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
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.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)