Reissue: Denial of En Banc
Richard Jordan, et al v. Marshall Fisher, et al
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 En Banc. Show all posts
Showing posts with label En Banc. Show all posts
Eleventh Circuit: Brandon Jones v. Commissioner, GA DOC, et al. (1)
Due Process
Concurrence in denial of en banc - no Due Process right to discovery of method of manufacture of state execution materials, given state secrecy statute.
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201610277.opn.pdf
[CB editorial: The death penalty is morally unjustifiable.]
Concurrence in denial of en banc - no Due Process right to discovery of method of manufacture of state execution materials, given state secrecy statute.
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201610277.opn.pdf
[CB editorial: The death penalty is morally unjustifiable.]
Second Circuit: Yale-New Haven Hospital v. Nicholls, et al.
ERISA
Denial of en banc, with dissent from denial.
ERISA annuity/lump sum benefits / posthumous domestic orders. Or something like that.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/78742b70-321c-4ada-8a3a-2b2b4f09d6b8/1/doc/13-4725comb_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/78742b70-321c-4ada-8a3a-2b2b4f09d6b8/1/hilite/
Denial of en banc, with dissent from denial.
ERISA annuity/lump sum benefits / posthumous domestic orders. Or something like that.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/78742b70-321c-4ada-8a3a-2b2b4f09d6b8/1/doc/13-4725comb_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/78742b70-321c-4ada-8a3a-2b2b4f09d6b8/1/hilite/
Ninth Circuit: USA v. Elven Swisher
First Amendment, En Banc
The Supreme Court's holding that false statements of military valor are protected under the First Amendment was a change in the substantive law, and is retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review.
The wearing of a military medal that was not granted by the armed services is an act of expressive speech, and no compelling government interest justified its criminalization.
Dissent: Wearing a medal is substantially different from saying that a medal was won. Gvt may legitimately ban.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/01/11/11-35796.pdf
The Supreme Court's holding that false statements of military valor are protected under the First Amendment was a change in the substantive law, and is retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review.
The wearing of a military medal that was not granted by the armed services is an act of expressive speech, and no compelling government interest justified its criminalization.
Dissent: Wearing a medal is substantially different from saying that a medal was won. Gvt may legitimately ban.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/01/11/11-35796.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)