law fall within the removability statute.
Rule of lenity does not control, given S. Ct. U.S. holdings.
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/16a0012p-06.pdf
Chevron deference to agency ruling that violations of a certain state law fall within the removability statute.
Rule of lenity does not control, given S. Ct. U.S. holdings.
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/16a0012p-06.pdf
Sixth Circuit: Richmond Health Facilities v. Adrianne Nichols
Arbitration, dicta/holding
Since state law holds that a wrongful death action is held by the next of kin and not the decedent, a release signed by the decedent cannot compel arbitration of the claim.
Arbitration act does not preempt the state law, as the state law does not bar compelled arbitration of the claim.
Rule in earlier holding by state supreme court was an alternative holding, not dicta.
Earlier holding can be retroactive, as it was a restatement of the law, and the state courts have since retroactively applied it.
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/16a0011p-06.pdf
Since state law holds that a wrongful death action is held by the next of kin and not the decedent, a release signed by the decedent cannot compel arbitration of the claim.
Arbitration act does not preempt the state law, as the state law does not bar compelled arbitration of the claim.
Rule in earlier holding by state supreme court was an alternative holding, not dicta.
Earlier holding can be retroactive, as it was a restatement of the law, and the state courts have since retroactively applied it.
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/16a0011p-06.pdf
Fourth Circuit: Donna Cisson v. C. R. Bard, Incorporated
FRE, Torts
No abuse of discretion in holding that compliance with a federal regulation was more prejudicial than probative in a state product liability claim, as the federal reg was a restatement of existing practices which merely required substantial compliance with similar product strategies.
Also correctly barred from punitive damages consideration, as minimal compliance wouldn't bar finding of high willfulness.
Error in allowing contents of MSDS in for the truth of the matter asserted as a list/directory, treatise, -- correct posture would have been for deft's knowledge - the difference is harmless.
No error in court's use of strict liability tort instruction as opposed to medical malpractice instruction in action involving manufacturer of medical devices.
Seven to one punitive damages ratio not constitutionally excessive.
Since the state created the right of action, state can take a percentage of the punitive award.
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/151102.P.pdf
No abuse of discretion in holding that compliance with a federal regulation was more prejudicial than probative in a state product liability claim, as the federal reg was a restatement of existing practices which merely required substantial compliance with similar product strategies.
Also correctly barred from punitive damages consideration, as minimal compliance wouldn't bar finding of high willfulness.
Error in allowing contents of MSDS in for the truth of the matter asserted as a list/directory, treatise, -- correct posture would have been for deft's knowledge - the difference is harmless.
No error in court's use of strict liability tort instruction as opposed to medical malpractice instruction in action involving manufacturer of medical devices.
Seven to one punitive damages ratio not constitutionally excessive.
Since the state created the right of action, state can take a percentage of the punitive award.
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/151102.P.pdf
Third Circuit: Josh Finkelman v. National Football League
Standing.
No Article III standing for challenge to NFL ticket prices, as no ticket was purchased, and the plaintiff didn't show that a more democratic ticketing system would have allowed him to go to the Super Bowl.
Second plaintiff who purchased ticket has no Article III standing, as he didn't attempt the lottery in additional to the premium ticket purchase, and can't therefore challenge the lottery practices, and the harm sustained by a secondary market purchase isn't the difference from face, but the unknowable difference from a ticket purchased in another version of the market.
Analogy to Twombly - facts consistent with a thing versus the thing itself.
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/151435p.pdf
No Article III standing for challenge to NFL ticket prices, as no ticket was purchased, and the plaintiff didn't show that a more democratic ticketing system would have allowed him to go to the Super Bowl.
Second plaintiff who purchased ticket has no Article III standing, as he didn't attempt the lottery in additional to the premium ticket purchase, and can't therefore challenge the lottery practices, and the harm sustained by a secondary market purchase isn't the difference from face, but the unknowable difference from a ticket purchased in another version of the market.
Analogy to Twombly - facts consistent with a thing versus the thing itself.
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/151435p.pdf
Second Circuit: Simmons v. Stanberry
Copyright- Statute of limitations
An exclusive license is identical to ownership for the purpose of the Copyright statute of limitations, which runs from the time that the initial licensee is aware of the primary infringement; the clock is not restarted by each attendant infringement.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/fb6e4ccb-6ffa-40f1-b0a8-b38f555365b5/1/doc/14-3106_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/fb6e4ccb-6ffa-40f1-b0a8-b38f555365b5/1/hilite/
An exclusive license is identical to ownership for the purpose of the Copyright statute of limitations, which runs from the time that the initial licensee is aware of the primary infringement; the clock is not restarted by each attendant infringement.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/fb6e4ccb-6ffa-40f1-b0a8-b38f555365b5/1/doc/14-3106_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/fb6e4ccb-6ffa-40f1-b0a8-b38f555365b5/1/hilite/
Seventh Circuit: USA v. Acasio Sanchez
Sentencing
Sufficient control over premises for sentencing bump, harmless error anyway.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-13/C:15-1356:J:Manion:aut:T:fnOp:N:1686660:S:0
Sufficient control over premises for sentencing bump, harmless error anyway.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-13/C:15-1356:J:Manion:aut:T:fnOp:N:1686660:S:0
Fifth Circuit: Seth B., et al v. Orleans Parish School Board
IDEA
Standard of appellate review of district court statutory review for reimbursement is mixed - facts and law.
Statute requires that local school board prove its claim in a hearing, not call a hearing to prove its claim -- the board can therefore establish its case at a timely hearing invoked by the other party.
Statute requiring the school board to establish its case doesn't shift the burden of persuasion in the district court - the claimant still must carry.
Statutory language describing third party evaluations describes the substance, not the evaluator. Private evaluations must substantially match the substantive standards of the public evaluations, despite the opacity of the regulatory criteria.
Dissent: You just made that last bit up.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-30164-CV0.pdf
Standard of appellate review of district court statutory review for reimbursement is mixed - facts and law.
Statute requires that local school board prove its claim in a hearing, not call a hearing to prove its claim -- the board can therefore establish its case at a timely hearing invoked by the other party.
Statute requiring the school board to establish its case doesn't shift the burden of persuasion in the district court - the claimant still must carry.
Statutory language describing third party evaluations describes the substance, not the evaluator. Private evaluations must substantially match the substantive standards of the public evaluations, despite the opacity of the regulatory criteria.
Dissent: You just made that last bit up.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-30164-CV0.pdf
Fifth Circuit: Loc 731 I.B. of T. Excavators v. Diodes, Incorporated
Securities, FRCP
Insufficiently strong inference of scienter in securities pleading, as top management was not necessarily aware of the specificities of the publicly-disclosed labor issues, early shipments would exacerbate the alleged labor troubles, and the sales of stock represented a small percentage of the executive's investments in the company.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/14/14-41141-CV0.pdf
Insufficiently strong inference of scienter in securities pleading, as top management was not necessarily aware of the specificities of the publicly-disclosed labor issues, early shipments would exacerbate the alleged labor troubles, and the sales of stock represented a small percentage of the executive's investments in the company.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/14/14-41141-CV0.pdf
First Circuit: Copia Communications, LLC v. AMResorts, LP
Personal Jurisdiction
Insufficient purposeful availment of things Massachusetts to hale a Jamaica-based company into Massachusetts court, as it merely received shipments from Massachusetts and signed a contract identifying the counterparty as a Massachusetts corporation with a Massachusetts address.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/15-1330P-01A.pdf
Insufficient purposeful availment of things Massachusetts to hale a Jamaica-based company into Massachusetts court, as it merely received shipments from Massachusetts and signed a contract identifying the counterparty as a Massachusetts corporation with a Massachusetts address.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/15-1330P-01A.pdf
First Circuit: Giroux v. Federal National Mortgage
FRCP
Court does not violate the FRCP by summary denial of a 60(b) motion.
New evidence that is merely cumulative to past assertions is not a basis for a 60(b)2 motion.
Fraud in the foreclosure is distinct from fraud in the litigation, and therefore not a basis for a 60(b)3 motion.
Except in cases of willful default, a summary denial of a 60(b)6 motion on res judicata grounds doesn't violate the FRCP.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/15-1270P-01A.pdf
Court does not violate the FRCP by summary denial of a 60(b) motion.
New evidence that is merely cumulative to past assertions is not a basis for a 60(b)2 motion.
Fraud in the foreclosure is distinct from fraud in the litigation, and therefore not a basis for a 60(b)3 motion.
Except in cases of willful default, a summary denial of a 60(b)6 motion on res judicata grounds doesn't violate the FRCP.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/15-1270P-01A.pdf
First Circuit: Harrison v. Granite Bay Care, Inc.
FRCP, Principal Place of Business
Despite the fact that the out-of-state corporate headquarters adopts a hands-off approach to the day to day running of the company, the nerve center test designates it as the principal place of business when the overall goals of the corporation are set there and the upper management personnel decisions are made from there.
The relevant exception in the state whistleblower statute derives from the motivations of the employee, and not from his or her duties. An employee whose duties include raising concerns is not precluded from seeking relief under the statute so long as his or her intent was to raise the concern, and not just to follow a direct instruction by a superior in the corporation.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/14-1988P-01A.pdf
Despite the fact that the out-of-state corporate headquarters adopts a hands-off approach to the day to day running of the company, the nerve center test designates it as the principal place of business when the overall goals of the corporation are set there and the upper management personnel decisions are made from there.
The relevant exception in the state whistleblower statute derives from the motivations of the employee, and not from his or her duties. An employee whose duties include raising concerns is not precluded from seeking relief under the statute so long as his or her intent was to raise the concern, and not just to follow a direct instruction by a superior in the corporation.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/14-1988P-01A.pdf
First Circuit: Scott v. Gelb
Batson Habeas.
In holding that sufficient inference of racial discrimination at voir dire was not established by petitioner, since although the court sua sponte offered a nondiscriminatory reason for the strike, it was not generally indifferent to the racial composition of the jury, the state supreme court's denial of state Habeas was not an unreasonable application of the law.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/14-1953P-01A.pdf
In holding that sufficient inference of racial discrimination at voir dire was not established by petitioner, since although the court sua sponte offered a nondiscriminatory reason for the strike, it was not generally indifferent to the racial composition of the jury, the state supreme court's denial of state Habeas was not an unreasonable application of the law.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/14-1953P-01A.pdf
First Circuit: Hurtado v. Lynch
Immigration.
Quick affirmation of agency's denial of reconsideration, as arguments were available earlier but not raised in earlier proceedings.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/14-1751P-01A.pdf
Quick affirmation of agency's denial of reconsideration, as arguments were available earlier but not raised in earlier proceedings.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/14-1751P-01A.pdf
First Circuit: US v. Ramos-Pineiro
Trial Practice, Per Curiam (Souter on panel)
Judge's brusque comments were not evidence of plain error.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/14-1462U-01A.pdf
Judge's brusque comments were not evidence of plain error.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/14-1462U-01A.pdf
Federal Circuit: National Org. of Veterans Advoc. v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
Veterans, Administrative
Construing things in the manner most favorable to the veteran doesn't bar Chevron deference to decisions by Veterans Affairs.
Given statutory rulemaking mandate to the Secretary, rule requiring remand to agency from Board to substitute a claimant for a deceased petitioner is not arbitrary & capricious.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-7024.Opinion.1-11-2016.1.PDF
Construing things in the manner most favorable to the veteran doesn't bar Chevron deference to decisions by Veterans Affairs.
Given statutory rulemaking mandate to the Secretary, rule requiring remand to agency from Board to substitute a claimant for a deceased petitioner is not arbitrary & capricious.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-7024.Opinion.1-11-2016.1.PDF
Federal Circuit: Ethicon Endo-Surgery Inc. v. Covidien LP
Patent, Due Process
Absent claims of extrajudicial influence, no Due Process harm in the initial and final review being performed by the same panel.
Statute does not bar.
Review correctly identified innovation as obvious, as infringing prior art that incorporated the innovation was primarily marketed under other aspects.
Dissent: As statute assigns one level of adjudication to the Director and one to the Board, there must be separate panels.
[Again, we don't know many things, but we especially don't know Patent Law. Just trying for comprehensive access to slips.]
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/14-1771.Opinion.1-8-2016.1.PDF
Absent claims of extrajudicial influence, no Due Process harm in the initial and final review being performed by the same panel.
Statute does not bar.
Review correctly identified innovation as obvious, as infringing prior art that incorporated the innovation was primarily marketed under other aspects.
Dissent: As statute assigns one level of adjudication to the Director and one to the Board, there must be separate panels.
[Again, we don't know many things, but we especially don't know Patent Law. Just trying for comprehensive access to slips.]
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/14-1771.Opinion.1-8-2016.1.PDF
Tenth Circuit: Martin Marietta Materials v. Kansas DOT
Administrative, Procedural DP
Federal statutory requirement that changes to state agency's plan receive federal approval in order to receive certain federal funds does not create a property interest assertable by the suppliers affected by the change.
Supplier is not in privvity with contractor in contract with state government.
Being on a list of approved suppliers does not create a property interest.
No mutually explicit understanding.
No liberty interest imperiled by defamation by removal from approved supplier list, as the test results were true.
No showing of concrete harm from gov't statements.
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/13/13-3314.pdf
Federal statutory requirement that changes to state agency's plan receive federal approval in order to receive certain federal funds does not create a property interest assertable by the suppliers affected by the change.
Supplier is not in privvity with contractor in contract with state government.
Being on a list of approved suppliers does not create a property interest.
No mutually explicit understanding.
No liberty interest imperiled by defamation by removal from approved supplier list, as the test results were true.
No showing of concrete harm from gov't statements.
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/13/13-3314.pdf
Tenth Circuit: Tripodi v. Welch
FRCP, Bankruptcy
Default judgment in securities action not susceptible to attack on the basis that the notes described in the pleadings were not securities, as they are not barred as a matter of law from being considered securities.
Securities judgment properly held nondischargable in bankruptcy, as relevant nondischargablilty statute requires a judicial order or verdict.
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/14/14-4084.pdf
Default judgment in securities action not susceptible to attack on the basis that the notes described in the pleadings were not securities, as they are not barred as a matter of law from being considered securities.
Securities judgment properly held nondischargable in bankruptcy, as relevant nondischargablilty statute requires a judicial order or verdict.
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/14/14-4084.pdf
Eighth Circuit: United States v. Peter Giambalvo
Tax, Statute of Limitations, FRE
Parenthetical inclusion of offense in statute did not incorporate the statute of limitations for the offense.
Testimony as to impact of tax-avoidance book properly excluded, as subjective reliance of the deft is the sole criterion.
Statements on direct by gov't expert did not open the door to testimony about the general lack of a tax obligation, as the actual amount objectively due is immaterial to the subjective belief in the falsity of a tax filing.
The fact that a zero-income 1040 filing is possibly not a tax return as a matter of law doesn't bar a prosecution for filing a false form.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/151136P.pdf
Parenthetical inclusion of offense in statute did not incorporate the statute of limitations for the offense.
Testimony as to impact of tax-avoidance book properly excluded, as subjective reliance of the deft is the sole criterion.
Statements on direct by gov't expert did not open the door to testimony about the general lack of a tax obligation, as the actual amount objectively due is immaterial to the subjective belief in the falsity of a tax filing.
The fact that a zero-income 1040 filing is possibly not a tax return as a matter of law doesn't bar a prosecution for filing a false form.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/151136P.pdf
Eighth Circuit: Charles Mitchael v. Carolyn W. Colvin
SSA, FRCP
As the question of retroactive application of a claims adjudication does not present an objective nondiscretionary agency duty, Federal jurisdiction under the mandamus statute is improper.
No equal protection or due process claim, as rules on retroactive application constitute a legitimate procedural bar, and plaintiffs did not challenge constitutionality of old rule in initial proceeding.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/143220P.pdf
As the question of retroactive application of a claims adjudication does not present an objective nondiscretionary agency duty, Federal jurisdiction under the mandamus statute is improper.
No equal protection or due process claim, as rules on retroactive application constitute a legitimate procedural bar, and plaintiffs did not challenge constitutionality of old rule in initial proceeding.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/143220P.pdf
Seventh Circuit: Roberta Jaburek v. Anthony Foxx
FRCP, Title VII
No error in the denial of motion to reconsider grant of extension of time to file, as opposing counsel had gout.
Summary judgment against plaintiff on lack of promotion upheld, as plaintiff merely claimed that she was doing the work equivalent of the higher position, and never actually applied for the position. Comparators antedated her employment.
Insufficient definition of core tasks.
No retaliation absent proof of cognizable assertion prior to adverse action.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-13/C:15-2165:J:Bauer:aut:T:fnOp:N:1686153:S:0
No error in the denial of motion to reconsider grant of extension of time to file, as opposing counsel had gout.
Summary judgment against plaintiff on lack of promotion upheld, as plaintiff merely claimed that she was doing the work equivalent of the higher position, and never actually applied for the position. Comparators antedated her employment.
Insufficient definition of core tasks.
No retaliation absent proof of cognizable assertion prior to adverse action.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-13/C:15-2165:J:Bauer:aut:T:fnOp:N:1686153:S:0
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)