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.
Since, after the accident, the device manufacturer was merged into the injured employee's employer, the manufacturer can't presently be considered a third party tortfeasor, even the the person of the employer as successor in interest.
The law of the state disfavors the dual capacity exception to exclusive liability.
Dissent: The state's courts have recognized an exception where there is a distinct, separate legal persona.
Evidence of witness' subsequent admission that she was under the influence of narcotics while testifying that she was not a drug user is not new evidence sufficient to revisit the conviction, since the disclosures do not rise to the level of addressing basic competency to testify, and would at most be in for impeachment.
Government concealment of witness' mental state would not rise to the level of a Brady claim.
No abuse of discretion in refusal to grant downward variance from sentencing guidelines.
Concur in J:
The disclosures about the witness are new evidence, but aren't material.
Statutory Habeas is not available to challenge convictions for which a discrete sentence was imposed when that sentence runs consecutively with multiple terms of life imprisonment that are set to run concurrently and that would not change absent some extraordinary and unexpected change in the law, as the challenged conviction would be harmless error.
The website statement preexisting the nondisparagement agreement that applied to prospective communication, statements, and conduct did not breach the agreement, since the statement was published to the website before the agreement.
Litigation affidavit enjoyed absolute immunity from the nondisparagement terms, since it was relevant and pertinent to the matter before the court.
Statements made to plaintiff's agents posing as prospective employers did not implicate the nondisparagement agreement's limitations on communications with potential employers.
Court's order prohibiting a released detainee's subsequent detention, since it was enforcing an earlier magistrate's holding that the detainee be released, is not within the general immigration removal of jurisdiction.
The bail reform statute does not preclude the pre-removal detention of an alien subsequent to the alien's release under the statute.
Administrative regulations prohibiting a criminal defendant from leaving the country refer to voluntary departures.
The detention does not violate the separation of powers.
Court below did not make formal findings about how the distance that lawyers had to travel related to the Sixth Amendment rights of the deft.
Although the hospital had the authority to order the physicians' group to terminate the services of one of its employees providing services at the hospital, that single fact is insufficient to present a genuine issue of material fact for trial on the question of whether the two enterprises were sufficiently integrated to create liability under the act.
The two entities also, as a matter of law, were not joint employers of the plaintiff, as the hospital did not have the power to hire, the plaintiff set his own schedule, and the two enterprises were not economically integrated.
Plaintiff did not have a contractual relationship with the hospital sufficient for a S1981 claim, and the two entities were sufficiently distinct to establish that he wasn't a contractor of the hospital.
Since the parties agreed to remove the provision of the standard form insurance contract relating to the priority of ex ante mechanics liens, the related-back ex ante mechanics liens are not covered by the general provisions of the form contract that protect claim priority generally.
Showing of costs and limited participation in negotiations insufficient to establish loss from dual representation under duty-to-defend.
Species mortality limit was not arbitrary and capricious, since the additional discussions mentioned in the agreement are superfluous to the hard take limits.
Agency's determination of the several effects of other projects and the cumulative effects of all projects in the designated region was not arbitrary and capricious.
Bivvens remedy not available for a prisoner's grievance retaliation claim under the First Amendment.
The class claim is sufficiently predominant, since all of the customers--even those who benefited--paid the fee; determining individual statute of limitations issues would be merely ministerial; defendant's general concealment underlay each instance of fraudulent inducement; appraisal variance would be merely ministerial; and the statutory damages are uniform.
Although the agreement's reference to a timely appraisal was insufficient guarantee to create a contract, the taking of a security deposit for the purposes of verifying identity and credit formed a binding contract.
Under the state's law, the covenant of good faith and fair dealing is relevant only to the analysis of actual breach of contract.
Concealment of potential improper contact with appraisers was sufficiently proximate to the formation of the agreement with the homeowners to qualify as unconscionable inducement under the state's statute.
Dissent:
Practice was customary in the industry; no actual inducement; communications with the appraiser did not breach the agreement to provide an appraisal.
Actual conditions of prisoner's solitary confinement present a genuine issue of material fact for trial.
State statute imposing conditions for the incarceration of prisoners whose death sentences have been commuted, passed after the legislative elimination of the death penalty and prior to the judicial determination that those already sentenced to death should have their sentences commuted, was an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder, imposing specific punishments on implicitly designated specific persons without the benefit of trial.
Classification of prisoner as a higher security threat than others similarly situated had no rational basis, and violated Equal Protection.
Concurrence:
Eighth Amendment claims of mistreatment of prisoners require an element of subjective intent.
Since the named members of a putative class didn't individually join the appeal, they can't participate in any action subsequent to the disposition of the appeal; they were not included in their capacity as others similarly situated, although they might have been included if the appeal had been filed by a putative representative et al.
Since the defendant added subsequent to the appeal was in privity with the original defendants and the cause of action arose from the same transaction or occurrence, res judicata prevents the named non-appellants from pursuing their claims against the new party.
Court did not abuse discretion in denying the motion to reconsider.
Since the video streaming service's removal of the Plaintiff's account was a good faith effort to enforce an internal policy that was aimed at removing objectionable content, the federal statutory safe-harbor applies, preempting state antidiscrimination laws and state public forum content-neutrality laws.
Docketing of hand-written documentation of pretrial conference report and stipulations prior to its being typed up meant that revisions other than the typing would require the modification of the order into which the report and stipulations were incorporated.
Plaintiff did not make sufficient showing of undue hardship to justify discharge of the statutorily protected debt.
Court erred in assigning the term the meaning it served in the description of the function of the device within an unclaimed surrounding mechanism.
The doctrine of equivalents is not a binary question of vitiation, but a reasoned inquiry that looks to the degree that the second device performs the same function, in the same way, and achieves the same result.
Again, perhaps. Not really at all Patent-savvy in this quarter.
Although the claim sounds in contract, the requested relief requires reversal of agency determinations under the APA; the proper forum is therefore District Court, not the Court of Federal Claims.
Judicial review of a decision on estoppel during the institution and pendency of an IPR is appropriate, because the estoppel statute applies to the duration of the action, not just the decision to institute proceedings.
Board correctly did not estop the party's claim, since there was no evidence of actual control and direction between the interested party and the litigating party, and the pre-existing relationship was not one that suggested coordinated action.
Given the plain language of the statute, the claim that the interested party was not estopped from raising was fair, as that specific claim had not arisen in the earlier action.
Substantial evidence for Board's obviousness and disclosure determinations.
(Perhaps. We don't know many things, but we especially don't know Patents. As always, entertainment value only.)
Administrative remedy for unfavorable employment action must consider the penalty imposed, not because it has the power to mitigate it, but because it forms part of the substance of the decision.
Error for the agency to remove an employee under the non-retroactive statute for conduct occurring before the statute became law.
As the FOIA requestor's intention was to write a book published by an academic press, it was an abuse of discretion to hold that the motive for the request was commercial in nature.
Even if no circuit precedent clearly defined the right, applying a taser to a teenager having a seizure while being held down by several police officers falls within the "obvious clarity" exception; the denial of qualified immunity was therefore appropriate.
The lack of intervention from the officer's supervisors derivatively falls within the same exception.
Even if the officer had arguable probable cause for detaining the teenager having a seizure, the manner of detention also enters into the S1983 calculus.