Crim, Brady
Single witness' testimony sufficient evidence for conviction for use of a firearm.
Jury instruction holding that deft could know of weapon either before or during the crime (proper: before) held harmless error.
Brady error in withholding of police misconduct file not material, as the officer in question provided merely forensic evidence.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-19/C:14-3276:J:Kanne:aut:T:fnOp:N:1688989:S:0
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.
Seventh Circuit: Thomas Costello v. BeavEx, Incorporated
Preemption, Class Actions
Federal motor carrier act does not expressly preempt state wage law, as the purposes of the state law aren't relevant to the purposes of the Federal act.
State statute seeming to require individual assessment of plantiff's future employment doesn't categorically bar a finding of predominance for class certification.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-19/C:15-1110:J:Kanne:aut:T:fnOp:N:1689158:S:0
Federal motor carrier act does not expressly preempt state wage law, as the purposes of the state law aren't relevant to the purposes of the Federal act.
State statute seeming to require individual assessment of plantiff's future employment doesn't categorically bar a finding of predominance for class certification.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-19/C:15-1110:J:Kanne:aut:T:fnOp:N:1689158:S:0
Seventh Circuit: USA v. Rico J. Speed
Sentencing
For plain error to apply on appeal, trial court must specifically ask parties whether the main arguments in mitigation have been addressed -- a simple "anything further" doesn't suffice.
Where a condition of the sentence does not appear in the statute or guidelines, review is for abuse of discretion, not plain error.
Sentence conditions (association with those convicted of felony, consumption of alcohol, dangerous weapons) upheld.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-19/C:15-1561:J:Manion:aut:T:fnOp:N:1688655:S:0
For plain error to apply on appeal, trial court must specifically ask parties whether the main arguments in mitigation have been addressed -- a simple "anything further" doesn't suffice.
Where a condition of the sentence does not appear in the statute or guidelines, review is for abuse of discretion, not plain error.
Sentence conditions (association with those convicted of felony, consumption of alcohol, dangerous weapons) upheld.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-19/C:15-1561:J:Manion:aut:T:fnOp:N:1688655:S:0
Fifth Circuit: Jerry Hartfield v. Frank Osborne, Sheriff
Habeas
When a state prisoner's speedy trial Federal Habeas claim shifts from a pretrial Habeas to a postconviction Habeas during the pendency of the appeal, the appeals court must dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
(The only issue in the COA was the threshold question of whether the pretrial Habeas standard for state exhaustion was met.)
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-20275-CV0.pdf
When a state prisoner's speedy trial Federal Habeas claim shifts from a pretrial Habeas to a postconviction Habeas during the pendency of the appeal, the appeals court must dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
(The only issue in the COA was the threshold question of whether the pretrial Habeas standard for state exhaustion was met.)
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-20275-CV0.pdf
Third Circuit: In re: Thomas C. Wettach
Bankruptcy, Burdens
At trial, bankruptcy petitioner has production burden to show that funds transferred were used for household purposes, although the creditor still retains the burden of persuasion on the voidability of the transfer.
Burden under constructive transfer state statute is identical to the Federal.
No clear error in trial court factual findings on the transfer.
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/143140p.pdf
At trial, bankruptcy petitioner has production burden to show that funds transferred were used for household purposes, although the creditor still retains the burden of persuasion on the voidability of the transfer.
Burden under constructive transfer state statute is identical to the Federal.
No clear error in trial court factual findings on the transfer.
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/143140p.pdf
Second Circuit: T.K. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ.
IDEA
School system's refusal to discuss bullying concerns with parents was a denial of a free appropriate public education under the act.
Finding in equity that private school funds were reimbursable.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/0b6bfc4e-816c-4c93-9b12-e9c8a95d89c0/1/doc/14-3078-cv_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/0b6bfc4e-816c-4c93-9b12-e9c8a95d89c0/1/hilite/
School system's refusal to discuss bullying concerns with parents was a denial of a free appropriate public education under the act.
Finding in equity that private school funds were reimbursable.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/0b6bfc4e-816c-4c93-9b12-e9c8a95d89c0/1/doc/14-3078-cv_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/0b6bfc4e-816c-4c93-9b12-e9c8a95d89c0/1/hilite/
Federal Circuit: Nan Ya Plastics Corporation v. US
Trade, Administrative
As the plain terms of the statute permit the agency to consider any information before it in setting the rate, an unusually high benchmark does not offend the limitations of accuracy and commercial reality.
As the rate is based on a primary source, the corroboration requirement is not triggered.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1054.Opinion.1-14-2016.1.PDF
As the plain terms of the statute permit the agency to consider any information before it in setting the rate, an unusually high benchmark does not offend the limitations of accuracy and commercial reality.
As the rate is based on a primary source, the corroboration requirement is not triggered.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1054.Opinion.1-14-2016.1.PDF
DC Circuit: Douglas Huron v. Beth F. Cobert
Standing, Administrative
Absent a showing of an extraordinary circumstance, a plaintiff cannot assert Article III Standing at trial and Statutory/Procedural Standing on appeal.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/933D62CF9FD20DA485257F3F0052C5F1/$file/14-5042-1594112.pdf
Absent a showing of an extraordinary circumstance, a plaintiff cannot assert Article III Standing at trial and Statutory/Procedural Standing on appeal.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/933D62CF9FD20DA485257F3F0052C5F1/$file/14-5042-1594112.pdf
Eighth Circuit: CRP Holdings A-1, LLC v. Casey D. O'Sullivan
Property, Bankruptcy
As the unenforcable lien against a property held by a tenancy of the entirety clouded title, it was fixed for purposes of the Bankruptcy Code, and can therefore can be avoided according to the terms of the Act.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/156020P.pdf
As the unenforcable lien against a property held by a tenancy of the entirety clouded title, it was fixed for purposes of the Bankruptcy Code, and can therefore can be avoided according to the terms of the Act.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/156020P.pdf
Eighth Circuit: David Bonenberger v. St. Louis Metro. Police Dept.
Title VII, S1983 Conspiracy
Denial of sought-for promotion is an adverse employment action where the change would have been marked by a material change in working conditions.
Conspiracy verdict upheld where the jury might have inferred that knowledge of the discrimination demonstrated active complicity in the discrimination.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/143696P.pdf
Denial of sought-for promotion is an adverse employment action where the change would have been marked by a material change in working conditions.
Conspiracy verdict upheld where the jury might have inferred that knowledge of the discrimination demonstrated active complicity in the discrimination.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/143696P.pdf
Federal Circuit: Muller v. GPO
Administrative, Arbitration
Statutory time period for arbitration is a housekeeping rule, not a jurisdictional limit on the scope of arbitrablility of claim.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-3032.Opinion.1-12-2016.1.PDF
Statutory time period for arbitration is a housekeeping rule, not a jurisdictional limit on the scope of arbitrablility of claim.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-3032.Opinion.1-12-2016.1.PDF
Ninth Circuit: USA v. Estate of Wayne Hage
Property, Administrative
Water rights merely alow for access to divert the water - there are no appurtenant grazing rights implied as an easement of necessity.
Filing of government suit is not a final agency decision subject to review under the APA.
Reassigned on remand.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/15/13-16974.pdf
Water rights merely alow for access to divert the water - there are no appurtenant grazing rights implied as an easement of necessity.
Filing of government suit is not a final agency decision subject to review under the APA.
Reassigned on remand.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/15/13-16974.pdf
Eighth Circuit: United States v. Justin Janis
Tribe Law, Agency
While tribal police, as a class, are considered federal employees as a matter of law, as they are enforcing order pursuant to a contract with the BIA, the question of whether any person is acting as a tribal officer is a question of fact to be resolved at trial.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/143888P.pdf
While tribal police, as a class, are considered federal employees as a matter of law, as they are enforcing order pursuant to a contract with the BIA, the question of whether any person is acting as a tribal officer is a question of fact to be resolved at trial.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/143888P.pdf
Eighth Circuit: Shane Bailey v. Don Feltmann
S1983 - DP/4A
No error in grant of qualified immunity on claim of unconscionable delay in medical treatment, as there was no clearly established right under the Fourth Amendment or Due Process.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/143859P.pdf
No error in grant of qualified immunity on claim of unconscionable delay in medical treatment, as there was no clearly established right under the Fourth Amendment or Due Process.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/143859P.pdf
Eighth Circuit: Inoel Gonzalez Cano v. Loretta E. Lynch
Immigration
Sufficient evidence for agency finding that petitioner's social group was too ill-defined to warrant relief.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/143730P.pdf
Sufficient evidence for agency finding that petitioner's social group was too ill-defined to warrant relief.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/143730P.pdf
Seventh Circuit: Kelly Sonnenberg v. Amaya Group Holdings (IOM) Ltd
Statutory Construction
Anti-gambling statute does not have an implied cause of action for third parties to recover gambling losses from websites that hosted the game, but that were not the winning parties in the game.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-15/C:15-1887:J:Posner:aut:T:fnOp:N:1688160:S:0
Anti-gambling statute does not have an implied cause of action for third parties to recover gambling losses from websites that hosted the game, but that were not the winning parties in the game.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-15/C:15-1887:J:Posner:aut:T:fnOp:N:1688160:S:0
Fourth Circuit: Philip McFarland v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Contracts
Under state law, lack of a showing on substantive unconscionability of the agreement does not bar a finding of unconscionable inducement.
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/142126.P.pdf
Under state law, lack of a showing on substantive unconscionability of the agreement does not bar a finding of unconscionable inducement.
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/142126.P.pdf
Third Circuit: In Re Trump Entertainment Resorts
Labor / Bankruptcy
The Bankruptcy Code provisions referencing CBAs apply to the terms of the prior CBA left in place after the end of a prior CBA -- the District Court therefore had jurisdiction under the Code to allow modification of the terms of the agreement, subject to the close scrutiny of the court.
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/144807p.pdf
The Bankruptcy Code provisions referencing CBAs apply to the terms of the prior CBA left in place after the end of a prior CBA -- the District Court therefore had jurisdiction under the Code to allow modification of the terms of the agreement, subject to the close scrutiny of the court.
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/144807p.pdf
Federal Circuit: McCarthy v. MSPB
Administrative
Denial of motion to reopen a case when issued in the form of a letter is sufficiently final for review when the motion is based on an intervening change in the substantive law.
Where the statute gives the board the task of reopening a case, the decision of the board is subject to APA review.
As complaint phased the substantive issues but not the legal ones, insufficient exhaustion of administrative remedies.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-3072.Opinion.1-12-2016.1.PDF
Denial of motion to reopen a case when issued in the form of a letter is sufficiently final for review when the motion is based on an intervening change in the substantive law.
Where the statute gives the board the task of reopening a case, the decision of the board is subject to APA review.
As complaint phased the substantive issues but not the legal ones, insufficient exhaustion of administrative remedies.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-3072.Opinion.1-12-2016.1.PDF
Federal Circuit: Hymas v. US
Administrative
Cooperative agreements were initiated under permissible agency rulemaking and are therefore not procurement contracts subject to Tucker Act jurisdiction.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/14-5150.Opinion.1-12-2016.1.PDF
Cooperative agreements were initiated under permissible agency rulemaking and are therefore not procurement contracts subject to Tucker Act jurisdiction.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/14-5150.Opinion.1-12-2016.1.PDF
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)