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.
Completing a form to report tax noncompliance under a statute that authorizes the payment to the reporter of the portion of the monies recovered does not create an enforceable contract with the government; a contract arises only if the reporter and the government specifically negotiate its terms.
Appeal sufficiently indicated its scope despite not mentioning the collateral order at issue; additionally, defts did not suffer prejudice by the omission.
Reasonable finder of fact could have determined that the use of force to trip up a suspect while holding his arms was a use of excessive force under the Fourth Amendment.
Circuit precedent on the right to be free of nontrivial force when engaging in passive resistance sufficiently clearly established.
Sufficient evidence for a reasonable finder of fact to conclude that the deft sold the drugs that caused the death, although the trace amounts found afterward were of the mixture's component parts.
As the executive had access to the financials, exercised purchasing authority, and ran the day-to-day operations, evidence was sufficient for a finding of willful blindness as to the representations; also, the willful blindness instruction was appropriate.
Indictment alleging two codefts engaged in conspiracy and wire fraud was not constructively amended by a theory of the case that the offenses were committed with others as opposed to each other, since the text of the law refers to a single defendant.
No clear error in the court's refusal to give an explicit unanimity instruction, or in not explicitly defining the scienter alternatives to willful blindness.
Court's not polling the jury can't be raised on appeal when explicitly waived at trial.
Requests for expenses in the current litigation did not amount to a false statement of monies owed under the federal debt collection act.
Lawsuit that didn't meet the evidentiary burden for establishing the assignment of claims didn't offend the federal debt collection act.
Nicole Smith v. Stewart, Zlimen & Jungers, Ltd
(8th continues its run on "Cleaned Up," with five uses in 12 pages.)
Where a past admission against interest can't be rebutted due to a discovery sanction against the speaker, the statement must be taken at face value.
As the validity of the assignment of the interest hinged on the application of foreign law, a motion to consider foreign law in the proceeding was untimely when made at the summary judgement stage.
Agent testimony sufficient to establish by a preponderance that the deft committed bank robberies during supervised release; within-guidelines sentence wasn't an abuse of discretion.
Although the union is compelled by state law to serve as the exclusive bargaining agent for the relevant unit, including its nonmembers, and the courts have recently held that it is unable to assess compulsory representation fees on nonmembers, an injury giving Article III standing for a First Amendment challenge to the state statute would require an actual instance of a nonmember requiring representation under the statute, and standing would also require that a named defendant threatened an imminent enforcement of the state law.
Assuming, without extending the precedent, that political deceit can offend the Equal Protection Clause, the conduct alleged was sufficiently publicly known to allow the voters a free choice.
The District Court judge did not violate the First Amendment in holding that the plaintiff's campaign speech had sufficiently revealed the alleged deceit.
Although a plaintiff alleging a discriminatory retaliation need not provide evidence at the pleading stage, the facts described in the pleadings must allow an inference that the conduct alleged resulted from the protected conduct.
As the termination resulted from a situation that was a matter of past practice, the deviation from that practice concerned an implied term of the existing CBA, and was therefore appropriately categorized as a minor dispute subject to arbitration.
State law antidiscrimination provisions preempted by federal labor law requiring arbitration.
As the vested equity valuation was contractually assigned to the Board of Directors, a motion for a discovery continuance to reach outside auditors' valuations of the vested equity was untimely; an appeal challenging the exclusion of evidence must specifically identify the evidence and the legal standard.
Non-zero determinations of vested equity at time of hiring and in subsequent audits did not make the Board's determination of nil value unreasonable.
An unenforceable agreement to later agree on a severance agreement did not create any obligation on either party when severance happened prior to the formation of the agreement.
Claim of fraudulent inducement under state law requires actual reliance.
Misrepresentations of prior employment foreclose equitable relief in quantum meruit.
Discovery stipulation between parties during discovery was inappropriate, as the unilateral declaration of secret materials prevents the court from conducting the necessary public interest balancing when deciding whether the record should be sealed.
Statute on the misuse of passports can't be extended to counterfeit passports.
No plain error in lay identification of deft in photos, since the photos were from a time at which the witness knew the defendant.
No clear error in sentencing determination that all of the funds in the deft's account were proceeds of fraud.
Under the bankruptcy statute, the Trustee's interest in litigation relating to the estate is not pecuniary, but rather the obligation to administer the estate, and is therefore not extinguished by an agreement between rival claimants.
The reasonableness of litigation expenses is determined by asking whether it was an abuse of discretion at the time of the expense, not by an after the fact determination of the merits of the claim.
Pleadings categorically excluding any claims against a federal officer are generally to be honored, except where they are artful exercises in pleading designed to circumvent jurisdiction.
For purposes of federal officer removal from state court, the conduct that caused the harm need not be caused by the act performed at the federal officer's direction, but merely associated with an act performed at the direction of the federal officer.
Assuming without deciding that the Supreme Court holding that public sector labor unions are not able to compel representation fee payments from nonmembers is retroactive, a claim to recoup these funds under S1983 is an action for damages, not disgorgement, as the funds are no longer traceable.
Private citizens who rely in good faith on a state law later found to be unconstitutional can interpose a defense of good faith to an action for damages under the federal statute.
Assuming without deciding that the common law tort defenses at the time of the adoption of the federal statute determine which defenses are available to the statutory tort claim, the closest analogue to a private citizen's reliance on an unconstitutional state law is abuse of process, not conversion.
Statutory notice and comment provision in affordable housing rent increase procedures that places local approval prior to federal consideration do not create a procedural interest under the APA where a subsequent rulemaking reverses that order.
Statute of limitations begins to run, at a minimum, when a reasonably prudent person would have been able to determine the nature of the claim, not when the precise mechanism is explicitly identified. (Here, apparently, when one of two APA claims became apparent.)
Relevant statutory statute of limitations is a claims-processing rule, not a jurisdictional bar; the court can therefore consider a claim for equitable tolling.
As the agency actions were discrete instances, the continuing action doctrine does not save the claim against the S1983 statute of limitations.
When a minor child of a newly naturalized alien takes their place in the visa queue, the legislative purpose of the statutory tolling of the child's age for the purpose of the pre-naturalization visa dictates that its tolled "statutory age" be applied within the statutory scheme for the post-naturalization visa.
The legislative intent is sufficiently clear to make Chevron deference inapplicable.
A named class representative retains an interest similar to a private attorney general in vindicating a class claim where the class has been decertified, even if the class representative has subsequently prevailed on the merits as a private plaintiff.
A court retains the obligation throughout the litigation to sua sponte decertify a class that no longer meets the requirements of the rules; no finding of a significant intervening event is required.
The court has no sua sponte obligation to reform the class to meet the rules prior to decertification.
In determining probable cause for forfeiture, refusing to grant an adverse inference after discovery non-production is within the broad discretion afforded the court.
Deprivation of the commercial building's owners of the rights of management, including improvement, selection of and negotiation with tenants, and taking of rental revenues constituted a seizure.
Seizure of rental income is a form of taking the underlying property, not a taking of an interest in property, so the statute required appropriate procedures -- either a hearing or a finding of exigency.
Subsequent finding of probable cause doesn't retroactively justify the earlier taking of rents -- government must repay all rents seized prior to the court's finding.