Working much more slowly at these than before for some reason. This should have been a 100% coverage day. For the nonce, chalking it up to putting the task at the end of a long day. Or perhaps the Trollope over dinner. Reading rhythms.
More:
http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0196p-06.pdf
http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0197p-06.pdf
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D09-04/C:17-2890:J:Sykes:aut:T:fnOp:N:2212102:S:0
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/09/171374P.pdf
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/09/04/17-30084.pdf
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/09/04/16-50326.pdf
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/09/04/16-35684.pdf
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/09/04/16-15588.pdf
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/09/04/15-35845.pdf
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201512130.pdf
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/C5C55E88E352419C852582FE004E7052/$file/16-5298.pdf
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/C43C5F8C1F01517F852582FE004E4BCA/$file/17-1151.pdf
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/17-2434.Opinion.9-4-2018.pdf
-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.
Fifth Circuit: In Re: Alfred Bourgeois
Second or successive habeas petitions from prisoners in federal custody must meet the same statutory thresholds as do those from state prisoners.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/18/18-40270-CV0.pdf
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/18/18-40270-CV0.pdf
Fifth Circuit: Thomas Martone v. Walter Robb, III, et al
Plaintiff need not sell stock to establish loss causation for standing -- purchase at inflated price and holding at reduced value suffices for particular injury.
Where there was no alternative that would have avoided the fall in stock price, the allegedly harmful timing of the disclosure might have been a legitimate business decision. ANy hedging strategy would, as a matter of law, have required disclosure. Additionally, the board could no have been certain that the employee stock plan would be a net purchaser during the period under consideration.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-50702-CV0.pdf
Where there was no alternative that would have avoided the fall in stock price, the allegedly harmful timing of the disclosure might have been a legitimate business decision. ANy hedging strategy would, as a matter of law, have required disclosure. Additionally, the board could no have been certain that the employee stock plan would be a net purchaser during the period under consideration.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-50702-CV0.pdf
Fifth Circuit: Norman Bloom v. Aftermath Pub Adjusters, Inc., et
Absent state precedent to the contrary, in a federal forum, state procedural rules on tolling of claim are limited to the class of persons explicitly identified in the state precedent or statute. Federal forum cannot equitably modify, as it is a question of law.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-41087-CV0.pdf
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-41087-CV0.pdf
Third Circuit: Delaware Riverkeeper Network v. Sec PA Dept Env Protection
Given the strong presumption of administrative unreviewability until final administrative action, the statute's silence eon the question, combined with a jurisdictional grant over state actions create an inference of unreviwability until after final administrative decision.
As the agency decision takes effect prior to administrative appeal and the administrative appeal happens within an entirely separate proceeding, the agency decision is sufficiently final for statutory exclusive jurisdiction.
Rulemaking notice was sufficient; there is no requirement that notice requirements be set forth in a regulation; notice allowed interested parties to participate meaningfully in a process that was actually pending.
Agency approval conditioned on subsequent permit grant was not intrinsically arbitrary and capricious.
Whether or not a Takings Clause claim can arise under the statute, there is sufficient remedy in the existing appeals process.
Statute and APA allow court to consider pendent claims arising from the state constitution.
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/162211p.pdf
As the agency decision takes effect prior to administrative appeal and the administrative appeal happens within an entirely separate proceeding, the agency decision is sufficiently final for statutory exclusive jurisdiction.
Rulemaking notice was sufficient; there is no requirement that notice requirements be set forth in a regulation; notice allowed interested parties to participate meaningfully in a process that was actually pending.
Agency approval conditioned on subsequent permit grant was not intrinsically arbitrary and capricious.
Whether or not a Takings Clause claim can arise under the statute, there is sufficient remedy in the existing appeals process.
Statute and APA allow court to consider pendent claims arising from the state constitution.
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/162211p.pdf
Third Circuit: Marc Silver v. Omnicare Inc
Although the statute does not permit a relator to pursue a qui tam action where the fraud is public knowledge, where the relator uses privately available information to make sense of the public information and the public information, standing alone, would not reasonably or plausibly supported an inference of fraud under the heightened pleading requirements for the claim.
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/164418p.pdf
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/164418p.pdf
Third Circuit: Alex Taksir v. Vanguard Group
State action for breach of contract in reference to undisclosed transaction fees is not barred by the terms of the securities act, as the misrepresentation is not in connection to the sale of the security, and would not be material to the transaction. As the misrepresentation is outside of the act's scope, a fraud claim is similarly not forbidden.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)