More elsewhere

Videlicet:










-CB

Third Circuit: Jeffrey Workman v. Superintendent Albion SCI

Where deft's trial counsel was preoccupied with vindication of a manifestly weak legal theory and the issue is not raised in state habeas -- the latter is ineffective assistance by its terms, and the former is a sufficient showing -- cause for waiver in subsequent federal collateral challenge is excused.

http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/161969p.pdf

Second Circuit: Spinelli v. National Football League

As implied license is an affirmative defense, all elements must be plain in order to dismiss an infringement claim at the pleadings stage.

Error to dismiss for not stating a claim where there is evidence that the grant of license by the creator did not contemplate the sublicence; this sounds in copyright infringement, not in contract.

Secondary infringement allegation states a claim against third party organization given showing of close connection between the two organizations.

Good faith/fair dealing states claim -- strong-arm negotiation unconscionability doesn't.

(Miscellany)

Antitrust argument would sound more clearly if photographers challenged their market -- trademark licensing, etc.  Rather than simply alleging the existence of a behemoth.

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/a4eaf0b6-79ed-4fa7-b47b-3f412f9925f4/1/doc/17-673_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/a4eaf0b6-79ed-4fa7-b47b-3f412f9925f4/1/hilite/

First Circuit: US v. Ocean

Sufficient evidence for conspiracy despite conflict with others and dual role as consumer and salesman for the drug operation -- the common purpose was the increased sale of narcotics.

Absent evidence that the government was attempting to elicit statements from the deft, contents of phone call during pretrial detention to friend who might have been cooperating with the investigation admissible.

Explicit waiver of drug quantity calculation in sentencing memo forecloses challenge on appeal.

District court was within discretion to accept deft's possibly exaggerated calculation of drug quantity.

Reference on cross to lab reports did not inappropriately bronze lay testimony as to drug identification or present confrontation clause argument as to the content of the reports.

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/16-2468P-01A.pdf