Sometimes I take a swing at these, but the time is running short today.
https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-2163.OPINION.3-24-2022_1926100.pdf
https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1725.OPINION.3-24-2022_1926111.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.
Eleventh Circuit: Fuad Fares Fuad Said v. U.S. Attorney General
Given the plain language of the proscription, and the fact that the wider prohibition encompasses actual (as opposed to hypothetical) substances, the state crime isn't a valid immigration predicate, as the divergence is significant enough to constitute, as a matter of law, a reasonable probability of prosecution under the state law for acts that would exceed the reach of the federal law.
Eleventh Circuit: John Doe v. Samford University, et al.
Errors in university investigation could be attributed to ineptitude, inexperience, and pro-complainant bias, and therefore don't raise a plausible inference sufficient to state a claim of discrimination on the basis of gender.
CONCURRENCE:
When resolving a motion to dismiss, a court must draw reasonable inferences in favor of the non-movant.
Ninth Circuit: Estate of Clemente N. Aguirre v. County of Riverside
Issue of qualified immunity for a police officer is for trial, since the use of deadly force against an armed individual in a volatile situation is unconstitutional absent proof of threat to others.
Ninth Circuit: USA v. Edwin Mendez
Given the statutory right not to be tried as an adult for crimes committed as a juvenile, denial of the dismissal of a post-majority superseding indictment charging the deft with a different set of crimes is sufficiently final to be the basis of an interlocutory appeal.
Deft's post-majority acts of conspiracy ratified their juvenile acts, enabling them to be charged as an adult, despite the fact that the acts had already been the subject of juvenile proceedings. The ratification both removed the statutory protections against the transfer to adult proceedings and converted the pre-majority conspiracy to a crime rather than an act of delinquency.
Eighth Circuit: United States v. Gary Smith
Discussion of rehabilitative treatment duration during sentencing doesn't justify an inference that the sentence was increased for that purpose, since other factors were recited at sentencing.
Sentence not substantively unreasonable given incorrigible behavior.
Eighth Circuit: Colby Beal v. Outfield Brew House
Telephonic communications device that stores a predefined list of numbers and then randomly or in a defined manner selects and dials certain numbers doesn't come within the statutory proscription of random dialing machines.
CONCURRENCE IN PART:
Footnote that recites Supreme Court GVR's and denials of certiorari is error, as they're not precedential.
Seventh Circuit: K.F.C. v. Snap Inc.
As, under state law, the voidable aspect of an infant's contract is a defense against performance, not a bar to formation, the arbitration waiver within the contract is therefore valid, and questions of whether enforcement would be against public policy is within the scope of arbitration.
Seventh Circuit: USA v. Arthur Robinson
Since the state statute prohibiting the discharge of a firearm towards persons, occupied structures, and occupied vehicles requires a higher mens rea than recklessness, its status as a sentencing predicate wasn't changed by a Supreme Court holding that recklessness was an insufficient basis for a conviction involving the threatened or actual use of force against another person.
Issue was forfeited, not waived, when not raised on first appeal.
Seventh Circuit: Gorss Motels, Inc. v. Brigadoon Fitness Inc.
Court did not err in denying certification of a class based on a statutory claim of sending unsolicited facsimile advertisements; although the unsolicited nature of the communications is an affirmative defense to be established by the defendant, the predominance inquiry looks to the actual management of the claim, and certification risked a multiplicity of mini-trials on the issue.
Court's handling of the implied consent issue was appropriate to the certification stage, as defendant's claim wan't speculative, vague, or unsupported.
Consent provided to third parties isn't considered transferred consent where the original consent included messages from affiliates and vendors.
Sixth Circuit: Bretton Westmoreland v. Butler Cnty.
For pretrial detainees, a Fourteenth Amendment deliberate indifference claim requires something like objective reckless indifference rather than the subjective possession of sufficient knowledge to infer a risk of harm.
DISSENT:
Circuit precedent compels a subjective element; civil law negligence standard is categorically beneath the threshold of a constitutional due process claim; requiring an intentional action begs the question of sufficient knowledge; these facts would satisfy even the majority's novel test.
Bretton Westmoreland v. Butler Cnty.
Fifth Circuit: USA v. Henderson
Supervised release condition delegating to the parole officer the discretion to determine in which cases a certain condition applied wasn't plain error.
Fifth Circuit: Woods v. Cantrell
A single use of a racial epithet in the workplace can state a claim under Title VII.
Fifth Circuit: Trafigura Trading v. USA
As the fees assessed on the exported oil don't accrue any benefit to the exporters, but are rather directed to things generally useful to society, the assessment is an unconstitutional tax, rather than a permissible user fee.
DISSENT:
There are issues for trial, since the assessments aren't tied to the value of each barrel, and there is no explicit requirement in the precedent that the exporter be the sole beneficiary of the fees assessed.
Fifth Circuit: USA v. Mesquias
Where testimony objectively establishes fraudulent medical billing practices, there is no categorical requirement to establish actual falsity of diagnosis in particular cases.
When appealing a denial of a chance to speak at sentencing, the appellant must cite a basis for reversal or remand, or make a proffer of evidence that would have been offered.
Sufficient evidence of pervasive fraud to shift the burden of proof on the calculation of damages.
First Circuit: St. Paul's Foundation v. Ives
Monastery's Free Exercise rights were not impermissibly burdened by regulation of building construction; in seeking to reinstate the earlier approval while recharacterizing the use of the space in a manner that would eventually require the installation of additional facilities, enough doubt was cast on the legitimacy of the reinstatement that there is no issue for trial as to whether the withholding of reinstatement was arbitrary and capricious.
First Circuit: Valentin-Marrero v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
As the relief sought exceeds the bounds of the earlier favorable ruling by the ALJ, plaintiff was required to exhaust administrative remedies prior to seeking judicial relief for alleged noncompliance with the earlier ruling.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)