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.
There were a handful of decisions out from the 9th & Federal Circuit on Friday, but other work calls, and I need to close this window. Possibly to be covered tomorrow, depending on how long the list is.
Again, folks, if for some reason you're reading this, you're basically watching somebody take batting practice. Don't rely; don't rely; don't rely. Cheers.
CB
Given the specific misrepresentations made, and the fact that insurers would have otherwise more carefully scrutinized the clinic, sufficient evidence for a scheme or artifice to defraud, despite the fact that some percentage of the claims were legitimate.
Restitution, and sentencing calculations should have been offset for the percentage of treatments that were medically necessary. Forfeiture, though, looks to the gross proceeds of the criminal activity and did not have to be offset.
Earlier administrative determination of employer's identity does not bind later adjudication under claim preclusion, since the earlier determination found no liability, and the determination of the employer's identity was therefore not essential to the decision.
Administrative regulation, state law, and equitable considerations of delay prevent an ex ante rescission of workers' compensation insurance contract, where that rescission would defeat the insurer's liability for adjudicated claims.
No 5A DP violation where the agency's administrative error was in a proceeding that eventually proved nondispositive.
Arbitrator's decision that damages request was too speculative was not arbitrary or capricious, given insufficient evidence in the claim.
Federal statute providing for state administrative remedy, followed by federal arbitration, followed by Article III review provides sufficient enforcement mechanism to displace S1983 remedy.
Sheila Armstrong v. Mich. Bureau of Servs. for Blind Persons
Alien's appeal citing an exceptional situation justifying sua sponte reopening of the matter did not sufficiently exhaust a claim for a statutory reopening of the matter due to exceptional circumstances.
Given the evidentiary proffers of the parties at the preliminary injunction stage, state law compelled the court to attempt a reformation of the noncompete agreement as opposed to a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement on the basis of overbreadth.
State trial court's determination that detective's summary of statements of non-testifying witness was not inadmissible hearsay because it didn't recite the witness' words and the detective's purpose in describing the statements was to explain the course of the investigation was an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent.
State intermediate appeals citation referencing harmless error does not independently preserve the issue for the federal habeas claim, as the decision was looked through in favor of the reasoned decision of the lower court, and the issue was not presented in the federal collateral challenge.
District court "misapplied" its discretion by recognizing two contracts in its holding, but only reversing its holding as to one on the motion to reconsider due to the fact that the other party had not argued the second contract; the other party was not sufficiently put on notice by one sentence mentioning the agreement in a brief.
Statute's categorical bar on contractual restrictions on subsequent employment, followed by closely defined exceptions, creates a presumption that the statute ratifies the common law antipathy to such restrictions, rather than a rule of reason.
State consumer protection law in the state law elected in the contract doesn't apply, as there is a common law presumption against its extraterritorial exception, and no conduct harming consumers occurred in the state.
Continued possession of potential trade-secret materials from prior employer insufficient to establish acquisition under the law of the state.
District Court's interpretation of the terms of the arbitral agreement enjoining use of the technology and methods in a patent application is reviewed for plain error, as the reviewing court must make factual determinations as to whether the uses are sufficiently similar.
District court's restatement of the arbitral award did not substantially alter the law of the case.
Fees incurred prior to the filing of claim can be recovered under a fee-shifting statute where they are an attempt to resolve a threatened claim.
Court reasonably found fees to be nonsegregable as they generally advanced the litigation position.
State rules requiring party to seek contingent appellate fee award in the trial court are procedural, so the federal rule allowing award of fees by the reviewing court prevails.
Dismissal with prejudice of a erroneous claim that an earlier decision of a regulatory body relied on a preempted state statute does not deprive the plaintiff of the right subsequently to assert the preemption of the statute as relied upon by another regulatory decision.
Dispute as to two of the parties is now moot, given private settlement of claims, and subsequent procedural steps and the possibility that an allegedly preempted statute might be relied upon in the future is insufficient to preserve a live case or controversy between the parties.
While the voiding of a past agency order is not obtainable under the Ex Parte Young exception to state sovereignty, subsequent enforcement actions in furtherance of such an order do state a claim.
As the suit is seeking a remedy in equity, the non-jurisdictional bar against S1983 claims against political subdivisions does not deprive the court of jurisdiction.
Statutory requirement of utility capability implies an inquiry into nearby infrastructure.
CJ, et al., Concur/Dissent:
Federal statute defining utility service area applies to the degree that federal funds were used to construct the infrastructure.
Concur/Concur with Concur/Dissent:
Fact-bound decision on remand.
Concur:
Where a state law statute creating a private cause of action is preempted, the c/a can arise in equity, and where the claim presents a substantial question of federal law, there is federal jurisdiction.
Concur:
Although, by Bivvens analogy, S1983's exclusion of political subdivisions should extinguish a correlative implied cause of action in equity arising under Ex Parte Young, precedent sufficiently recognizes the validity of an equitable suit for prospective relief against state officials' actions that violate the federal constitution.
Execution of administrative warrant under the auspices of the state medical board and the subsequent preparation of a report is entitled to the qualified immunity of law enforcement, not the absolute immunity of a prosecutor.
Claims of malicious prosecution and abuse of process are inherently tort claims, not constitutional violations, and do not sound in S1983 actions -- any underlying constitutional violation must be raised according to its own terms.
Remand for the district court to consider whether underlying plausible 4A claims were waived by the plaintiff's initial tort-based filing under notice pleading.
Sufficient basis for plea to specific drug quantities, given duration of daily drug sales; sufficient basis for conspiracy plea as to buyer/seller relationship where the relationship goes on for long enough and sufficient mutual trust is established.
Court's instructions at plea colloquy did not rise to the level of plain error.
Ineffective assistance waived for not being raised below, preserved for collateral challenge.
Subsidiary user on a cell phone plan is bound by arbitration agreement referenced in electronic signature at time that the subsidiary purchased the extended service.
Contra proferentum notwithstanding, the arbitration agreement's incorporation of successors and assigns and the inherently durational nature of the contract mean that after-acquired subsidiaries are parties to the arbitration agreement.
Present dispute is within the scope of the arbitration agreement, given the statutory presumption for arbitration and the terms of the agreement compelling arbitration of all disputes and claims between the parties.
Consumer's right of action under the credit reporting statute arises through notification of the reporting agency, so a consumer's direct notification of a bank of an error in the report does not suffice to state a claim arising from the bank's statutory duty not to provide inaccurate information.
Prior military FOIA disclosures about specific incidents did not generically waive withholding about similar incidents; the waiver doctrine requires that the waiving disclosure be identical in both specificity and matter, and different incidents are inherently different matters.
Although the military cannot, under a mosaic theory, withhold disclosures of large amounts of data, but the disclosure is justified where the military contends that each element of the mosaic (each disclosure) might provide information about critical vulnerabilities.
As the state's attestation requirements for mailed-in votes is only imposed in a few states, and the state has not advanced any interest behind it, lower court's entry of consent judgement abrogating the requirement should not be stayed. The elevated standard for stays close to an election is met, as the last election didn't have the requirement, and the state hasn't suggested that it would confuse voters. Political party has standing to intervene for the purposes of the pending appeal.
"...a salmagundi of affirmative defenses."
Grounds for denial of intervention of right (or, in the alternative, permissive) did not have to be extensively described by the court -- the decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion in light of the record.
No abuse of discretion of denial of intervention of right by citizens attempting to stop cell-phone tower on church steeple where it is apparent that the existing parties will attempt to vindicate the specific statutory protections that the citizens intended to raise; the litigation strategy of the existing parties doesn't enter into the calculus.
No abuse of discretion in denial of permissive intervention, as existing parties would raise the smae issues, the putative intervenors had no cause of action under state law, and it's really important to build cell phone towers quickly.
T-Mobile Northeast LLC v. The Town of Barnstable