Eighth Circuit: United States v. John Fortenberry

 

Statute's description of judgment on the merits looks to actual adjudication of the substantive issues of the claim rather than looking to the procedural rules' definition of judgment on the merits.  A dismissal of a claim against an agent due to a limitations period does not require the dismissal of the claim against the alleged principal under the statute, or under normal principles of vicarious liability.

Abuse of discretion to admit evidence of past bad acts that were time-barred from the suit, as they were more prejudicial than probative.  As it became a theme of the case, limiting instruction was insufficient.

Evidence of retaliation and harassment by non-defendant agents of the municipality was also more prejudicial than probative, as it translated into the theme that the municipality was a bad actor.

Implying that the municipality had indemnified the defendant officers for punitive damages when in fact only compensatory damages were to be covered was an abuse of discretion.

Cumulative evidentiary errors and misleading jury instructions suffice for vacatur and new trial.

United States  v.  John Fortenberry

Fourth Circuit: US v. Bijan Rafiekian

 

Under the statute, an agent of a foreign government operates under foreign direction and control in something more than a one-sided agreement, but one that doesn't necessarily rise to the level of control suggested by employment.

The exclusion of foreign legal transactions from the statute's reach is an affirmative defense, not an element.  Affirmative defenses are not necessarily smaller in scope, and can be used to define the statute's scope.

Circumstantial evidence and rational inference may be used to establish that a person was acting as an agent of a foreign government.

Court erred in granting acquittal, since a rational juror might have determined that the organizational structure and contacts sufficiently established the possibility of foreign direction and control.

Court erred in granting acquittal on Conspiracy, given the agreements, intent to fly below the radar, and decision not to file a notification with the AG.

One-sentence explanation for the granting of a new trial due to the weight of the evidence was categorically insufficient.

Court abused its discretion in holding that the jurors would not honor the limiting instruction on hearsay materials, given the volume of the materials; the ability of the jury to respect their instructions is an almost invariable assumption of the law.

Restricting the reasons for granting a new trial to the ones recited in the motion, including noting the cumulative error, is a jurisdictional limit.

US v. Bijan Rafiekian 

DC Circuit: American Hospital Association v. Alex Azar, II

Jurisdiction-strip statute circumscribed by ultra vires agency actions -- if actions were in excess of the statutory authority - even if not plainly and clearly so -  the jurisdiction strip doesn't apply.

Where the jurisdiction strip merges with merits, deference still applies, since otherwise there would be a wider scope of review, contrary to law's intent.

Implementation provisions referencing statute that the agency is interpreting doesn't preclude implementation rulemaking as to the latter, since the latter recites other implementation mechanisms.

Agency reading is reasonable, given text and statutory context, so jurisdiction strip applies.

Arguendo, even without a basis for Article III jurisdiction, under statutory jurisdiction, the rulemaking doesn't conflict with a law regulating such reimbursements.

American Hospital Association v. Alex Azar, II

DC Circuit: Association for Community v. TREA

Inclusion of disputed term in a subsequent statute regulating the matter did not constitute an implied repeal of the earlier statute's definition.

Ability to renew a plan of limited duration doesn't make agency designation of "short-term" unreasonable.

Agency rule reasonably balances conflicting policy agendas.

Dissent: Rule doesn't sufficiently reconcile statutory scheme as a whole.

Association for Community v. TREA

Eighth Circuit: Deaton Oil Company, LLC v. United States

A claim that an agent did not pay taxes and make payments does not state a claim as a defense to nonpayment unless the nonperformance incapacitated the principal in that respect -- a high bar.

http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/09/172326P.pdf

Seventh Circuit: Alvaro Cortina-Chavez v. Jefferson B. Sessions III

Denial of request for sua sponte administrative review is unreviewable.

No abuse of discretion in denying motion to reconsider on the grounds that the petitioner neither alerted the agency to the specific basis for the appeal nor filed a brief within the required schedule, as both grounds operate as independent bases for the decision, and petitioner only appealed the first.

No abuse of discretion in referral to a single judge rather than a panel, since regulations specifically empower a single judge to dismiss on the grounds stated by the agency.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D07-05/C:17-2116:J:Rovner:aut:T:fnOp:N:2182163:S:0

DC Circuit: Western Organization v. Ryan Zinke

No legal duty to conduct a further environmental review of the federal government's coal regulation scheme, as the adoption of the plan in 1985 was the major federal action that triggered the obligation of environmental review.

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/FCE27F0BA64C40A1852582B100518555/$file/15-5294-1736645.pdf

Fourth Circuit: Maricela Martinez v. Jefferson B. Sessions III

As no jury unanimity as to the theory of the offense is required, statute is not susceptible to modified categorical review.

Assuming that the 'substantial erosion' of property rights required for the agency standard of theft convictions is valid and applies here, since the law sweeps beyond that to incorporate things like joyriding, the agency erred in holding the state conviction to be a crime of moral turpitude justifying refusal of withholding of removal.

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/171301.P.pdf

Second Circuit: AEI Life v. Lincoln Benefit Life

A conformity statement in a contract, when captioned as a conformity clause and not naming a particular jurisdiction, does not sufficiently manifest the intention of the parties to be bound by the law of a particular jurisdiction to operate as a choice of law clause.

Under center of gravity analysis, New York law governs the transaction.

State public policy interests against wagering insurance contracts establish voidability, not ab initio nullity, and the risk can therefore be incorporated in the drafting.

Notary verification on the instrument of trust formation created a presumption of validity that was not overcome by a challenge by a handwriting expert.

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/1a213a40-982b-4547-95ac-62b636db872e/2/doc/17-224_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/1a213a40-982b-4547-95ac-62b636db872e/2/hilite/

First Circuit: Congregation Jeshuat Israel v. Congregation Shearith Israel

Denial of en banc.

Clarification from panel (Souter):  holding only addresses trust obligations of parties.

Dissent from denial:  But res judicata.  Also, written contracts might not be the best way of getting at the truth, as the chartered entities didn't exist when the property transfer occurred.

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/16-1756O-01A.pdf

First Circuit: Kelley v. Fidelity Mgmt. Trust Co.

Souter, ERISA, Agency


Funds transferred to the plan administrator's account for a fixed-sum disbursement to the beneficiary are not transmogrified into plan assets while in the holding account, and the general beneficiaries of the plan therefore have no claim on the interest earned.


Kelley v. Fidelity Mgmt. Trust Co.

Fifth Circuit: Rainier DSC 1, L.L.C., et al v. Rainier Capital Mg

Arbitration, FRCP, securities


A stay of the litigation pending compulsory arbitration is at the discretion of the court, and where the legal issues are distinct from those being arbitrated, although both arise from the same transaction or series of transactions, the proceedings may continue, simultaneous with the arbitration.

No genuine issue of material fact as to whether a partnership was created by estoppel in securities
memorandum, given that there was no evidence that the relevant parties were aware of the statements.

Rainier DSC 1, L.L.C., et al v. Rainier Capital Mg

Eighth Circuit: United States v. Austin DeCoster

Cruel & Unusual, Due Process, Sentencing

Corporate liability is not vicarious liability, since there is direct control of the instrumentalities of the crime.  Custodial sentence therefore does not offend Due Process.

No clear error in findings of fact relating to sentencing,

Past offenses of the corporate entity appropriately considered during sentencing, given defts' control of the company.

Concur - Defts' negligence in running the business allows custodial sentence.

Dissent - No, it doesn't.

United States  v.  Austin DeCoster

Fifth Circuit: Mary Smith, et al v. Regional Transit Authority

ERISA, Agency

IRS standard is the appropriate test for determining, for the purposes of ERISA, if a private company is an agency or instrumentality of a government body, and by this standard, the private company that operates the transit system qualifies.

Deft not estopped from invoking governmental exemption, as the terms of the statute control.

Statute of limitations ran from first letter saying that some claims would not be funded.

PArty asserting discovery violation has to establish significance of the evidence sought.

Mary Smith, et al v. Regional Transit Authority

DC Circuit: Rene Lopez v. Council on American-Islamic

Agency, Tort

Given close interrelation between national advocacy organization and local chapter, genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether an actual agency relationship existed with respect to unlicensed legal practice. 

Rene Lopez v. Council on American-Islamic

Fifth Circuit: Bd. of Trs. Local 392 v. B&B Mech. Servs.

Labor - agency.

Employer's membership in trade negotiating organization sufficed to bind it to the CBA, even though written authorization to bind the employer was never issued.

Secondary certification writings incorporated the unexpired CBA.

http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/15a0301p-06.pdf