Still on minimal coverage mode. A few slings and/or arrows to slog through. Onward.
The rest of today's new appellate law:
http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinions-and-oral-arguments
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/electronic-case-filing/case-information/current-opinions
http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions/opinions.php
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Time=today&FromMonth=&FromDay=&FromYear=&ToMonth=&ToDay=&ToYear=&Author=any&AuthorName=&Case=any&CaseY1=&CaseY2=&CaseN1=&CaseN2=&CaseN3=&CaseN4=&Submit=Submit&RssJudgeName=Wood&OpsOnly=yes
https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/opinions/?pk_id=0000009531
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/clerk/opinions/daily
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf
-CB
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.
Second Circuit: United States v. Philip Zodhiates
Subpoena of cellular phone location records permissible under good faith exception via the third party doctrine.
A court order from a state in which the marriage was legal was entitled to full faith credit in the state of residence, which otherwise would not have recognized the marriage. Prior circuit precedent holding the law of the state of residence to determine the applicable protections applies only in the absence of this type of direct mandate.
Prosecution statements in closing were permissible inferences.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/88b38eb6-51ce-4c1c-a328-b7ffd5f2edf9/2/doc/17-839_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/88b38eb6-51ce-4c1c-a328-b7ffd5f2edf9/2/hilite/
A court order from a state in which the marriage was legal was entitled to full faith credit in the state of residence, which otherwise would not have recognized the marriage. Prior circuit precedent holding the law of the state of residence to determine the applicable protections applies only in the absence of this type of direct mandate.
Prosecution statements in closing were permissible inferences.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/88b38eb6-51ce-4c1c-a328-b7ffd5f2edf9/2/doc/17-839_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/88b38eb6-51ce-4c1c-a328-b7ffd5f2edf9/2/hilite/
First Circuit: Richard v. Regional School Unit 57
Establishment that the employer's nondiscriminatory justification was in fact pretextual does not establish causation, which must be proved separately.
Sufficient evidence for court's inferences.
Dissent: From totality of record, retaliation was plain.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-2200P-01A.pdf
Sufficient evidence for court's inferences.
Dissent: From totality of record, retaliation was plain.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-2200P-01A.pdf
First Circuit: United Food & Comm. Workers v. Novartis Pharm.
Claiming that a potentially obvious invention was in fact surprising is not a basis for invalidating the subsequent patent or holding the filing to be fraudulent -- there is no indication that the use of the word caused the patent to be awarded. Subsequent attempt to enforce the patent rights therefore not a sham.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-1714P-01A.pdf
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-1714P-01A.pdf
First Circuit: Scholz v. Goudreau
Given uncontroverted evidence of attempted compliance with the terms of the agreement, court did not abuse its discretion in holding that there was no issue for trial.
As the question was relevant to other matters, lack of objection to cross-examination questions on actual versus apparent authority did not constitute implied consent to an amendment of claim to include breach.
As damages are an element of the breach claim, court did not abuse its discretion in refusing entry of judgment on breach claim after jury's finding of breach in order to dispel the counterclaim.
Allegation that litigation was used to obtain contract rescission sounds in malicious prosecution, not in abuse of process.
Where the legitimate purpose of the claim is truthfully stated in the claim itself, the claim is not an abuse of process, however spitefully it might have been raised.
Court was within its discretion in refusing an award of fees.
Court was within discretion in admitting contemporaneous, ostensibly independent YT clip under the theory that it was part of the album's marketing.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-1264P-01A.pdf
As the question was relevant to other matters, lack of objection to cross-examination questions on actual versus apparent authority did not constitute implied consent to an amendment of claim to include breach.
As damages are an element of the breach claim, court did not abuse its discretion in refusing entry of judgment on breach claim after jury's finding of breach in order to dispel the counterclaim.
Allegation that litigation was used to obtain contract rescission sounds in malicious prosecution, not in abuse of process.
Where the legitimate purpose of the claim is truthfully stated in the claim itself, the claim is not an abuse of process, however spitefully it might have been raised.
Court was within its discretion in refusing an award of fees.
Court was within discretion in admitting contemporaneous, ostensibly independent YT clip under the theory that it was part of the album's marketing.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-1264P-01A.pdf
First Circuit: US v. Arias-Mercedes
Denial of minor-participant sentence reduction was within court's discretion where the deft helped to pilot the craft with the drugs through a dangerous ocean voyage.
Within-guidelines sentence substantively reasonable.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-1229P-01A.pdf
Within-guidelines sentence substantively reasonable.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-1229P-01A.pdf
First Circuit: Boudreau v. Lussier
Expert testimony is required to establish that time-stamped screenshots taken of employees computer are, for purposes of the statute, contemporaneous intercepts of electronic communications.
Impoundment and subsequent inventory search of arrestee's vehicle from employer's private lot were justified under the community caretaker exception; even if the motive was investigatory, subjective intent is irrelevant, and the towing was objectively justified.
Employer defts would be protected by qualified immunity for consenting to search of employees computer where their authority to do so was not plain.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/16-1049P-01A.pdf
Impoundment and subsequent inventory search of arrestee's vehicle from employer's private lot were justified under the community caretaker exception; even if the motive was investigatory, subjective intent is irrelevant, and the towing was objectively justified.
Employer defts would be protected by qualified immunity for consenting to search of employees computer where their authority to do so was not plain.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/16-1049P-01A.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)