End of day

See also:

http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/todays-published-opinions

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf

http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders


Tenth Circuit: US v. Mann


State assault with bodily injury statute is categorically a predicate crime of violence for the statute, despite the fact that a mens rea of recklessness suffices for conviction, as violence can be reckless.

https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/17/17-2117.pdf

Vasquez - Valle v. Jefferson Sessions

State witness tampering statute is not categorically a crime of moral turpitude, since it encompasses a wide range of conduct.  Under modified categorical review, the conviction for knowingly inducing a witness to be absent was not a valid predicate.

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/08/10/13-74213.pdf

Holzhauer v. Golden Gate Bridge District

Tort liability for joint operation of a vessel is determined proximate to the time of the accident, not through the duration of the voyage.  The boat owner therefore had no duty to supervise the skilled passenger under a duty of joint operation when the latter took the helm, and as there was no duty of care, no question of comparative negligence arises.

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/08/10/16-15942.pdf

Ninth Circuit: State of Hawaii v. Donald J. Trump


Remand following Certiarori review.

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/08/10/17-17168.pdf


Eighth Circuit: Hal Stanley v. Katherine Finnegan

Denial of qualified immunity where reasonable suspicion is needed to remove children from the home, and the children were removed despite a plainly exculpatory visit by the agency a short time before.

http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/08/172702P.pdf

Eighth Circuit: David Faltermeier v. FCA US LLC

Given the complexity of the action and the fact that fees increase with the complexity of the action, no plain error in court's calculation of potential fees for the purpose of determining if the total award was sufficient for removal under the statute.

While state law does not require actual reliance on the misrepresentation, there must be some connection between the representation and the purchase.

http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/08/172093P.pdf

Eighth Circuit: United States v. Mohamed Farah

No abuse of discretion in denial of last-minute motion for substitute counsel, given that deft had not voiced dissatisfaction with counsel.

Joining insurgency while claiming the defense of innocent civilians does not exculpate from murder by unlawful belligerency, as the latter is a matter of law, and ignorance of law offers no defense.

No procedural error in sentencing where court does not address disparity with co-conspirators, but defts extensively discussed the issue in sentencing memoranda; court is presumed to have reviewed.

Sentencing disparities not substantively unreasonable.

http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/08/164363P.pdf

Seventh Circuit: Pronschinske Trust Dated March v. Kaw Valley Companies, Inc

A guarantee of a minimum production royalty nested within a provision describing the discretionary commencement of mining operations does not guarantee such a royalty if the party elects not to operate the mine.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D08-10/C:17-2889:J:Rovner:aut:T:fnOp:N:2200780:S:0

Seventh Circuit: Andrew Schlaf v. Safeguard Property, LLC


A management company that leaves notices on the doors of a residence when mortgage payments fall behind is not an indirect debt collector for the purposes of the statute.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D08-10/C:17-2811:J:Ripple:aut:T:fnOp:N:2200827:S:0

Seventh Circuit: Alfredo Miranda v. County of Lake

14th Amendment and negligence claims against jail physicians for the self-starvation and dehydration death of a non-citizen arrested for evading jury service present an issue for trial when the jury might reasonably decide that the denial of treatment was objectively unreasonable.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D08-10/C:17-1603:J:Wood:aut:T:fnOp:N:2200463:S:0

Fifth Circuit: USA v. Florencio Rosales-Mireles


Prudential grant of mutual motion to vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing upon remand from the U.S. Supreme Court.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/16/16-50151-CR1.pdf

Second Circuit: Trusted Media Brands, Inc. v. United States of America


Tax.  Where one section of a statute grants an extended period of time to do X, and Y is an alternative to X, a reference elsewhere in the law saying that X and Y are governed by the initial provision can simply mean that they are separately governed by it.

(Probably.)

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/cb713570-cf6f-478b-a928-4f292687255f/1/doc/17-3733_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/cb713570-cf6f-478b-a928-4f292687255f/1/hilite/

First Circuit: Peaje Investments LLC v. PR Highways and Transportation


Corrigendum.

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-2165E-01A.pdf

First Circuit: Torres-Pagan v. Berryhill

Omission of significant medical records can justify remand to the agency for insufficient development of the factual record where the petitioner suffers from cognitive impairment; the claimant does not have to make a showing of discriminatory effect of the omission.

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-2146P-01A.pdf

First Circuit: US v. Harrison

Within-guidelines sentence of lifetime supervised release procedurally and substantively reasonable, where the court specifically indicated an awareness of history and a desire to restrain the defendant.

As there was a plausible sentencing rationale and a defensible result, sentence not substantively unreasonable.

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-2088P-01A.pdf

First Circuit: Puerto Rico Elec. Power Auth. v. Ad Hoc Group-PREPA Bondholders


Corrigendum.

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-2079E-01A.pdf

First Circuit: US v. Reid


Below-guidelines sentence not substantively or procedurally unreasonable; given the deft's objective criminal history, the court did not abuse its discretion by not explicitly comparing the history to mitigating circumstances in the deft's life.



First Circuit: US v. Perez-Crisostomo


Increase in sentence for Obstruction warranted where deft maintains false name throughout proceedings, and there is some chance that the deception interfered with sentencing.

No plain error in denial of sentence reduction for acceptance of responsibility where, in addition to acquiescing in the sentencing procedures, the deft attempts otherwise to obstruct justice.

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-1914P-01A.pdf

First Circuit: Lassend v. US


Corrigendum.

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-1900E-01A.pdf

First Circuit: Medical Mutual Insurance Co. v. Burka


Given the terms of the policy, the insurer has no duty to defend a physician who allegedly improperly accessed medical records, since the records were not acquired in the course of professional treatment.

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-1872P-01A.pdf

First Circuit: Carlson v. University of New England


Where an employer claims that an allegedly retaliatory transfer was voluntary, misrepresentations made by the employer to the employee must have a non-retaliatory justification in order to prevail at summary judgment.

In order to present an issue for trial, a claim that an annual raise was artificially low must be supported by a benchmark of prior years salary decisions.

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-1792P-01A.pdf


First Circuit: Sexual Minorities Uganda v. Lively

Circuit courts do not have jurisdiction under the direct appeals statute to reform unflattering dicta in the opinion below.

Where diversity jurisdiction is pleaded but conceded during the proceedings to be a fiction, the court has the prudential right to invoke judicial estoppel against an attempt to shift the basis for jurisdiction to diversity of parties.

Where pendent state law claims raise sensitive and undeveloped questions of state law, the court does not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplementary jurisdiction and dismissing the pendent claims without prejudice.

Initial motion to dismiss did not ripen into grounds for the judgment, and is therefore unreviewable.

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-1593P-01A.pdf