Claim captioned as an ATS claim but arising under FISA is properly construed as a FISA claim.
As FISA expropriation suits require factual correctness to state a claim, courts can pierce the pleadings.
Where a state distinguishes between nationals and foreigners among its permanent residents, the seizure does not implicate the domestic takings exception to FISA expropriation claims; in the case of dual nationals, the inquiry into residence is fact-specific.
An effects-based nexus under the commercial exception to FISA counters the presumption against extraterritoriality.
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201616748.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.
Eleventh Circuit: Jyll Brink v. Raymond James & Associates, Inc.
Company's undisclosed profit margin within the transaction fee for a covered security was not a material misrepresentation bearing on the decision to purchase the security; a class action suit for redress is therefore not barred from the state courts by federal securities law.
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201614144.pdf
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201614144.pdf
Eleventh Circuit: USA v. Delroy Anthony McLean
For purposes of the statute protecting judges from impedance, interference, or intimidation, an immigration judge is a judicial officer who exercises the authority of the Attorney General, and therefore a judicial officer of the United States.
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201710741.pdf
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201710741.pdf
DC Circuit: Rachel Fraenkel v. Islamic Republic of Iran
District court's reduction of damages in a FISA suit seeking solatium (consolation) damages against killers of family member because the victims were targeted on the basis of foreign citizenship was an abuse of discretion. The appropriate amount, though, is still a matter of judicial discretion.
Similarly, error to reduce damages for assumption of risk, given that the purpose of the statute is to reduce terrorism, and the victims' conduct was reasonable.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/C60AD39892C8E38A852582A600521EC3/$file/17-7100-1735019.pdf
Similarly, error to reduce damages for assumption of risk, given that the purpose of the statute is to reduce terrorism, and the victims' conduct was reasonable.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/C60AD39892C8E38A852582A600521EC3/$file/17-7100-1735019.pdf
DC Circuit: Washington Alliance of Technology Workers v. DHS
Trade group has competitor standing to challenge agency decision on student visas.
A claim that the agency exceeded statutory authority states a claim even absent factual allegations.
Under local rules, a party can rest on its claim in response to a motion to dismiss if the initial filing stated a plausible claim for relief.
Certain administrative challenges are not redressible.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/C1913070B98EC073852582A600521EA7/$file/17-5110-1735010.pdf
A claim that the agency exceeded statutory authority states a claim even absent factual allegations.
Under local rules, a party can rest on its claim in response to a motion to dismiss if the initial filing stated a plausible claim for relief.
Certain administrative challenges are not redressible.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/C1913070B98EC073852582A600521EA7/$file/17-5110-1735010.pdf
DC Circuit: Mercy Hospital, Inc. v. Alex M. Azar II
Statutory bar on judicial review of prospective payment rates bars review of "step-two" rates and any formulae inextricably intertwined.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/0A1B7A5BDA2046B4852582A600521E8C/$file/16-5267-1734989.pdf
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/0A1B7A5BDA2046B4852582A600521E8C/$file/16-5267-1734989.pdf
National Environmental Development Association's Clean Air Project v. EPA
As the statute unambiguously refers to regional inconsistencies from the delegation of the Administrator's powers, and moreover, implementing judicially-created inconsistencies is a reasonable resolution of the (un)ambiguity, no error in agency's inconsistent remedies implemented in response to bifurcated judicial review.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/C030B5F7DB87A8DB852582A600521E70/$file/16-1344-1734993.pdf
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/C030B5F7DB87A8DB852582A600521E70/$file/16-1344-1734993.pdf
DC Circuit: ESI Energy, LLC v. FERC
Agency did not err when, on remand, it discounted extrinsic evidence that the court had held to be ambiguous.
Relevant date for assigning cost responsibility for a power network upgrade might reasonably be the date of the execution of the agreement to join the network.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/C8F18CF446B7250D852582A600522CF6/$file/16-1261.pdf
Relevant date for assigning cost responsibility for a power network upgrade might reasonably be the date of the execution of the agreement to join the network.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/C8F18CF446B7250D852582A600522CF6/$file/16-1261.pdf
DC Circuit: Colorado Fire Sprinkler, Inc. v. NLRB
Board's determination that a series of CBA recitations of exclusive representation was sufficient to establish sufficient employee support for the union when initially certified pre-hire was insufficiently reasoned and an abuse of discretion.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/C8F18CF446B7250D852582A600522CF6/$file/16-1261.pdf
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/C8F18CF446B7250D852582A600522CF6/$file/16-1261.pdf
DC Circuit: US v. Benjamin Grey
Absent a limiting instruction, possibly prejudicial testimony as to previous civil judgment(s?) was inadmissible hearsay and plain error -- but insufficient for reversal.
Prior bad acts were sufficiently contemporaneous to be probative of intent as to the charged crimes.
No need to remand to develop ineffective assistance claim, given evidence of guilt.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/7D8985C55A9B312B852582A60052550E/$file/14-3003.pdf
Prior bad acts were sufficiently contemporaneous to be probative of intent as to the charged crimes.
No need to remand to develop ineffective assistance claim, given evidence of guilt.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/7D8985C55A9B312B852582A60052550E/$file/14-3003.pdf
Tenth Circuit: United States v. Melgar-Cabrera
Federal statute providing for incarceration for murder with a firearm is a separate offense, not a sentencing enhancement, given post-Apprendi jurisprudence.
Statute requiring the element of physical force in the commission of a felony implies the requirement of violent force.
Offensive touching can be sufficient force for Hobbs Act robbery.
Indirect force can be a use of physical force under the statute.
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/16/16-2018.pdf
Statute requiring the element of physical force in the commission of a felony implies the requirement of violent force.
Offensive touching can be sufficient force for Hobbs Act robbery.
Indirect force can be a use of physical force under the statute.
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/16/16-2018.pdf
Tenth Circuit: Utah Republican Party v. Cox
Denial of en banc.
Concur from CJ: Supreme Court should review. Judicial regulation of political primaries imperils associational rights and substantive ends.
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/16/16-4091.pdf
Concur from CJ: Supreme Court should review. Judicial regulation of political primaries imperils associational rights and substantive ends.
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/16/16-4091.pdf
Ninth Circuit: US v. Hans Elding
State assault with a deadly weapon statute is a valid predicate crime of violence, as the requirement that the victim's immediate fear of reasonable bodily harm implies a use or threatened use of physical force.
As state robbery statute can be violated with violence to property, it isn't a categorical predicate crime of violence, and it doesn't match the generic definitions of robbery and extortion.
Questions about advisory sentencing guidelines are addressed under the rule of lenity.
As there is no requirement that the force used be violent, the state extortion statute isn't a predicate crime of violence.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/06/08/16-10457.pdf
As state robbery statute can be violated with violence to property, it isn't a categorical predicate crime of violence, and it doesn't match the generic definitions of robbery and extortion.
Questions about advisory sentencing guidelines are addressed under the rule of lenity.
As there is no requirement that the force used be violent, the state extortion statute isn't a predicate crime of violence.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/06/08/16-10457.pdf
Ninth Circuit: NLRB v. Ironworkers Local 433
First Amendment ruling as to speech against the government was an insufficient change in existing law to justify relief from judgment enforcing a contempt adjudication on secondary picketing under the Act, as alternate mechanisms of speech such as leaflets are still available, and the Act is content-neutral.
Concur: Not ripe, as only a vague desire to picket, and no indication of enforcement plans by management.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/06/08/88-07283.pdf
Concur: Not ripe, as only a vague desire to picket, and no indication of enforcement plans by management.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/06/08/88-07283.pdf
Eighth Circuit: Leslie Camick v. Jefferson B. Sessions III
As an alien has the power to challenge the knowingness of waiver and petition for an extension, overstaying a voluntary departure order exhausts the benefit of permitted departure and allows the government to finalize the alternative order of removal, with all waivers of the voluntary departure grant intact.
(Again, all this is quick work. Not legal advice. Don't rely.)
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/06/163506P.pdf
(Again, all this is quick work. Not legal advice. Don't rely.)
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/06/163506P.pdf
Seventh Circuit: Warren Johnson v. Advocate Health and Hospitals
Reported statement of partially anonymous comparator as to their pay is neither hearsay nor sufficient to establish the validity of the comparator.
Descriptions of comaparators on unfair promotion claim, unfair assignments claim, and termination claim were not specific enough to establish them as legitimate.
Sworn statements and depositions averring discriminatory language suffice to present an issue for trial.
Even where a contractor performs many supervisory duties, a supervening agent who retains the ability to hire, fire, and discipline workers (beyond "rubber stamp" approval) can be liable for a claim of workplace discrimination.
Concur/Diss: Reported workplace speech was too sporadic to present an issue of a hostile work environment.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D06-08/C:16-3848:J:Rovner:aut:T:fnOp:N:2168250:S:0
Descriptions of comaparators on unfair promotion claim, unfair assignments claim, and termination claim were not specific enough to establish them as legitimate.
Sworn statements and depositions averring discriminatory language suffice to present an issue for trial.
Even where a contractor performs many supervisory duties, a supervening agent who retains the ability to hire, fire, and discipline workers (beyond "rubber stamp" approval) can be liable for a claim of workplace discrimination.
Concur/Diss: Reported workplace speech was too sporadic to present an issue of a hostile work environment.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D06-08/C:16-3848:J:Rovner:aut:T:fnOp:N:2168250:S:0
Seventh Circuit: EEOC v. CVS Pharmacy, Incorporated
Award of fees against the Commission was an abuse of discretion, as there was a colorable argument that neither the Commission's own conciliation requirement nor the statutory requirement for same was a prerequisite to suit.
Sixth Circuit: United States v. Trevon Barcus - Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville
Categorically, the state statute was not a valid predicate for statutory offender registration, as it did not incorporate the specific intent required by the federal statute.
Given the statement in the commentary to the statute, offender lifetime monitoring is a valid predicate for a sentencing bump for crimes committed during a criminal justice sentence.
Release conditions mandating psychological treatment and polygraph are reasonably related to registration offense.
http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0109p-06.pdf
Given the statement in the commentary to the statute, offender lifetime monitoring is a valid predicate for a sentencing bump for crimes committed during a criminal justice sentence.
Release conditions mandating psychological treatment and polygraph are reasonably related to registration offense.
http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0109p-06.pdf
Sixth Circuit: Barbara Fletcher v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc.
The durational clause of a CBA applies to health coverage absent clear affirmative language to the contrary.
Lifetime health benefits for survivors of workers does not imply a similar vesting for workers; in fact, it argues against any ambiguity as to the question where the agreement is silent on that point.
http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0108p-06.pdf
Lifetime health benefits for survivors of workers does not imply a similar vesting for workers; in fact, it argues against any ambiguity as to the question where the agreement is silent on that point.
http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0108p-06.pdf
First Circuit: Caraballo-Caraballo v. Administracion de Correccion
In assessing comparators for a claim of workplace discrimination, the plaintiff's demonstrated ability in performing the present job should be taken into account.
Transfer to the Commissary, even absent diminution in rank or pay, was a sufficiently adverse employment action.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/16-1597P-01A.pdf
Transfer to the Commissary, even absent diminution in rank or pay, was a sufficiently adverse employment action.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/16-1597P-01A.pdf
First Circuit: US v. Rivera-Hernandez
Sentencing judge appropriately considered deft's particular situation, given reasoning outside of the sentencing memorandum.
No error in within-guidelines sentence above the level set by plea deal.
First Circuit: Doe v. Trustees of Boston College
State contractual guarantees of good faith and fair dealing apply to a student's relationship with their university; where procedures are published, this duty is displaced by a contractual guarantee of compliance with the stated procedures.
While the school's procedures were generally in accord with the published rule, possibly prejudicial ex parte communications during the tribunal's deliberations present a genuine issue of material fact for trial.
Despite plaintiff's indications of intent to file a lawsuit, an email from an officer of the deft promising an independent investigation did not create a binding contract, as plaintiff never evinced a willingness to strike a deal -- there was no consideration.
Statistics alone can't establish a Title IX claim on the outcome or for deliberate indifference; the specific mechanism of discriminatory action needed to be identified.
Procedural unfairness in student disciplinary decisions sounds in contract, not tort.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/16-2290P-01A.pdf
While the school's procedures were generally in accord with the published rule, possibly prejudicial ex parte communications during the tribunal's deliberations present a genuine issue of material fact for trial.
Despite plaintiff's indications of intent to file a lawsuit, an email from an officer of the deft promising an independent investigation did not create a binding contract, as plaintiff never evinced a willingness to strike a deal -- there was no consideration.
Statistics alone can't establish a Title IX claim on the outcome or for deliberate indifference; the specific mechanism of discriminatory action needed to be identified.
Procedural unfairness in student disciplinary decisions sounds in contract, not tort.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/16-2290P-01A.pdf
First Circuit: US v. Laureano-Perez
Sentencing judge sufficiently weighed individual concerns, given recitation of deft's age, education, and work history.
Given that the present crime occurred while on supervised release for a drugs offense, no error in drug testing as a release condition.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/16-2399P-01A.pdf
Given that the present crime occurred while on supervised release for a drugs offense, no error in drug testing as a release condition.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/16-2399P-01A.pdf
First Circuit: US. Robles-Paron
Claim of ineffective assistance and judicial error in sentencing need not be refiled in a collateral proceeding where the government stipulates to the error. Sentence can be vacated and remanded on direct appeal.
Judicial sentencing script sufficiently weighed individual considerations, and did not impermissibly focus on social concerns.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/16-2455P-01A.pdf
Judicial sentencing script sufficiently weighed individual considerations, and did not impermissibly focus on social concerns.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/16-2455P-01A.pdf
First Circuit: Caraballo-Caraballo v. Administracion de Correccion
When a superseding indictment adds charges arising out the same act, transaction or common scheme, the Sixth Amendment speedy trial clock for the added charges still runs from the initial indictment.
The protections of the Sixth Amendment are generically distinct from Due Process and double jeopardy, and differ from the statutory protections offered under the Speedy Trial Act; the protection therefore arises directly from the Sixth Amendment.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-1961P-01A.pdf
The protections of the Sixth Amendment are generically distinct from Due Process and double jeopardy, and differ from the statutory protections offered under the Speedy Trial Act; the protection therefore arises directly from the Sixth Amendment.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-1961P-01A.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)