[Opinion issued under seal. Redacted version to follow.]
Per Aarsleff A/S v. US
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.
DC Circuit: Carlos Alexander v. WMATA
Discrimination
In considering, for purposes of the statute, whether someone is disabled, courts must also consider whether the employer regarded the person as either having that disability or having a record of that disability.
Under the statute, discretionary administrative exhaustion tolls the borrowed statute of limitations.
Carlos Alexander v. WMATA
In considering, for purposes of the statute, whether someone is disabled, courts must also consider whether the employer regarded the person as either having that disability or having a record of that disability.
Under the statute, discretionary administrative exhaustion tolls the borrowed statute of limitations.
Carlos Alexander v. WMATA
DC Circuit: Jeffrey Swaters v. DOT
Administrative
Agency refusal to release specimen from drug test is consistent with regulations, and neither the denial nor the regulation are arbitrary/capricious, given policy objectives.
No constitutional error from denial of discovery.
Jeffrey Swaters v. DOT
DC Circuit: Chris Stovic v. RRRB
Railroads retirement
Act gives courts APA jurisdiction over denials of requests to reopen.
Denial on merits here.
Chris Stovic v. RRRB
DC Circuit: USA v. Juan Vega
Crim
Stream of commerce suffices for circumstantial evidence that deft intended cocaine to reach US.
Sufficient instruction on mens rea.
Urging in closing that jury serve as community conscience and use of first person singular was harmless error, given strength of case.
False testimony not later corrected by govt was not dispositive.
Not issuing missing evidence instruction on lack of govt records on out of court photo lineups was harmless error.
No Brady violation on late-disclosed photo with attribution problems.
No error in refusal to admit notes frm quesitoning as prior inconsistent statement.
Error in manager/supervisor sentencing bump, as no showing that employees knew they were doing something illegal.
No error in admission of mistaken identification, given curative instruction.
Deft claim that Title III has no extraterritorial application, even if true, would not preclude extraterritorial wiretapping.
No error in denial of cross on why cooperating witnesses were wearing electronic monitoring devices.
Drug making video not overly prejudicial.
USA v. Juan Vega
Ninth Circuit: MK Hillside Partners v. CIR
Tax, Estoppel
Provision in statute giving tax court authority to consider a relevant statute of limitations for individual members of a partnership empowers the court to rule that the statute of limitations has not run at the partnership level.
No judicial estoppel, as the positions aren't inconsistent.
MK Hillside Partners v. CIR
Ninth Circuit: USA v. Steven Grovo
Crim, Conspiracy
Given the general mens rea of conspiracy, asynchronous contact on computer bulletin board suffices for actions "in concert" as required by the statute.
Active participation on a bulletin board suffices to prove furtherance of the board's common goal.
Communication with a closed community can constitute advertisement.
Where victim was harmed by both image and subsequent viewing of image, restitution must be disaggregated.
USA v. Steven Grovo
Given the general mens rea of conspiracy, asynchronous contact on computer bulletin board suffices for actions "in concert" as required by the statute.
Active participation on a bulletin board suffices to prove furtherance of the board's common goal.
Communication with a closed community can constitute advertisement.
Where victim was harmed by both image and subsequent viewing of image, restitution must be disaggregated.
USA v. Steven Grovo
Eighth Circuit: United States v. Yousef Qattoum
Crim.
No abuse of discretion in denial of motion to withdraw plea of guilty, as the deft was likely aware of illegal nature of conduct since he had, among other things, been arrested for it previously.
Use of money orders created a tacit understanding of conspiracy to launder money sufficient that there was no plain error in denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea.
United States v. Yousef Qattoum
Eighth Circuit: Bonnie Dick v. Dickinson State University
Torts.
State statute of limitations appropriately borrowed.
A claim alleging a denial of reasonable accommodation is a discrete instance, one that does not require a comprehensive review of the history.
Insufficient factual basis for adverse employment action claim.
Evidence outside of the statute of limitations period does not create a genuine issue of material fact for purposes of summary judgment.
Bonnie Dick v. Dickinson State University
Seventh Circuit: ACF 2006 Corp v. Timothy Devereux
Easterbrook, Contract, Fees
Quantum meruit adjustment to factual findings at trial.
Funds held in a non interest bearing (IOLTA) account are not subject to prejudgment interest. (Possibly. Confusing.)
Victims of lawyer's taking of client funds while practicing in an LLC have a priority claim over a later-erfected secured interest.
ACF 2006 Corp v. Timothy Devereux
Quantum meruit adjustment to factual findings at trial.
Funds held in a non interest bearing (IOLTA) account are not subject to prejudgment interest. (Possibly. Confusing.)
Victims of lawyer's taking of client funds while practicing in an LLC have a priority claim over a later-erfected secured interest.
ACF 2006 Corp v. Timothy Devereux
Seventh Circuit: John H. Germeraad v. Myrick J. Powers
Bankruptcy, FRCP, Mootness
A denial of a trustee's motion to modify is analogous to a 12(b)6 dismissal, and is therefore sufficiently final for appeal when not attributable to a technical defect.
Just as 60(b) motion might be filed again with a different theory, the fact that the trustee might file several motions does not affect their finality for purposes of review.
As the proposed change would relate back to the filing date of the motion, the expiration of the plan's timeframe doesn't make the controversy moot. The fact that denial of discharge is an equitable decision does not affect mootness.
So long as the motion to modify the plan is filed during the pendency of the plan, it is timely.
Although nothing in the Code authorizes a postconfirmation modification to account for increased income, the decision is an equitable one suggested by the purposes of the Code, and is not subjet to any "good faith" requirement.
John H. Germeraad v. Myrick J. Powers
Sixth Circuit: Gianni-Paolo Ferrari v. Ford Motor Company
Discrimination
As safe employment could be found at the plant, iatrogenic opiod use did not impede the major life activity of working.
No genuine issue of material fact as to whether medical restrictions were pretextual, as the medical evidence is corraborated, and there is no proof that the decisionmakers had reason to doubt the medical opinion.
Insufficient causation for FMLA retaliation claim.
Gianni-Paolo Ferrari v. Ford Motor Company
Fifth Circuit: USA v. Derrick Wheaten
AEDPA, Habeas
Untimely Certiorari petition filed with Supreme Court that is denied without sign that the lateness has been excused does not reset the statutory deadline for filing a subsequent Habeas petition. Circuit footnote suggesting otherwise dicta.
Missed deadline by counsel in direct review did not constitute abandonment, as petitioner was timely notified of the late filing and sent a Habeas pamphlet.
Incorrect telephone guidance by Supreme Court clerk didn't cancel the fact that petitioner was on notice of the deadline.
USA v. Derrick Wheaten
Untimely Certiorari petition filed with Supreme Court that is denied without sign that the lateness has been excused does not reset the statutory deadline for filing a subsequent Habeas petition. Circuit footnote suggesting otherwise dicta.
Missed deadline by counsel in direct review did not constitute abandonment, as petitioner was timely notified of the late filing and sent a Habeas pamphlet.
Incorrect telephone guidance by Supreme Court clerk didn't cancel the fact that petitioner was on notice of the deadline.
USA v. Derrick Wheaten
Fifth Circuit: Keith Harris v. Texas Veterans Commission, et al
Equal Protection, Right to Travel
State statute offering tuition benefits for past military service so long as the student enlisted or was inducted while in the state or a resident in the state has a rational basis, as it encourages positive behavior (enlisting, graduating high school) and keeps other residents of the state from being conscripted.
Right to travel is not implicated, as it imposes no penalty on entrants to the state. Had it been implicated, portability of of benefit and gratuitous nature of entitlement would suffice for review.
Keith Harris v. Texas Veterans Commission, et al
State statute offering tuition benefits for past military service so long as the student enlisted or was inducted while in the state or a resident in the state has a rational basis, as it encourages positive behavior (enlisting, graduating high school) and keeps other residents of the state from being conscripted.
Right to travel is not implicated, as it imposes no penalty on entrants to the state. Had it been implicated, portability of of benefit and gratuitous nature of entitlement would suffice for review.
Keith Harris v. Texas Veterans Commission, et al
Fifth Circuit: Carlos Gonzalez v. Able Huerta
S1983, Fourth Amendment
Although the investigative detention was made without reasonable suspicion, reasonable suspicion is too general a principle to be clearly established for purposes of review under S1983. As there was no caselaw holding that a refusal to produce identification on school grounds was not grounds for reasonable suspicion, grant of immunity was proper.
Dissent: specificity refers to the law, not to the factual situation.
Carlos Gonzalez v. Able Huerta
Fifth Circuit: Ronald Heggemeier v. Caldwell County, Texas, et al
Discrimination
As a similarly situated comparator was also terminated and the variance in the comparator's severance can be explained by differences in their situations, no Title VII racial discrimination claim.
No ADEA retaliation, as termination occurred 21 months after initial complaint, with a lateral transfer interposed.
State statute limiting reduction in pay does not place a restriction on at-will nature of employment sufficient for a property interest in continued employment. Conceding at-will employment relative to one supervisor ends the property interest generally.
Statute allowing appointment to state office by elected official does not prevent another arm of the government from terminating the employment.
No abuse of discretion in district court's refusal to exercise ancillary jurisdiction over whistleblower claims.
Ronald Heggemeier v. Caldwell County, Texas, et al
As a similarly situated comparator was also terminated and the variance in the comparator's severance can be explained by differences in their situations, no Title VII racial discrimination claim.
No ADEA retaliation, as termination occurred 21 months after initial complaint, with a lateral transfer interposed.
State statute limiting reduction in pay does not place a restriction on at-will nature of employment sufficient for a property interest in continued employment. Conceding at-will employment relative to one supervisor ends the property interest generally.
Statute allowing appointment to state office by elected official does not prevent another arm of the government from terminating the employment.
No abuse of discretion in district court's refusal to exercise ancillary jurisdiction over whistleblower claims.
Ronald Heggemeier v. Caldwell County, Texas, et al
Third Circuit: Omar Frias-Camilo v. Attorney General United States
Immigration, FRCrimP, Statutory Construction
As the Immigration statute regards convictions as having an adjudication and a punishment, and circuit precedent regards the linking "and" as conjunctive, the FRCrimP standard of conviction cannot be used to interpret the Act. Rather, state actions which incorporate either finding of guilt or punishment can qualify.
Omar Frias-Camilo v. Attorney General United States
Third Circuit: Aguedita Ordonez Tevalan v. Attorney General United States
Immigration
Where a petitioner has filed an appeal with the court, the court is not divested of jurisdiction by the agency's granting of a motion to repoen the matter, particularly where the reopening of the case is for ministerial reissuing of orders and decisions.
Where there is objective evidence of inconsistent statements in the record, there is sufficient evidence for an agency's adverse credibility decision.
Insufficient grounds for protection under CAT.
Aguedita Ordonez Tevalan v. Attorney General United States
Where a petitioner has filed an appeal with the court, the court is not divested of jurisdiction by the agency's granting of a motion to repoen the matter, particularly where the reopening of the case is for ministerial reissuing of orders and decisions.
Where there is objective evidence of inconsistent statements in the record, there is sufficient evidence for an agency's adverse credibility decision.
Insufficient grounds for protection under CAT.
Aguedita Ordonez Tevalan v. Attorney General United States
Third Circuit: Jose Bedolla Avila v. Attorney General United States
Sentencing, Immigration
As the state statute proscribing possession with intent to deliver is analogous to the similar federal statute which has no minimum possession, under modified categorical analysis, the state conviction here is an aggravated felony for sentencing purposes.
Simultaneous removal proceedings by DHS and INS do not offend regulations or Due Process, as there is no direct proscription in the regulations and there was no showing that the simultaneity of the proceedings harmed the petitioner's attempt to present his case.
Jose Bedolla Avila v. Attorney General United States
Second Circuit: Leeward Construction Co. v. American University of Antigua
Arbitration
Where arbitrator commits in initial proceedings to issue a reasoned award, a reasoned award is required.
While an arbitrator's reasoned award need not delve into every argument raised or provide a line-by-line justification for the award, it must set forth relevant facts and factual findings.
Arguing for the original profit margins on the deal is at least a barely colorable justification for the award of same based on bad faith, which is all that is required.
Leeward Construction Co. v. American University of Antigua
Where arbitrator commits in initial proceedings to issue a reasoned award, a reasoned award is required.
While an arbitrator's reasoned award need not delve into every argument raised or provide a line-by-line justification for the award, it must set forth relevant facts and factual findings.
Arguing for the original profit margins on the deal is at least a barely colorable justification for the award of same based on bad faith, which is all that is required.
Leeward Construction Co. v. American University of Antigua
Second Circuit: Smith v. Wenderlich
Double Jeopardy, Sentencing, Habeas
Where a prison term is increased due to offenses committed in prison, the completion of the portion attributable to the initial sentence does not finalize the sentence for purposes of double jeopardy, and a subsequent resentencing to incorporate supervised release is therefore neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of federal constitutional law.
Smith v. Wenderlich
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)