Patent, Due Process
Absent claims of extrajudicial influence, no Due Process harm in the initial and final review being performed by the same panel.
Statute does not bar.
Review correctly identified innovation as obvious, as infringing prior art that incorporated the innovation was primarily marketed under other aspects.
Dissent: As statute assigns one level of adjudication to the Director and one to the Board, there must be separate panels.
[Again, we don't know many things, but we especially don't know Patent Law. Just trying for comprehensive access to slips.]
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/14-1771.Opinion.1-8-2016.1.PDF
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.
Showing posts with label Due Process. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Due Process. Show all posts
Tenth Circuit: Martin Marietta Materials v. Kansas DOT
Administrative, Procedural DP
Federal statutory requirement that changes to state agency's plan receive federal approval in order to receive certain federal funds does not create a property interest assertable by the suppliers affected by the change.
Supplier is not in privvity with contractor in contract with state government.
Being on a list of approved suppliers does not create a property interest.
No mutually explicit understanding.
No liberty interest imperiled by defamation by removal from approved supplier list, as the test results were true.
No showing of concrete harm from gov't statements.
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/13/13-3314.pdf
Federal statutory requirement that changes to state agency's plan receive federal approval in order to receive certain federal funds does not create a property interest assertable by the suppliers affected by the change.
Supplier is not in privvity with contractor in contract with state government.
Being on a list of approved suppliers does not create a property interest.
No mutually explicit understanding.
No liberty interest imperiled by defamation by removal from approved supplier list, as the test results were true.
No showing of concrete harm from gov't statements.
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/13/13-3314.pdf
First Circuit: Global Tower Assets LLC v. Town of Rome
Administrative law
As planning agency's decision is subject to mandatory statutory review before another panel, the agency's decision is insufficiently final for judicial review under the relevant Federal statute.
For purposes of pleading, finality is distinct from exhaustion, which as an affirmative defense, doesn't have to be pleaded.
No procedural due process claim, as there were state avenues to challenge.
Procedure too run-of-the-mill for a procedural due process challenge.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/15-1140P-01A.pdf
As planning agency's decision is subject to mandatory statutory review before another panel, the agency's decision is insufficiently final for judicial review under the relevant Federal statute.
For purposes of pleading, finality is distinct from exhaustion, which as an affirmative defense, doesn't have to be pleaded.
No procedural due process claim, as there were state avenues to challenge.
Procedure too run-of-the-mill for a procedural due process challenge.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/15-1140P-01A.pdf
DC Circuit: Walter Jackson, Jr. v. Raymond Mabus, Jr.
Denial of amendment to military record was not arbitrary & capricious; although the written decision was perfunctory, there was sufficient basis in the record for the decision.
Denial of reconsideration reasonable.
No Due Process violation.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/EBB3DC0B4C7630ED85257F2A00548069/$file/14-5224-1590906.pdf
Denial of reconsideration reasonable.
No Due Process violation.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/EBB3DC0B4C7630ED85257F2A00548069/$file/14-5224-1590906.pdf
Fifth Circuit: Machete Productions, L.L.C. v. Heather Page, et al
S1983 - State film incentives program / First Amendment
Although removal from state to federal forum operated as a voluntary waiver of sovereign immunity, monetary damages against a state don't lie under S1983, and as the film franchise has no plans for another project, there is no basis for injunctive relief.
Qualified immunity - by requiring films to depict the state in a positive manner in order to qualify for funding, the state violated no clearly established constitutional law.
No due process violation, as the filmmaker did not have a right to the discretionary grants.
No prior restraint of speech under the Texas Constitution.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-50120-CV0.pdf
Although removal from state to federal forum operated as a voluntary waiver of sovereign immunity, monetary damages against a state don't lie under S1983, and as the film franchise has no plans for another project, there is no basis for injunctive relief.
Qualified immunity - by requiring films to depict the state in a positive manner in order to qualify for funding, the state violated no clearly established constitutional law.
No due process violation, as the filmmaker did not have a right to the discretionary grants.
No prior restraint of speech under the Texas Constitution.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-50120-CV0.pdf
Ninth Circuit: USA v. Xochitl Cisneros-Rodriguez
Immigration, due process.
As an administrative officer can terminate an administrative proceeding in favor of a judicial proceeding, a waiver of legal representation to pursue a plausible claim of relief is invalidated by an affirmative misrepresentation by the administrative officer.
Dissent: District court made adverse credibility finding against the claim of misrepresentation. Petitioner might have otherwise obtained relief in interval.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2015/12/23/13-10645.pdf
As an administrative officer can terminate an administrative proceeding in favor of a judicial proceeding, a waiver of legal representation to pursue a plausible claim of relief is invalidated by an affirmative misrepresentation by the administrative officer.
Dissent: District court made adverse credibility finding against the claim of misrepresentation. Petitioner might have otherwise obtained relief in interval.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2015/12/23/13-10645.pdf
Fifth Circuit: USA v. Mark Hebert
Sentencing, 5A, 6A, 8A.
92 year sentence for Bank Fraud under 70K upheld, due to murder established by preponderance in sentencing.
No clear error in the finding.
After plea deal, gov't filed second PSR, cross-referencing the murder.
Cross-reference to state law murder not substantively unreasonable, as the sentence could have been an independent upward variance in the primary offense.
No Fifth Amendment Due Process, Eighth Amendment, or Sixth Amendment violation, as sentence was within statutory limits of the primary offense.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/14/14-31405-CR0.pdf
92 year sentence for Bank Fraud under 70K upheld, due to murder established by preponderance in sentencing.
No clear error in the finding.
After plea deal, gov't filed second PSR, cross-referencing the murder.
Cross-reference to state law murder not substantively unreasonable, as the sentence could have been an independent upward variance in the primary offense.
No Fifth Amendment Due Process, Eighth Amendment, or Sixth Amendment violation, as sentence was within statutory limits of the primary offense.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/14/14-31405-CR0.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)