Plaintiff does not have a sufficiently concrete injury from the violation of the statute, since the declaration included in the Summary Judgment reply brief established that the violations were ultimately harmless, and plaintiff did not object or request a sur-reply.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/07/13/16-17216.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.
Ninth Circuit: Barnes v. Berryhill
Although the SSA ALJ correctly determined that no finding of disability was compelled, the possibility of non-disablility required subsequent findings of transferrable skills prior to a finding of ability to work.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/07/13/16-35815.pdf
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/07/13/16-35815.pdf
Ninth Circuit: Steven Morales v. USA
The government mapper's decision to omit the suspended cable from the map was sufficiently site-specific and informed by policy considerations to fall within the discretionary exception to the Act's waver of sovereign immunity; there is no exception to this exception in matters of public safety.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/07/13/17-15215.pdf
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/07/13/17-15215.pdf
Eighth Circuit: David Coyne v. Messerli & Kramer P.A.
An unsophisticated party states a claim under the Act by alleging that a letter sent to collect a debt, on its face, includes amounts that are not authorized by state law.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/07/172826P.pdf
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/07/172826P.pdf
Eighth Circuit: Jonathan Scarborough v. Federated Mutual Insurance Co.
Per curiam vacate and remand for a case decided after the relevant statutory amendment but before the court decision expounding it.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/07/172409P.pdf
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/07/172409P.pdf
Eighth Circuit: Bussen Quarries v. Alexander Acosta
ALJ did not have sufficient substantial evidence that the regulation was violated; the enforcer of the rule has the burden of proof, and while every violation need not be personally witnessed, a violation can't rest on speculation and conjecture where there are several possible scenarios.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/07/172281P.pdf
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/07/172281P.pdf
Eighth Circuit: United States v. Allen Gaines
Under modified categorical review, state statute prohibiting harmful or offensive contact is a valid predicate crime of violence.
Second sentence procedurally reasonable, as speculative interpretations of the guidelines need not be addressed; also substantively reasonable.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/07/171274P.pdf
Second sentence procedurally reasonable, as speculative interpretations of the guidelines need not be addressed; also substantively reasonable.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/07/171274P.pdf
Seventh Circuit: Arjun Dhakal v. Jefferson Sessions III
Although there is no jurisdictional bar to general federal jurisdiction over an initial denial of asylum, the administrative record has not yet been sufficiently developed by the exhaustion of administrative remedies that would result from challenging a subsequent enforcement of the decision, so jurisdiction is not yet proper under the APA.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D07-13/C:17-3377:J:Ripple:aut:T:fnOp:N:2185998:S:0
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D07-13/C:17-3377:J:Ripple:aut:T:fnOp:N:2185998:S:0
Seventh Circuit: Karum Latin America S. de R.L. v. Lowe's Companies, Incorporated
Court did not abuse its discretion in striking expert testimony that had been disclosed as factual testimony, despite the fact that the sanction proved dispositive.
Other claims waived, harmless. Loss from financial instruments subsequent to the plaintiff's withdrawal was correctly categorized as a permissive counterclaim, as the losses did not yet exist at the time of filing.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D07-13/C:18-1074:J:Bauer:aut:T:fnOp:N:2186752:S:0
Other claims waived, harmless. Loss from financial instruments subsequent to the plaintiff's withdrawal was correctly categorized as a permissive counterclaim, as the losses did not yet exist at the time of filing.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D07-13/C:18-1074:J:Bauer:aut:T:fnOp:N:2186752:S:0
Sixth Circuit: Terry Martin v. Behr Dayton Thermal Prods.
As requiring a preliminary determination of predominance would unduly narrow the remedy, courts can determine specific issues for a class action without requiring that those issues must predominate within a putative individual action. Here, the issue classes predominate and are best addressed as a class. Circuit split flagged.
Any Seventh Amendment harms from the Special Master process are presently speculative.
http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0139p-06.pdf
Any Seventh Amendment harms from the Special Master process are presently speculative.
http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0139p-06.pdf
Sixth Circuit: American Tooling Center, Inc. v. Travelers Cas. & Surety Co
Funds were lost under the policy when they were transferred to the fraudulent interloper, despite the fact that they were owed to a third party.
The policy's definition of computer fraud includes funds transferred as a result of fraudulent emails; the scope is not limited to losses incurred by hacking.
Loss was sufficiently proximate to the computer fraud, as each review step before the transfer of funds was prompted by the initial fraudulent email.
As the exclusions only preclude payment for losses caused by entry of data into the computer system, the employees entry of the details of the fraudulent money transfer were the entry of instructions to the machine, which are definitionally excluded under the the policy.
http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0138p-06.pdf
The policy's definition of computer fraud includes funds transferred as a result of fraudulent emails; the scope is not limited to losses incurred by hacking.
Loss was sufficiently proximate to the computer fraud, as each review step before the transfer of funds was prompted by the initial fraudulent email.
As the exclusions only preclude payment for losses caused by entry of data into the computer system, the employees entry of the details of the fraudulent money transfer were the entry of instructions to the machine, which are definitionally excluded under the the policy.
http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0138p-06.pdf
Fourth Circuit: US v. Hinda Dhirane
No constitutional error in the FISA statutory process that substitutes review in the Executive Branch for a Franks hearing, as an unconditional adversarial process was appropriately modified in the interests of national security, and there was sufficient mitigation of the change.
Although it was unnecessary for the court to find that the defts were part of the organization to which they were sending funds, the finding amply supported the charge of providing material support.
For the sentence increase for funding a violent act, no nexus to a given violent act need be shown; the question is whether the deft believed that support would be used in an act of violence.
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/174205.P.pdf
Although it was unnecessary for the court to find that the defts were part of the organization to which they were sending funds, the finding amply supported the charge of providing material support.
For the sentence increase for funding a violent act, no nexus to a given violent act need be shown; the question is whether the deft believed that support would be used in an act of violence.
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/174205.P.pdf
Fourth Circuit: US v. Erick Gibbs
Within-guidelines sentence procedurally reasonable as it was explained and substantively reasonable as there is a basis for it.
Dissent: Nonfrivolous arguments for a downward variance were not addressed; error to conflate the degree to which the sentence is congruent with the guidelines with procedural reasonableness.
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/174037.P.pdf
Dissent: Nonfrivolous arguments for a downward variance were not addressed; error to conflate the degree to which the sentence is congruent with the guidelines with procedural reasonableness.
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/174037.P.pdf
First Circuit: Fustolo v. The Patriot Group LLC
Deft was not put sufficiently on notice by allegation of discovery misconduct and issues during the trial to permit a post-trial amendment of the claim to include a misconduct penalty that would result in a partial denial of discharge.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-1984P-01A.pdf
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-1984P-01A.pdf
First Circuit: US v. Powell
App developer's sending of screenshots to a private actor working as an agent of the gov't did not trigger the private search doctrine, as the second party's search was precisely coterminous with that of the app developers, and no new information could have been obtained in the second search.
[Seems to be an obvious typo in the First Circuit's URL for this on the public-facing page. This link is to the opinion list, which will likely be corrected by now. Search for case # 17-1683]
http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/opinions
[Seems to be an obvious typo in the First Circuit's URL for this on the public-facing page. This link is to the opinion list, which will likely be corrected by now. Search for case # 17-1683]
http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/opinions
First Circuit: Rosales Justo v. Sessions
Review of agency reversal of immigration judge for clear error on a question of fact is de novo when the question is essentially a legal one.
Agency erred in conflating ability to protect with willingness to protect; a country conditions report was sufficient to cast doubt on the former.
Agency erred in considering lack of reporting to the foreign police force without considering petitioner's motives and reasoning.
Sufficient proof in the record to establish that the threat was not simply an everyday law enforcement question.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-1457P-01A.pdf
Agency erred in conflating ability to protect with willingness to protect; a country conditions report was sufficient to cast doubt on the former.
Agency erred in considering lack of reporting to the foreign police force without considering petitioner's motives and reasoning.
Sufficient proof in the record to establish that the threat was not simply an everyday law enforcement question.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-1457P-01A.pdf
First Circuit: US v. Barbosa
Deft did not make sufficient showing for a Franks hearing, as misstatement of ages and sizes didn't impugn the narrative, and forcible entry isn't an element of the state's crime of armed home invasion; nothing in a more full investigation of the victims' delay in reporting or checking the victims for outstanding warrants would have put the terms of the affidavit in doubt.
Given circuit precedent, ACCA predicates are valid, including a conviction with a maximum sentence under the terms of the statute, but within the statute's range when prosecuted in state court.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-1284P-01A.pdf
Given circuit precedent, ACCA predicates are valid, including a conviction with a maximum sentence under the terms of the statute, but within the statute's range when prosecuted in state court.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-1284P-01A.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)