Court's proababilistic summary of the Strickland standard did not evince a logic contrary to the rule, so long as the final logic accords. Given overwhelming evidence, not a misapplication of the law to say that assertion in opening statement that an ultimately non-testifying deft would testify wasn't sufficiently ineffective.
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.
Sixth Circuit: Scott Callahan v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons
Given precedent and legislative activity in the area, there is no Bivvens cause of action under the First Amendment for the seizure of an inmate's painting and mailed model photographs; the prison grievance procedures presumably offer sufficient remedy.
Fifth Circuit: David Wilson v. Houston Community College System
Fifth Circuit: Vantage Deepwater Company, et al v. Petrobras Amer
Court appropriately deferred to arbitrators' decision, since public policy does not bar arbitration agreements resolving questions about contracts achieved through dubious means -- the question on the public policy exception is whether the ratification would create a danger to the public.
Court did not abuse its discretion in denying discovery during arbitration vacatur proceedings seeking testimony of arbitrator, since arbitration association rules prohibiting it are incorporated, and the arbitration record is equivocal.
No abuse of discretion in denying subpoena for arbitration association, given vague boundaries of immunity, and necessity to move things along.
As arbitration agreement discussed the equities of the parties in full, it was not sufficiently contrary to the agreement's choice of law and corporate form and surety provisions.
Fifth Circuit: In re: Taxotere Prod Liability
Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the claims of a MDL plaintiff, as there is sufficient indication in the record that the plaintiff had engaged in delay or contumacious conduct, and that no lesser sanctions would serve the interests of justice.
Fifth Circuit: Will McRaney v. N Amer Mission Bd So Baptist
Dismissal of a civil tort claim under the Religious Matters abstention doctrine is inappropriate absent sufficient indication that the resolution of the question will force the court to interfere with religious government or matters of faith or doctrine.
Third Circuit: Teamsters Local 177 v. United Parcel Service
Second Circuit: United States v. Traficante
As the judicial order that modifies a certain sentencing condition interposes a finding by a District Court, challenge to the order is reserved for that step, and is not ripe until then.
Second Circuit: Keefe v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Petitioner's omission of necessary regulatory permissions and merely casual conversations about the prospect of rental sufficed to establish that the property wasn't regularly and continuously used in that manner.
Late tax filings in previous years are appropriately penalized given the present loss of the deduction.
Materially distinguishable precedent cannot be used to establish sufficient substantial authority to justify the earlier tax position.
First Circuit: US v. Capelton
As the subsequent caselaw discussed the willingness to assist if necessary in terms of the intent that the crime be committed, there was not a realistic probability that courts would convict under the statute without intent as an element -- the offense is therefore categorically a predicate offense under the sentencing law.
Federal Circuit: Maybourn Group, LTD v. ITC
Sufficient standing to challenge agency determination where company continues to import goods possibly subject to exclusion order and has lost actual sales sue to the uncertainty over their legal status.
Discovery of prior art that would negate the patent that serves as the basis for the exclusion order is not sufficient basis for a petition against the exclusion order, as the agency's statutory powers of patent adjudication are limited to claims made by parties in formal enforcement actions.
Eleventh Circuit: Myra Corley, et al v. Long-Lewis, Inc., et al
As governing circuit precedent on the question is in conflict with earlier circuit precedent that it doesn't distinguish or overrule, the earlier precedent governs -- voluntary dismissal without prejudice is therefore a sufficiently final order for the purposes of appeal, since it removed the case from the court's consideration.
Interlocutory denial of motion to reconsider by the courts of another circuit that eventuates in a voluntary dismissal with prejudice within the circuit is considered only in the context of the appeal from the voluntary dismissal; the implied challenge to the other circuit's courts does not make the subsequent decisions within the circuit unreviewable.
Appellant is sufficiently adverse for purposes of standing to final decision below. Although it resulted from appellant's motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice, the decision contained merged elements of earlier adverse interlocutory decisions.
No abuse of discretion in denying motion to shift governing law to Admiralty when made in motion to reconsider.
Eighth Circuit: United States v. Jeffrey Rodd
Eighth Circuit: United States v. Shari Natysin
Eighth Circuit: United States v. Mark Ringland
Seventh Circuit: USA v. Aga Khan
Plain error in procedural sentencing error resulting on one of the concurrent terms of supervised relief being in excess of the statute, since a revocation proceeding would address all terms of supervised release.
Absent showing that victim bank intended to hold collateral real estate s investment, no error in not offsetting the restitution by the value of the unliquidated collateral; no obligation on the victim bank to notify parties of subsequent sale of the collateral.
Sentencing court's allocation of restitution to a certain percentage of deft's future income sufficiently considered deft's financial circumstances, as under the statute no such consideration is due when determining the total amount.
Seventh Circuit: Adam Delgado v. U.S. Department of Justice
Seventh Circuit: Scott McCray v. Robert Wilkie
Claim originating in assignment of offices not pellucid enough, will be developed on remand.
Conduct potentially violating Title VII raised in employer's motion to dismiss insulated employer from Title VII claim when plaintiff didn't make the argument in the reply brief.
Sixth Circuit: Kevin Malone v. Stanley Black & Decker, Inc
Pleading that alleged tortfeasor conducted business, formed contracts, and caused injury within the state suffices to state a claim involving sufficient purposeful availment for personal jurisdiction within the forum; further discovery is warranted where such a claim is made against a supplier who sells their product through a national retail chain.
Sixth Circuit: Joan Weser v. Kimberly Goodson
Even deliberate mistruth would not be enough to implicate private citizen in S1983 false arrest claim, as it's not under the color of state law.
District Court should not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over false arrest state tort claim, as arrest with probable cause for an offense not justifying custodial arrest is a novel issue for the tort.
False statements by private individual not a sufficient basis for state tort claim of false arrest, as insufficient nexus to the arrest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)