DC Circuit: State of New Jersey v. EPA

 

Court has independent obligation to assure itself that parties have standing where the question is raised by an intervenor.

Although the Act contemplates state regulations and statutes that go further than its requirements, a state's claim that inadequate record-keeping demands will hamper enforcement is sufficient for standing, as the possibility of state action to remove the harm doesn't obviate the harm for purposes of standing, and additionally, and subsequent changes in state enforcement would have to be approved by the agency.  Possibility of future harms from enforcement in other states is also sufficient for standing.

Rulemaking sufficiently explained its enforcement trigger levels and adequately addressed enforcement concerns.

Dissent:

Harm too attenuated for standing -- one theory requires an out of state polluter who applied under the permit scheme and pollutes undetetected, and the other theory relies on speculative noncompliance within the state.

State of New Jersey v. EPA

DC Circuit: United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 400 v. NLRB

 

As judicial review is limited to objections raised in proceedings before the Board, the Board's refusal to allow non-employee protected activity on the worksite by overruling of its own precedent on the solicitation exception stands, since the evidence of general animus wasn't introduced under that theory before the Board.

United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 400 v. NLRB

Eleventh Circuit: Edeline Julmisse Prosper v. Anthony Martin

 

No error in exclusion of expert witness at summary judgment for the purposes of translating blurred video into spatial analysis, as the finder of fact would ultimately base their judgment on personal observation of the video.  No error in the exclusion of expert witness on possible medical causes of decedent's behavior, as the officer's judgment was the relevant conduct.

Video evidence does not sufficiently discredit officer's account.

Suspect's biting of the officer's finger during the struggle made shooting the suspect several times in the chest a reasonable act, as the officer feared that he wouldn't be able to defend himself if the finger were to be lost.  Earlier tasing of the suspect also held to be reasonable.

Edeline Julmisse Prosper v. Anthony Martin

Tenth Circuit: Aposhian v. Wilkinson

 

Dissents from both vacatur of en banc order and the reinstatement of the panel holding.

Dissent: The regulation is outside the statute; if the government doesn't raise Chevron, the deference claim is waived; lenity counsels the reading of the statute to the contrary.

Dissent: Deference is an aspect of statutory interpretation, which is the function of the courts.

Dissent: Criminal laws are not subject to Chevron deference.

Aposhian v. Wilkinson

Tenth Circuit: Vette v. Sanders

 

In the motion for summary judgment, the court appropriately considered and weighed verified complaint as sufficiently evidentiary, as either met the standards for an affidavit, or stated facts within the personal knowledge of the party under penalty of perjury. 

Contradictory testimonial narratives are insufficient basis for blatant contradiction exception in challenging factual determinations on appeal; there must be a visible fiction.

Documentary evidence does not utterly discredit claims of verified pleading.

Remaining claims outside the scope of review under the collateral order rule.

Violent arrest with dog was a violation of the Fourth Amendment; the precedent on use of force after the point at which the arrestee had ceased to resist constituted clearly established law.

Vette v. Sanders

Eighth Circuit: B.W.C. v. Randall Williams

 

Recital of state's advocacy for vaccination on form required to be signed by those refusing to have their children vaccinated doesn't amount to compelled speech or place any incidental burden on speech.

The requirement to sign the form is a neutral requirement of general applicability that does not cause an increase in the perceived harm of vaccination.

No equal protection claim, as the requirement to sign the form is a general one.

As each individual aspect of the claim is without basis, the hybrid nature of the claim doesn't justify strict scrutiny.

B.W.C.  v.  Randall Williams

Eighth Circuit: United States v. Chimanga Smith

 

Traffic violation and subsequent flight established probable cause for stop and placing the driver in handcuffs.

Plain-view exception allows a police officer to shine a flashlight through the windshield after all of the suspects have left the car.

No error in declining to instruct on the lesser included offense of possession, as there was insufficient evidence probative of likelihood for individual use.

(Seven uses of "Cleaned Up" signal in nine page opinion.)

United States  v.  Chimanga Smith

Seventh Circuit: Nicole K. v. Terry Stigdon

A federal court should abstain from determining whether minors are categorically entitled to counsel in child-removal proceedings -- rather, denials in specific cases are subject to first review by the state's courts.

Nicole K. v. Terry Stigdon

Seventh Circuit: USA v. Adel Daoud

 

Dissent from denial of en banc: Sentences must be upheld unless no reasonable jurist would have imposed them in the circumstances, the sentence is logical, and the terms are consistent with sentencing objectives.  Reviewing court was insufficiently deferential to trial court's determination of mitigation.

USA v.  Adel Daoud

Seventh Circuit: P.W. v. USA

 

Although a traumatic birth is insufficient to trigger the statute of limitations, the circumstances around the birth were sufficient to put a reasonable person on notice of the possibility of an actionable claim.

Federal tort claim act requires actual dismissal of intervening claim to trigger the statutory exception to the statute of limitations.

Statute of limitations not estopped by clinic's lack of explicit designation as a federally funded facility.

Equitable tolling unavailable, given publicly available database of federal health care providers.s

P.W. v.  USA

Seventh Circuit: USA v. Robert L. Berrios

 

Although there was insufficient circuit precedent on the question to allow for the good-faith exception to cell phone searches prior to the Supreme Court holding limiting them, the admission of the evidence from the search was harmless error.

USA v.  Robert L. Berrios

NB:  Prior to this post, cell phone cases, including historical location data, were tagged under "Computer Law."

Seventh Circuit: Stephen Cassell v. David Snyders

 

Equitable factors counsel against granting a preliminary injunction when the religious practice or meeting size is not currently the subject of regulation with a live threat of enforcement.

Courts must consider the fine-grained details of a public health order's restrictions on the practice of religion when considering injunctions.

Appeal of denial of preliminary injunction requested on substantive grounds cannot be converted to a procedural due process claim.

State RFRA and other state law claims possibly precluded by 11A bar on injunction against state officials, mootness against particular parties, and possibly arise outside supplemental federal jurisdiction.

Stephen Cassell v.  David Snyders

Sixth Circuit: United States v. Daniel Gissantaner

Given that expert testimony sufficiently established that the DNA testing technology was generally sufficiently reliable, the question of its reliability when using small sample sizes is a matter to be determined at trial.

United States v. Daniel Gissantaner

Sixth Circuit: Merrilee Stewart v. IHT Ins. Agency Group

ERISA claim  would be foreclosed by res judicata given the court proceedings related to the term of employment, even if the arbitration-ordered release of claims were to be vacated.

Merrilee Stewart v. IHT Ins. Agency Group

Sixth Circuit: United States v. Michael White, Jr.

 

The visits to the house by the seller of drugs during the transactions created a fair probability or sufficient common sense inference for a search warrant for the house.

The appropriateness of a no-knock warrant sounds in S1983 claims, not a suppression hearing.

United States v. Michael White, Jr. 

Sixth Circuit: Sevier Cnty. Schs. Fed. Credit Union v. Branch Banking & Trust Co.

 

Since mutual promises are sufficient consideration under the state's law, there was sufficient consideration for the arbitration agreement.

Revision of the bank account terms to incorporate an arbitration agreement had insufficient mutual assent, as the terms were revised by simple notice and opportunity to cancel, creating a contract of adhesion, since the change in the terms was unreasonable and breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Sevier Cnty. Schs. Fed. Credit Union v. Branch Banking & Trust Co.

Fifth Circuit: Playa Vista Conroe v. Ins. Co. of the West

 

Where the insurance contract defines floods as occurring on normally dry land, the flood exclusion does not encompass boats damaged in harbor; given that plaintiff introduced evidence that the boats were not damaged by the change in water level, summary judgment for the plaintiff was appropriate.

Exclusions drafted within coverage provisions are addressed under the shifting burdens standard of state law; the plaintiff is not required to establish that the exclusion does not apply when establishing coverage.

Agreement reached between parties after summary judgment placing fault for damage on the acts of a third party while liquidating the remaining damages did not undo the grant of summary judgment.

Playa Vista Conroe v. Ins. Co. of the West

Fifth Circuit: USA v. Vigil

Given finding that the deft abused (rather than merely used) illegal drugs, the court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a ban on alcohol consumption during supervised release; the condition is reasonably related to the verdict, the deprivation is minimal, and the condition is consistent with the goals of sentencing. 

USA v. Vigil

Fourth Circuit: Desmond Ndambi v. CoreCivic, Inc.

 

As civil immigration detainees fall outside the traditional employment paradigm, in in that the work is not a bargained-for exchange of labor, the federal minimum wage law does not apply.  The situation of the detainees is similar enough to those in criminal incarceration that the rules for work in prison apply.

Desmond Ndambi v. CoreCivic, Inc.

Third Circuit: USA v. Marcus Walker

 

Historical cell site information obtained without a warrant appropriately considered under the good faith exception.

Where the underlying data was also admitted, testimony by only one of several collaborating investigators did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

Investigator's testimony that the technical evidence was consistent with the physical investigation was not improper vouching or bolstering.

As Hobbs Act Robbery is simply the common law felony in an interstate commerce and a non-physical threat therefore wouldn't fall within its scope, the completed crime is categorically a crime of violence.

As the attempt presumes the full offense, the US Code generally defines attempts specific to each offense, and the intent of the legislature was to prevent violent crime, attempted Hobbs Act Robbery is categorically a crime of violence.

Jury instructions sufficiently identified the robbery, and not the conspiracy as the predicate for convictions under the Hobbs Act.

USA v. Marcus Walker

Third Circuit: Lisa Earl v. NVR Inc

Given intervening state court decisions, the economic loss doctrine (barring recovery in tort from claims arising from a contract) does not bar claims for economic loss under the federal deceptive practices statute. 

Gist of the action doctrine does not bar recovery in tort for claims squarely arising in contract, where the contract is collateral to the fraud or negligence.

Lisa Earl v. NVR Inc

Second Circuit: Linza v. Saul

 

As Congress has explicitly recognized National Guard dual service technicians as civilian employees, a plain reading of the statute suggests that the employment does not fall within the military exception to the benefits limitation statute.

Circuit split flagged.

Linza v. Saul

First Circuit: Wong v. FMR LLC

Court appropriately considered Plan Manager's contracts with employer in granting dismissal for not stating a claim; no discovery was required to establish authenticity.

Intermediary that compiles a list of investment options from which Plan Managers select fixed options (after selecting the intermediary) is not transformed into a Plan fiduciary by the infrastructure fees assessed to the providers of the investment options, the ability ot modify the array of options open to Plan Managers, or the funds provided by the participation by the Plan Beneficiaries.

Wong v. FMR LLC

First Circuit: US v. Padilla-Galarza

Where deft counsel approves plan of insulating confession of codefendant from incriminating the deft, review is for plain error; in this case, no error plain or otherwise when incriminating conclusion could only be reached by inference.

District Court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a protective order prohibiting leaving cooperating witnesses' statements with the deft, as there was sufficient showing of good cause, the Jencks Act statutory right to the materials was adequately preserved, and deft's courtroom misbehavior justified the limitation on the 6A right to the materials.

Court adequately ensured sufficient Jencks Act access to agents' notes by questioning testifying agent as to scope of note-taking and accepting their answer.

Limiting instruction delivered standing-up after deft's courtroom outburst appropriately preserved the proceedings against mistrial.

Prosecutor's recital of plea condition that cooperating witness must tell the truth was not improper vouching, neither was the court's reference to "a cooperating witness of the United States of America."

No plain error in instruction on deft's testimony indicating an interest in the case, as it didn't belabor the fact; lack of limiting instruction against codeft's outburst wasn't plain error given other evidence of guilt.

Identification and withdrawal of claim of sentencing error during proceeding waives the claim in direct review.

No abuse of discretion in not considering mandatory minimums for other counts.

Court appropriately refused to consider elements of competency report as hearsay, as they lacked required indicia of credibility.

Plausible rationale makes 228 month bank robbery sentence not substantively unreasonable.

Deft claim that money could be cleaned from the damage done by anti-theft devices is speculative; FDIC coverage of stolen funds should not be considered in restitution order, as insurance is generally not considered.

No substantive sentencing error in 228 month sentence for bank robbery.

Ineffective Assistance claim insufficiently clear in the record for consideration on direct review.

US v. Padilla-Galarza