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: CROOKER v. US
Sentencing, Torts
As federal sentencing law governs claims for monetary damages for imprisonment due to convictions later reversed, when a subsequent sentencing credits that time to offset the sentence, the statutory monetary remedy is unavailable.
CROOKER v. US
Federal Circuit: COAST PROFESSIONAL, INC. v. US
Administrative, Contract
Additional procurements merited by prior performance are not options, as negotiated elsewhere in the contract, but rather new contracts, and the court below therefore properly has jurisdiction over related claims.
COAST PROFESSIONAL, INC. v. US
Eighth Circuit: Jamie Smith v. AS America, Inc.
FMLA, Estoppel
No clear error in court's holding that back illness was a chronic condition.
Liquidated damages are appropriate unless affirmative defense of good faith conduct is established.
Since fees evidence didn't go to merits, no abuse of discretion in court's award of fees despite lack of disclosure in discovery.
No clear error in court refusing to bar award under judicial estoppel where there is no showing that there was a deliberate misrepresentation or one that gave the party any advantage in the proceeding.
Given limited probative value of the records, court erred in reducing award by crediting the after-acquired-evidence as a basis for the end of employment, rather than crediting the witness' testimony.
Jamie Smith v. AS America, Inc.
Eighth Circuit: United States v. Marcus Eason
FRE, Crim
No abuse of discretion in barring police videotape on cross, as it would be impeachment on a collateral matter, or on recall, as the prosecution hadn't been given a copy and the omission didn't impact deft's substantial rights.
No abuse of discretion in barring deft's crime scene photos, as prosecution hadn't been given a copy, and the omission didn't impact deft's substantial rights.
Sufficient evidence on possession charge.
United States v. Marcus Eason
Eighth Circuit: Joel Munt v. Kent Grandlienard
Habeas, Jury Selection
State courts did not unreasonably determine that a trial court's empaneling of a juror who said that a deft who confessed but claimed mental illness should be convicted was constitutional, as the juror was speaking of mental illness, and not of the relevant law.
Joel Munt v. Kent Grandlienard
Eighth Circuit: United States v. Enrique Trevino
FRCrimP, Sixth Amendment, Sentencing
No abuse of discretion in denial of attempt to withdraw guilty plea, as the potential sentence was explained, deft stated in colloquy that representation was adequate, and deft's ability to challenge sentencing amounts was preserved. Court's statement that ineffective assistance claims should be deferred to Habeas was inappropriately categorical, but not prejudicial.
Court's refusal to appoint substitute counsel was correct, as dissatisfaction stemmed from results, not from process.
Court did not threaten deft with reduction in acceptance of responsibility sentencing offset if he challenged the PSR--unchallenged aspects of PSR therefore stand.
United States v. Enrique Trevino
Eighth Circuit: Kent Bernbeck v. John Gale
Elections, Standing
Plaintiff has no standing to raise OPOV claim based on state law setting a minimum number of petition signatures from each geographical area, as the alleged inability to engage in future conduct is insufficiently imminent.
Plaintiff has not proved his own voter registration, so he has no basis for claim as a petition signer.
Dissent -- This issue wasn't briefed, and there is no such thing as a registered voter in this state.
Eighth Circuit: Jonathan Truong v. Ahmad Hassan
S1983
To state a substantive due process claim against a bus driver for trying to remove an unruly passenger from the outside of the bus, the plaintiff must show that the driver intended to harm the unruly passenger.
Jonathan Truong v. Ahmad Hassan
Eighth Circuit: Lovelle Banks v. John Deere and Company
FRCP, Discrimination, Title VII
Unsworn testimony and a party's own interrogatories provided insufficient evidence that the employment action and work environment were inappropriately race-based.
Lovelle Banks v. John Deere and Company
Eighth Circuit: Susan Parks v. Ariens Company
Torts
State law would likely hold that a manufacturer meets the duty of care to a reasonably knowledgeable customer by offering an optional safety device for sale. Although the doctrine is not included in the statutorily defined list of affirmative defenses, it qualifies as an antecedent question of reasonable duty.
Susan Parks v. Ariens Company
Sixth Circuit: Detroit Free Press v. Dep't of Justice
FOIA, Privacy
Given the privacy interests of the individual, booking photos qualify for an exception to federal public disclosure laws.
Concurrence -- Sometimes, there might be a public interest established to the contrary.
Dissent -- Where common law and practice don't establish the right, it can't be the referent of the explicit statutory exception.
Detroit Free Press v. Dep't of Justice
Sixth Circuit: USA v. Jimmy Jones
Sentencing
Where the sentence is within the statutory range, enhancements need only be established by a preponderance.
USA v. Jimmy Jones
Sixth Circuit: Cedric Carter v. Betty Mitchell
Habeas, AEDPA, Ineffective Assistance
Where specific claims are remanded, the District court should consider those claims in full, not the appeals court's characterization of them.
No abuse of discretion to deny a stay to exhaust state Habeas claims in a mixed petition where the evidence was available to deft on initial direct and collateral review
Although lack of initial objection to magistrate's finding on one collateral review claim is not jurisdictional for purposes of appellate review, this claim is insufficiently extraordinary to excuse the omission.
Trial counsel might have had strategic purpose for eliciting negative testimony on direct examination of mitigation expert and not calling the deft's mother.
State collateral review did not inappropriately consider fundamental fairness when considering prejudice under Strickland, given lack of specific indication in the record.
Cedric Carter v. Betty Mitchell
Fifth Circuit: Ronda Crutchfield, et al v. Sewerage & Water Board
FRCP, Class Actions
Appeals court, in assuring itself of its own jurisdiction, has power to review whether the District Court had initial jurisdiction under federal officer doctrine prior to denying certification of the class.
As the general circumstantial theory of harm would be displaced under state law by particulars of each claim where available, lack of predominance allowed court to bar certification of the class without abusing its discretion.
Ronda Crutchfield, et al v. Sewerage & Water BoDistrict Court had suard
Second Circuit: Blow v. United States
Habeas, AEDPA, Sentencing, Circuit Split
Permission granted for second/successive federal Habeas petition challenging sentence imposed under residual clause of Sentencing Guidelines, as the language is identical to the ACCA residual clause found unconstitutional.
Circuit split flagged.
Blow v. United States
Second Circuit: Florez v. CIA
FOIA
A second agency's post-response disclosures probative of the first agency's refusal to provide information justify a limited remand to the District Court in the interests of judicial efficiency.
Dissent: The review is limited to a review of the sufficiency of the initial agency decision--error to remand without a specific link to the earlier decision process.
Florez v. CIA
Second Circuit: SRM Global Master Fund Ltd. P’ship v. Bear Stearns Cos.
Securities, Class Actions, Statute of Limitations, Fraud
Equitable tolling of the statute of limitations against individual claims during the period in which a class is certified is not available for claims of material misrepresentation under the securities laws, as the limiting statute is a statute of repose that creates a substantive right immune to common law equitable relief.
Insufficient proof of reliance for common law fraud claims.
SRM Global Master Fund Ltd. P’ship v. Bear Stearns Cos.
Second Circuit: Microsoft v. United States
Computers, Fourth Amendment, ECPA
When legislation referenced warrants, it used the term as a legal term of art, one that distinguishes them from subpoenas. Extraterritorial application is therefore precluded.
As the statute focuses on the act of invasion of the user's privacy, data that would be accessed extraterritorially cannot be reached by warrants under the statute.
Concurrence in J -- Particularity of location is problematic in an electronic context, so the presumption against extraterritoriality doesn't afford a clear bar to conduct that the Act seems to proscribe. Law needs to be rewritten.
Microsoft v. United States
First Circuit: Rodriguez-Miranda v. Benin
FRCP, Due Process
Post-judgment motion to join defts for purposes of enforcing the judgment did not have to mention the specific FRCP rule, as the motion was made with sufficient particularity to afford notice.
Defts can be joined after entry of judgment -- the matter remains a pending one.
No plain error in holding newly joined defts jointly and severally liable for full judgment, as the court held them to be alter egos, not successors in (perhaps partial) interest.
Notice and opportunity to challenge sufficed for personal jurisdiction.
Court's imposition of contempt fines was civil, not criminal, as it was attempting to enforce compliance,and was therefore procedurally sufficient.
Rodriguez-Miranda v. Benin
First Circuit: Kelley v. Fidelity Mgmt. Trust Co.
Souter, ERISA, Agency
Funds transferred to the plan administrator's account for a fixed-sum disbursement to the beneficiary are not transmogrified into plan assets while in the holding account, and the general beneficiaries of the plan therefore have no claim on the interest earned.
Kelley v. Fidelity Mgmt. Trust Co.
First Circuit: US v. Stokes
Fourth Amendment, Sentencing
Where deft doesn't establish knowledge of behind-the-scenes arrangement at Post Office, no reasonable expectation of privacy for materials in post office box.
Where not appearing on the envelope as the sender or addressee, deft has no privacy interest in the sealed letters absent a showing of connection.
Affidavits and images of the seized envelopes addressed to the deft suffices to prove that the envelopes have not been opened.
No clear error in loss findings for sentencing, since, even if individual records were proved to be unrelated, the breadth of the scheme suggests that there were losses outside the record.
US v. Stokes
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)