Eighth Circuit: Edward Hugler v. La Piedad Corporation

Court erred in holding corporation in contempt based on administrative subpoena to the corporation seeking business records of the shareholders, as the corporation had insufficient control over the records.

http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/07/171845P.pdf

Eighth Circuit: Alexandra Sims v. State Farm

Erroneous denial of insurance claim does not suffice to establish bad faith under state law; court's holding that bad faith hadn't been established did not preclude that oppressiveness (which is also listed in the disjunctive) was also not found.

No abuse of discretion in refusal to admit evidence of insurer's systematic practices, since they were possibly confusing.

http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/07/171333P.pdf


Eighth Circuit: NAACP v. Ferguson-Florissan

No per se clear error in using decennial census numbers as opposed to more recent ones.

A racial categorization does not lose minority status under the act upon attaining a bare majority in the district; the intensely local inquiry must take into account past discrimination and disenfranchisement.

Narrowness of win does not disqualify the win as proof against bloc voting.

Racially proportional representation is not per se proof that there is no actionable discrimination under the Act.

http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/07/164511P.pdf

Eighth Circuit: Gerald Moses v. Dassault Falcon Jet Corp

Firing was a discrete act that started the clock for administrative exhaustion with respect to any claims arising from the firing.

Medical evidence sufficed for dismissal of statutory disability claim.

Unpleasant and rude conduct did not present an issue for trial on a claim of actionable harassment.

Medical evidence precluded ADA reasonable accomodations claim.

Insufficient causation for retaliation claim.

http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/07/164343P.pdf


Seventh Circuit: Destiny Hoffman v. Susan Knoebel

Sheriff's department employees had no affirmative duty to repair systematic infractions of rights in state drug court; as their conduct was simply negligent, they were not liable for the harms under S1983.

Insufficient showing for municipal liability, since there were potentially remediatory policies in place.

Arrests with insufficient authority were an issue of state law that didn't rise to the level of a constitutional violation.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D07-03/C:17-2750:J:Wood:aut:T:fnOp:N:2180890:S:0

Seventh Circuit: Anthony Robinson v. Alfred Perales

As plaintiff did not present claim that deft and corporate deft were linked and declined to assert strict liability of one for the other during deliberations, no error in jury finding liability for one and not the other.

Explicit provision for nominal damages did not impermissibly suggest that non-monetary damages were appropriate.

Racial epithet and disparate treatment suffices to present an issue for trial on hostile work environment.

Statement of opposing party wasn't barred as hearsay.

Triable question of retaliation given facts.

Concerted attempts to end the plaintiff's career were sufficient for the verdict.

Court did not abuse its discretion in comparing the discussion of amounts of award in plaintiff's closing with actual award in declining to award fees.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D07-02/C:16-3390:J:Rovner:aut:T:fnOp:N:2180150:S:0

Sixth Circuit: United States v. Dallas Maynard

As the state Assault Under Extreme Emotional Disturbance statute requires the intentional infliction of injury, it is categorically a predicate violent crime.

http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0130p-06.pdf

Fourth Circuit: US v. Chavez

No Brady violation in nondisclosure of prosecution witness immigration records, as not prejudicial, and the favorable immigration treatment was sufficiently raised during trial to discredit the testimony.

No Napue violation, as gov't didn't know of the misstatement in advance, and it was corrected on cross.

Scattered prosecutorial misconduct incidental.

No error on not instructing on the lesser included crimes, as a murder was committed, and the defts didn't have to actually physically participate in the murder to be found guilty of it.

Admission of evidence on uncharged murder not dispositive, and arguendo, harmless error.

Claiming lack of foreknowledge not enough to justify severance as an antagonistic defense.

Statute requiring second chair counsel in capital cases requires prompt request for replacement by the deft; court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance and continuance.

Sufficient evidence.

Historical cell site information admitted under the good faith exception.

No Eighth Amendment violation in life sentence for crime committed at 18 without specific findings from jury.

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/164499.P.pdf

Second Circuit: United States v. Gasperini

No plain error from claimed unconstitutional vagueness of statute (CFAA), as the conduct here was squarely within the core prohibition.

As the statute (SCA) does not provide for the exclusion of evidence as a remedy, no abuse of discretion in allowing evidence from extraterritorial searches.

Mere gov't request to foreign agency is not enough to bring the subsequent extraterritorial search under the protections of the Fourth Amendment.

Internet archive screenshots properly admitted as business records, given testimony by staffers that they were created in the course of business.

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/2ba81dc4-9c50-470e-9f2d-3feefa265ae5/1/doc/17-2479_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/2ba81dc4-9c50-470e-9f2d-3feefa265ae5/1/hilite/

First Circuit: MAZ Partners LP v. Shear

Under state law, a non-majority shareholder director can be said to hold a controlling interest in the corporation when he or she evinces actual control of the company; control of a class of shares with the power to block corporate actions, the power to appoint directors, and actual control of past transactions are among the indicia of control.

Outside of closely held corporations, shareholder ratification isn't a safe-harbor against a basic fairness inquiry, given the way that the statute is written.

As the intent of the statute is to reverse the common-law presumption of voidability for interested transactions, it does not legitimate shifting the burden to the plaintiff in cases of ratified transactions when the plaintiff is not seeking to void the deal.

Breach of fiduciary duty sounds in equity, so disgorgement is an appropriate remedy; the court did not abuse its discretion in allotting the windfall to the wronged party.

Declining curative instruction as to evidence admitted presents virtually insuperable bar to raising the claim on appeal.

Wilkes Booth given his cue at 16, Polonius pops up at 21.

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-1821P-01A.pdf


First Circuit: US v. Acosta-Joaquin

The deft's intent to represent the social security number as his and his conduct in providing the number, although associated with the correct name, sufficed for a fraudulent use of the social security number.

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-1379P-01A.pdf

Federal Circuit: Adidas v. Nike

Prudential remand to consider non-instituted grounds is appropriate when those grounds were raised in the petition.

http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/18-1180.Motion_Panel_Order.7-2-2018.1.pdf

DC Circuit: Ashbourne v. Hansberry

As both the earlier administrative proceeding and the earlier Article III proceeding permitted joinder of the EEOC claim to the civil suit, Title VII claim rooted in the same nucleus of facts is barred under res judicata.

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/A7A90C4B0D21BC8A852582BB0050FB8F/$file/17-5136.pdf

DC Circuit: St. Francis Medical Center v. Azar

Regulation prohibiting revisiting of predicate factual determinations beyond three years in agency reopening proceeding does not prohibit revisiting such factual determinations in statutory direct appeals to the Board.

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/5B15C6CE526BEB92852582BB00512041/$file/17-5098.pdf

DC Circuit: Jennifer Campbell v. DC, et al

Motions during trial claiming that petitioner had suffered insufficient harm under the statutory tort did not preserve a claim that the theory of harm found by the finder of fact was in fact based in the events alleged in the claim rejected by the finder of fact.

Claim rooted in improper dismissal does not have to allege any fixed period of unemployment to state a claim under the statute.

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/018EBEB666041BD2852582BB005130D4/$file/16-7077.pdf

DC Circuit: USA v. Gregory Sitzmann

Consideration of extraterritorial conduct did not violate the presumption against extraterritoriality, given the domestic elements of the conspiracy.

Assuming manufactured venue is a thing, agents' instructions to wire funds to DC was not an impermissible creation of venue.

As venue was not objected to prior to the close of the prosecutions case in chief, no error in court's holding that it was not an issue for the finder of fact.

No Brady claim in late release of co-conspirator's grand jury testimony, as insufficiently exculpatory.

Purportedly false evidence presented insufficiently prejudicial.

Introduction of co-conspirator's guilty plea not plain error, as insufficiently prejudicial.

No ineffective assistance.

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/38541443F92BCBB4852582BB00514136/$file/15-3074.pdf


Tenth Circuit: Barton v. Hunter

As petitioner is not in custody, denial of parental custody does not state a claim for Habeas relief under the statute.

https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/18/18-5016.pdf


Ninth Circuit: Pinkette Clothing v. Cosmetic Warriors

Although laches is not available against a copyright or patent claim within the term of the statute, the Lanham Act provides a five year period to equitably challenge a mark, after which a challenge is still available on other grounds. Laches, as an equitable defense, is therefore available as a defense within the initial five year term.

No error in finding that the claim was equitably barred, given showing that most analogous state statutes of limitations had expired.

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/06/29/17-55325.pdf

Eighth Circuit: US v. Kevin Morrisey

Plain error not to instruct jury that Possession, as a lesser included offense of Receipt, could not be proved with respect to the same items.

Improper venue claim waived by counsel at trial.

Shift in the theory of the offense that would have encompassed crimes outside of the court's jurisdiction did not constitute a constructive amendment of the indictment, as venue is not an essential element of the offense. 

Plain error to admit spreadsheet with list of images with outside expert hearsay commmentary, but no prejudice.

No prejudice from statement in closing that implied that files could be received by when internally transferred.

http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/06/172157P.pdf

Eighth Circuit: Garcia-Mata v. Sessions

Board holding that contradicted Immigration Judge's findings of fact without claiming clear error was contrary to it's interpretation of its own jurisdiction and the principle that holdings must be stated clearly; citing the regulation that allows for different standards of review in different situations does not sufficiently establish the claim of clear error.

http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/06/171682P.pdf