Habeas, AEDPA
Untimely state direct appeal captioned under the shared collateral/direct state procedural rule cannot be construed as a collateral challenge to toll the AEDPA clock, as it doesn't reach the merits of the collateral challenge.
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201415522.pdf
Showing posts with label Statute of Limitations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Statute of Limitations. Show all posts
Seventh Circuit: USA v. Aaron Thompson
FTCA SOL
Statute of limitations bars claims related to prenatal treatment and birth, as both accrued on or around the time of birth.
No equitable tolling, as the federal status of the clinic was discoverable.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D02-02/C:15-1868:J:Bauer:aut:T:fnOp:N:1696343:S:0
Statute of limitations bars claims related to prenatal treatment and birth, as both accrued on or around the time of birth.
No equitable tolling, as the federal status of the clinic was discoverable.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D02-02/C:15-1868:J:Bauer:aut:T:fnOp:N:1696343:S:0
Seventh Circuit: Ratna Bagwe v. Sedgwick Claims Management Service
Employment, discrimination
Where rebuttal of nondiscriminatory motive includes both direct and indirect methods of proof, appellate review analyses both separately.
No direct evidence, insufficient comparators.
Small pay decision is timely, can be considered separately.
Employer response on compensation that only discussed raises suffices to challenge broad compensation argument.
Insufficient proof of retaliation.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-26/C:14-3201:J:Ripple:aut:T:fnOp:N:1692303:S:0
Where rebuttal of nondiscriminatory motive includes both direct and indirect methods of proof, appellate review analyses both separately.
No direct evidence, insufficient comparators.
Small pay decision is timely, can be considered separately.
Employer response on compensation that only discussed raises suffices to challenge broad compensation argument.
Insufficient proof of retaliation.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-26/C:14-3201:J:Ripple:aut:T:fnOp:N:1692303:S:0
Ninth Circuit: Allen Davis v. USA
Tax
Closing agreements sound in contract, and therefore do not bar subsequent assessments to the contrary, as the tax authority is a direct exercise of statutory authority. The disparity provides a basis for challenge according to the usual means.
All members of a partnership are not parties to a settlement agreement with the Tax Partner of a partnership, so the relevant statute of limitations runs from the entry of stipulated judgment.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/25/13-16458.pdf
Closing agreements sound in contract, and therefore do not bar subsequent assessments to the contrary, as the tax authority is a direct exercise of statutory authority. The disparity provides a basis for challenge according to the usual means.
All members of a partnership are not parties to a settlement agreement with the Tax Partner of a partnership, so the relevant statute of limitations runs from the entry of stipulated judgment.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/25/13-16458.pdf
First Circuit: Rivera-Carrasquillo v. Calderon-Lozano
Statute of Limitations
Remanded for explanation of whether SOL defense was disallowed as sanction or denied on merits and specific findings on liability.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/14-1047P-01A.pdf
Remanded for explanation of whether SOL defense was disallowed as sanction or denied on merits and specific findings on liability.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/14-1047P-01A.pdf
Ninth Circuit: Steven Fue v. Marin Biter
Habeas, AEDPA
No error in denial of equitable tolling of AEDPA limit, as petitioner didn't inquire into status of state habeas for fourteen months.
Dissent: State didn't notify, policy reasons against new rule.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/15/12-55307.pdf
No error in denial of equitable tolling of AEDPA limit, as petitioner didn't inquire into status of state habeas for fourteen months.
Dissent: State didn't notify, policy reasons against new rule.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/15/12-55307.pdf
Second Circuit: Simmons v. Stanberry
Copyright- Statute of limitations
An exclusive license is identical to ownership for the purpose of the Copyright statute of limitations, which runs from the time that the initial licensee is aware of the primary infringement; the clock is not restarted by each attendant infringement.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/fb6e4ccb-6ffa-40f1-b0a8-b38f555365b5/1/doc/14-3106_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/fb6e4ccb-6ffa-40f1-b0a8-b38f555365b5/1/hilite/
An exclusive license is identical to ownership for the purpose of the Copyright statute of limitations, which runs from the time that the initial licensee is aware of the primary infringement; the clock is not restarted by each attendant infringement.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/fb6e4ccb-6ffa-40f1-b0a8-b38f555365b5/1/doc/14-3106_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/fb6e4ccb-6ffa-40f1-b0a8-b38f555365b5/1/hilite/
Eighth Circuit: United States v. Peter Giambalvo
Tax, Statute of Limitations, FRE
Parenthetical inclusion of offense in statute did not incorporate the statute of limitations for the offense.
Testimony as to impact of tax-avoidance book properly excluded, as subjective reliance of the deft is the sole criterion.
Statements on direct by gov't expert did not open the door to testimony about the general lack of a tax obligation, as the actual amount objectively due is immaterial to the subjective belief in the falsity of a tax filing.
The fact that a zero-income 1040 filing is possibly not a tax return as a matter of law doesn't bar a prosecution for filing a false form.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/151136P.pdf
Parenthetical inclusion of offense in statute did not incorporate the statute of limitations for the offense.
Testimony as to impact of tax-avoidance book properly excluded, as subjective reliance of the deft is the sole criterion.
Statements on direct by gov't expert did not open the door to testimony about the general lack of a tax obligation, as the actual amount objectively due is immaterial to the subjective belief in the falsity of a tax filing.
The fact that a zero-income 1040 filing is possibly not a tax return as a matter of law doesn't bar a prosecution for filing a false form.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/151136P.pdf
First Circuit: Buntin v. City of Boston
Discrimination.
There is no administrative exhaustion requirement for S1981 actions.
The statute of limitations began to run with the adverse personell actions, not the written warning, as the adverse etiology had yet to crystallize.
A name-clearing hearing is not constitutionally required where the speech is not broadcast to a larger public, there is no nexus with the end of employment, and the employee did not request one.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/15-1667P-01A.pdf
There is no administrative exhaustion requirement for S1981 actions.
The statute of limitations began to run with the adverse personell actions, not the written warning, as the adverse etiology had yet to crystallize.
A name-clearing hearing is not constitutionally required where the speech is not broadcast to a larger public, there is no nexus with the end of employment, and the employee did not request one.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/15-1667P-01A.pdf
Fifth Circuit: Helen Allen, et al v. C & H Distributors, L.L.C.,
Judicial estoppel & tort.
A party is judicially estopped from bringing a post-petition injury claim if they do not notify the Trustee of the claim.
A subsequent filing of the suit by a Trustee is not governed by the statute of limitations.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-30330-CV0.pdf
A party is judicially estopped from bringing a post-petition injury claim if they do not notify the Trustee of the claim.
A subsequent filing of the suit by a Trustee is not governed by the statute of limitations.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-30330-CV0.pdf
Seventh Circuit: Dianne Khan v. USA
Posner - FTCA SOL.
A letter to a federal agency complaining about an action of the agency is not sufficient notice of claim under FTCA if there is no demand for compensation.
In assessing the window of opportunity for filing a tort claim against the federal government, the tort-specific limitations displace the general civil suit limitations.
Bivvens time-barred under incorporated state law.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2015/D12-23/C:14-3292:J:Posner:aut:T:fnOp:N:1676899:S:0
A letter to a federal agency complaining about an action of the agency is not sufficient notice of claim under FTCA if there is no demand for compensation.
In assessing the window of opportunity for filing a tort claim against the federal government, the tort-specific limitations displace the general civil suit limitations.
Bivvens time-barred under incorporated state law.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2015/D12-23/C:14-3292:J:Posner:aut:T:fnOp:N:1676899:S:0
Second Circuit: Milan v. Wertheimer
Children's law guardians are not state actors for purposes of S1983 actions.
SOL had run against the other defendants.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/e3ab5106-0b65-43b4-8bb7-5ac49983eaa6/2/doc/14-3527_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/e3ab5106-0b65-43b4-8bb7-5ac49983eaa6/2/hilite/
SOL had run against the other defendants.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/e3ab5106-0b65-43b4-8bb7-5ac49983eaa6/2/doc/14-3527_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/e3ab5106-0b65-43b4-8bb7-5ac49983eaa6/2/hilite/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)