Title VII, Employment, Administrative
ALJ dismissal of hearing request was not final agency action that started the Title VII clock.
Subsequent similar letter did not start the clock as it omitted the statutorily required notice of the right to appeal.
Genuine issue of material fact as to agency employment given responsibilities and reporting relationships.
Mohamed Al-Saffy v. Thomas Vilsack
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.
DC Circuit: Oklahoma Gas and Electric Co. v. FERC
Administrative
Presumption of rationality in judicial review of contracts does not apply to rights of first refusal, given their anticompetitive nature.
Oklahoma Gas and Electric Co. v. FERC
Presumption of rationality in judicial review of contracts does not apply to rights of first refusal, given their anticompetitive nature.
Oklahoma Gas and Electric Co. v. FERC
DC Circuit: Akiachak Native Community v. DOI
FRCP, Mootness
Case is moot, as the regulation has been rescinded.
Dissent -- Parties are still in conflict.
Akiachak Native Community v. DOI
DC Circuit: United Airlines, Inc. v. FERC
Administrative
FERC ratemaking that substituted a second time period was arbitrary and capricious in that insufficient explanation was offered for the selection of the second period.
No error in agency's declining to index the rates across a period of time, as it would have resulted in an unreasonable benefit, and the purpose of the indexing regulation is equitable.
Corporations and partnerships must be evenly treated in deciding tax offsets.
United Airlines, Inc. v. FERC
Ninth Circuit: MICHAEL CUERO V. MATTHEW CATE
Habeas
Given contract law, state violates Due Process by adding a predicate prior after the plea had been accepted by the court and a misdemeanor had been dropped pursuant to the terms of the deal.
Dissent: Inability to enforce plea deal is not constitutional error.
MICHAEL CUERO V. MATTHEW CATE
Ninth Circuit: EMILY ATTMORE V. CAROLYN COLVIN
SSA
ALJ must compare medical evidence of improvement with the medical evidence indicating disability.
Temporary improvements in psychiatric condition must be sustained and broad in scope to warrant adjustment of the finding.
EMILY ATTMORE V. CAROLYN COLVIN
Eighth Circuit: Larry Schaefer v. Dale Putnam
FRCP
Claim preclusion bars an action where the parties had notice of the additional claim, might have amended the first claim to incorporate it, and there was nothing preventing a full and fair adjudication of the claims arising out of the transaction.
Larry Schaefer v. Dale Putnam
Claim preclusion bars an action where the parties had notice of the additional claim, might have amended the first claim to incorporate it, and there was nothing preventing a full and fair adjudication of the claims arising out of the transaction.
Larry Schaefer v. Dale Putnam
Eighth Circuit: United States v. Alphonso Wynn
Statutory Interpretation
A housekeeping supervisor at a VA hospital is a federal official for purposes of the threats statute, as "official" is not being used as a term of limitation.
Telephone hotline is not entrapment, doesn't trigger privilege.
United States v. Alphonso Wynn
Eighth Circuit: United States v. Danny Lewis
Sentencing
Court did not need to specifically calculate the amended guidelines range before holding that a deft with an upward variance would not qualify for a certain relief.
United States v. Danny Lewis
Eighth Circuit: United States v. Quentin Tidwell
Habeas, Sentencing
In de novo resentencing subsequent to a successful collateral challenge to the conviction, the court may consider convictions after the initial sentencing when compiling the criminal history of the deft.
Dissent: facts are muddled here -- AUSA incorrectly described relationship between the two sentences.
United States v. Quentin Tidwell
In de novo resentencing subsequent to a successful collateral challenge to the conviction, the court may consider convictions after the initial sentencing when compiling the criminal history of the deft.
Dissent: facts are muddled here -- AUSA incorrectly described relationship between the two sentences.
United States v. Quentin Tidwell
Eighth Circuit: United States v. Santana Drapeau
FRE, Tribe Law
No plain error/abuse of discretion in allowing testimony on priors, since there was no proof of prejudice given the curative instruction, and the testimony might somehow have been relevant.
Uncounseled tribal court convictions are valid predicates
United States v. Santana Drapeau
Eighth Circuit: United States v. Scott Sholds
Sentencing
Sentence is not substantively unreasonable for lack of mitigation for being based on multiple recordings of the same event.
No abuse of discretion in within-guidelines sentence,as there is no implicit obligation of uniformity in sentencing.
United States v. Scott Sholds
Seventh Circuit: RTP LLC v. Orix Real Estate Capital, Inc.
FRCP
For purposes of diversity, when a trust (as opposed to a trustee) litigates, it takes the citizenship of its beneficiaries.
RTP LLC v. Orix Real Estate Capital, Inc.
Seventh Circuit: USA v. Kenyon Walton
Fourth Amendment
Defts' conflicting stories about a prior search of the car provided sufficient reasonable suspicion to justify prolonging Terry stop to allow a dog to sniff the car after issuance of written warning.
USA v. Kenyon Walton
Sixth Circuit: In Re Michael Stansell
Habeas, AEDPA
A Habeas petition challenging a resentencing to add a period of post-release control is not second or successive for purposes od AEDPA.
Technical changes in the sentence, however, do not similarly reset the count.
In Re Michael Stansell
Sixth Circuit: Self-Insurance Inst. of Am. v. Rick Snyder
ERISA, Preemption
State tax on insurance claims is not preempted by express preemption provision of ERISA, as the recordkeeping and residency requirements do no impermissably intrude on the purposes of the act.
Self-Insurance Inst. of Am. v. Rick Snyder
Sixth Circuit: Sierra Club v. United States Forest Serv.
Environment, Administrative
No error in categorical exclusion from environmental review, since, inter alia, the present company is substantially the same as the one earlier granted a permit, and increased flow through the pipeline is not a material change in the original grant, which was for an easement of a certain width.
Sierra Club v. United States Forest Serv.
No error in categorical exclusion from environmental review, since, inter alia, the present company is substantially the same as the one earlier granted a permit, and increased flow through the pipeline is not a material change in the original grant, which was for an easement of a certain width.
Sierra Club v. United States Forest Serv.
Sixth Circuit: Anthony Smith, Jr. v. Joy Technologies, Inc.
Torts
Under state law, in products liability, there is no duty to warn where the danger is known.
Anthony Smith, Jr. v. Joy Technologies, Inc.
Fifth Circuit: Markle Interests, L.L.C. v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Environment
Loss of property value confers sufficient Article III standing.
Agency finding that land was essential for conservation of a species did not have to establish that the species was present there.
No specific methodology of economic impact assessment is compelled by statute.
Sufficient interstate commerce when considered in the aggregate.
No impact statement required, as there is no change to be made in the physical environment.
Dissent: Not a suitable habitat for the species.
Markle Interests, L.L.C. v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Loss of property value confers sufficient Article III standing.
Agency finding that land was essential for conservation of a species did not have to establish that the species was present there.
No specific methodology of economic impact assessment is compelled by statute.
Sufficient interstate commerce when considered in the aggregate.
No impact statement required, as there is no change to be made in the physical environment.
Dissent: Not a suitable habitat for the species.
Markle Interests, L.L.C. v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Fifth Circuit: USA v. Jose Bedoy
Obstruction, Crim
No error in finder of fact's determination that the deft knew of the grand jury investigation and that the agents were intertwined with it; this suffices for the requisite actual knowledge.
Jury instructions with an extra element did not heighten the prosecutor's burden.
Deft's instruction to potential witness went beyond simply information about the right to remain silent.
No constructive amendment on count alleging destruction of physical object, given deft's instruction to get rid of a phone number -- and sufficient evidence existed to prove that he intended the destruction of the phone.
USA v. Jose Bedoy
No error in finder of fact's determination that the deft knew of the grand jury investigation and that the agents were intertwined with it; this suffices for the requisite actual knowledge.
Jury instructions with an extra element did not heighten the prosecutor's burden.
Deft's instruction to potential witness went beyond simply information about the right to remain silent.
No constructive amendment on count alleging destruction of physical object, given deft's instruction to get rid of a phone number -- and sufficient evidence existed to prove that he intended the destruction of the phone.
USA v. Jose Bedoy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)