DC Circuit: Central United Life Insurance v. Sylvia Burwell

ACA, Administrative

Agency rulemaking was an illicit amendment of the terms of the Act itself.

Central United Life Insurance v. Sylvia Burwell

DC Circuit: State of West Virginia v. HHS

Standing, ACA

State doesn't suffer cognizable injury-in-fact when federal government declines to exercise a statutorily-compelled primary function, leaving the state to decide whether it should exercise its secondary function.

State of West Virginia v. HHS

DC Circuit: Mohamed Al-Saffy v. Thomas Vilsack

Title VII, Employment, Administrative

ALJ dismissal of hearing request was not final agency action that started the Title VII clock.

Subsequent similar letter did not start the clock as it omitted the statutorily required notice of the right to appeal.

Genuine issue of material fact as to agency employment given responsibilities and reporting relationships.



Mohamed Al-Saffy v. Thomas Vilsack

DC Circuit: Oklahoma Gas and Electric Co. v. FERC

Administrative

Presumption of rationality in judicial review of contracts does not apply to rights of first refusal, given their anticompetitive nature.

Oklahoma Gas and Electric Co. v. FERC

DC Circuit: Akiachak Native Community v. DOI

FRCP, Mootness

Case is moot, as the regulation has been rescinded.

Dissent -- Parties are still in conflict.

Akiachak Native Community v. DOI

DC Circuit: United Airlines, Inc. v. FERC

Administrative

FERC ratemaking that substituted a second time period was arbitrary and capricious in that insufficient explanation was offered for the selection of the second period.

No error in agency's declining to index the rates across a period of time, as it would have resulted in an unreasonable benefit, and the purpose of the indexing regulation is equitable.

Corporations and partnerships must be evenly treated in deciding tax offsets.

United Airlines, Inc. v. FERC

Ninth Circuit: MICHAEL CUERO V. MATTHEW CATE

Habeas

Given contract law, state violates Due Process by adding a predicate prior after the plea had been accepted by the court and a misdemeanor had been dropped pursuant to the terms of the deal.

Dissent:  Inability to enforce plea deal is not constitutional error.

MICHAEL CUERO V. MATTHEW CATE

Ninth Circuit: EMILY ATTMORE V. CAROLYN COLVIN

SSA

ALJ must compare medical evidence of improvement with the medical evidence indicating disability.

Temporary improvements in psychiatric condition must be sustained and broad in scope to warrant adjustment of the finding.


EMILY ATTMORE V. CAROLYN COLVIN

Eighth Circuit: Larry Schaefer v. Dale Putnam

FRCP

Claim preclusion bars an action where the parties had notice of the additional claim, might have amended the first claim to incorporate it, and there was nothing preventing a full and fair adjudication of the claims arising out of the transaction.


Larry Schaefer  v.  Dale Putnam

Eighth Circuit: United States v. Alphonso Wynn

Statutory Interpretation

A housekeeping supervisor at a VA hospital is a federal official for purposes of the threats statute, as "official" is not being used as a term of limitation.

Telephone hotline is not entrapment, doesn't trigger privilege.


United States  v.  Alphonso Wynn

Eighth Circuit: United States v. Danny Lewis

Sentencing

Court did not need to specifically calculate the amended guidelines range before holding that a deft with an upward variance would not qualify for a certain relief.


United States  v.  Danny Lewis

Eighth Circuit: United States v. Quentin Tidwell

Habeas, Sentencing

In de novo resentencing subsequent to a successful collateral challenge to the conviction, the court may consider convictions after the initial sentencing when compiling the criminal history of the deft.

Dissent: facts are muddled here -- AUSA incorrectly described relationship between the two sentences.

United States  v.  Quentin Tidwell

Eighth Circuit: United States v. Santana Drapeau

FRE, Tribe Law

No plain error/abuse of discretion in allowing testimony on priors, since there was no proof of prejudice given the curative instruction, and the testimony might somehow have been relevant.

 Uncounseled tribal court convictions are valid predicates



United States  v.  Santana Drapeau

Eighth Circuit: United States v. Scott Sholds

Sentencing

Sentence is not substantively unreasonable for lack of mitigation for being based on multiple recordings of the same event.

No abuse of discretion in within-guidelines sentence,as there is no implicit obligation of uniformity in sentencing.

United States  v.  Scott Sholds

Seventh Circuit: RTP LLC v. Orix Real Estate Capital, Inc.

FRCP

For purposes of diversity, when a trust (as opposed to a trustee) litigates, it takes the citizenship of its beneficiaries.


 RTP LLC v.   Orix Real Estate Capital, Inc.

Seventh Circuit: USA v. Kenyon Walton

Fourth Amendment

Defts' conflicting stories about a prior search of the car provided sufficient reasonable suspicion to justify prolonging Terry stop to allow a dog to sniff the car after issuance of written warning.



USA v.   Kenyon Walton

Sixth Circuit: In Re Michael Stansell

Habeas, AEDPA

A Habeas petition challenging a resentencing to add a period of post-release control is not second or successive for purposes od AEDPA.

Technical changes in the sentence, however, do not similarly reset the count.

In Re Michael Stansell

Sixth Circuit: Self-Insurance Inst. of Am. v. Rick Snyder

ERISA, Preemption

State tax on insurance claims is not preempted by express preemption provision of ERISA, as the recordkeeping and residency requirements do no impermissably intrude on the purposes of the act.

Self-Insurance Inst. of Am. v. Rick Snyder

Sixth Circuit: Sierra Club v. United States Forest Serv.

Environment, Administrative

No error in categorical exclusion from environmental review, since, inter alia, the present company is substantially the same as the one earlier granted a permit, and increased flow through the pipeline is not a material change in the original grant, which was for an easement of a certain width.


Sierra Club v. United States Forest Serv.

Sixth Circuit: Anthony Smith, Jr. v. Joy Technologies, Inc.

Torts

Under state law, in products liability, there is no duty to warn where the danger is known.


Anthony Smith, Jr. v. Joy Technologies, Inc.

Fifth Circuit: Markle Interests, L.L.C. v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Environment

Loss of property value confers sufficient Article III standing.

Agency finding that land was essential for conservation of a species did not have to establish that the species was present there.

No specific methodology of economic impact assessment is compelled by statute.

Sufficient interstate commerce when considered in the aggregate.

No impact statement required, as there is no change to be made in the physical environment.

 Dissent: Not a suitable habitat for the species.


Markle Interests, L.L.C. v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Fifth Circuit: USA v. Jose Bedoy

Obstruction, Crim

No error in finder of fact's determination that the deft knew of the grand jury investigation and that the agents were intertwined with it; this suffices for the requisite actual knowledge.

Jury instructions with an extra element did not heighten the prosecutor's burden.

Deft's instruction to potential witness went beyond simply information about the right to remain silent.

No constructive amendment on count alleging destruction of physical object, given deft's instruction to get rid of a phone number -- and sufficient evidence existed to prove that he intended the destruction of the phone.


USA v. Jose Bedoy

Fifth Circuit: Jay Isaac Hollis v. Loretta Lynch, et al

Guns, Standing

Parallel state prohibition doesn't moot the claim when the argument is a constitutional one, since the state statute would presumably subsequently be found unconstitutional, and might separately legitimize the protected conduct.

As a trust holds property for the benefit of the beneficiaries, a gun owned by the trust would be considered to be possessed by the beneficiary.  Even where trust is considered to be in possession, a natural person might also considered to be in possession.

No Second Amendment protection for machine guns, as they are dangerous and unusual and therefore not in common use.

Equal Protection analysis subsumed in Second Amendment calculus.



 Jay Isaac Hollis v. Loretta Lynch, et al

Fifth Circuit: Karen Bacharach v. Suntrust Mortgage, Inc.

FCRA


Commercial real estate transaction nixed by inaccurate reporting was not within the scope of the Act.

Insufficient proof that personal real estate transaction was lost because of the false information.

Uncorroborated assertion that doctors were consulted was insufficient for emotional distress.


Karen Bacharach v. Suntrust Mortgage, Inc.

Fourth Circuit: Solers, Incorporated v. IRS

FOIA

Trial court in camera review meant that the agency didn't have to make a showing on all of the common-law elements adjudicating the withholding of documents.

 No abuse of discretion on merits, given thought-process excepetion, etc.


Solers, Incorporated v. IRS

Fourth Circuit: Raleigh Wake Citizens Assoc v. Wake County Board of Election

Elections, OPOV

Where the redistricting population variation is less than 10%, the plaintiff must show by a preponderance of the evidence that improper considerations predominate in the explanation.

Error to exclude expert statistical testimony.  Although it is not compelled by precedent, it would serve to identify possible explanations for the mapping.

Plan violated state & federal OPOV given lack of testimony from legislatures, pretextual justifications for the shifts, and demonstration that traditional redistricting practices were not followed.

No abuse of discretion in trial court's holding that references to race in the legislative record did not establish improper racial motive.

Dissent -- if abusive partisanship is justicable, it has to be specifically proven, not suggested by statistics.


Raleigh Wake Citizens Assoc v. Wake County Board of Election

Third Circuit: Candice Staruh v. Superintendent Cambridge

FRE, Hearsay, Habeas, AEDPA

Refusal to allow hearsay evidence of admission of guilt by a family member of the deft was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of constitutional law, as there were insufficient indicia of reliability and the speaker had an incentive to mislead the court.

Candice Staruh v. Superintendent Cambridge

First Circuit: Winkelman v. CVS Caremark Corporation

FCA, FRCP

Documents that the court of first instance took judicial notice of on the assumption that the Act's public disclosure bar was jurisdictional are properly considered in appellate review, even when the review declines to construe the bar as jurisdictional.

Public disclosure of price gouging sufficed to trigger public dislosure bar for relator asserting claim that that the vendor engaged in a scheme to defraud, despite relator's disclosure of increased temporal and geographic scope.

Winkelman v. CVS Caremark Corporation

First Circuit: Sullivan v. Marchilli

Souter, Habeas, Crim

State court did not unreasonably apply federal law on the issue, as the allegedly vague prohibition is found in the federal caselaw as well.

Due Process argument that the court would not have determined the image to fall within the statute if the proper First Amendment limits had been followed is irrelevant, since the state appellate review did not unreasonably apply the governing law.


Sullivan v. Marchilli