No ineffective assistance in not presenting forensic evidence, as omission of gruesome details might have been a sound trial strategy.
Prosecutor's remarks in closing about condition of victim did not unduly prejudice the verdict.
Approved instructions did not prejudicially suggest restrictions on mitigating circumstances.
Admission of victim's parents sentencing recommendations cannot in itself rise to structural error, and was not an error in the aggregate; such muted, one-off pleas do not warrant the writ.
State appellate decision that the jury did not need to find beyond a reasonable doubt that aggravating circumstances outweighed mitigating ones was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent.
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/16/16-6262.pdf
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.
Tenth Circuit: Pavatt v. Royal
Amended panel opinion after denial of en banc.
No prejudice from ineffective assistance claim based on admission of victim photos, as objection would have been useless under res judicata -- similar photos previously held admissible in another case.
Aggravating circumstance of victim suffering was imposed using an unconstitutionally broad standard for potential suffering, state habeas to contrary was an unreasonable application of the law.
Dissent:
Ineffective assistance claims generally procedurally barred, as state provided time to raise them
A reasonable finder of fact might have determined that victim suffered, regardless of how broad the potential application of the standard might be.
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/14/14-6117.pdf
No prejudice from ineffective assistance claim based on admission of victim photos, as objection would have been useless under res judicata -- similar photos previously held admissible in another case.
Aggravating circumstance of victim suffering was imposed using an unconstitutionally broad standard for potential suffering, state habeas to contrary was an unreasonable application of the law.
Dissent:
Ineffective assistance claims generally procedurally barred, as state provided time to raise them
A reasonable finder of fact might have determined that victim suffered, regardless of how broad the potential application of the standard might be.
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/14/14-6117.pdf
Ninth Circuit: US v. Sanchez-Gomez
Summary order dismissing action as moot.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/07/02/13-50561.pdf
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/07/02/13-50561.pdf
Eighth Circuit: Stephen McCormick v. Starion Financial
State judgments did not merge earlier secured claims; the provision for costs and fees in the precipitating liens therefore survived the reduction to the judgment, despite being barred under state law from inclusion in the judgments.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/07/172192P.pdf
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/07/172192P.pdf
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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/
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
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
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
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/$file/17-5136.pdf
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/A7A90C4B0D21BC8A852582BB0050FB8F/$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/$file/17-5098.pdf
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/5B15C6CE526BEB92852582BB00512041/$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/$file/16-7077.pdf
Claim rooted in improper dismissal does not have to allege any fixed period of unemployment to state a claim under the statute.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/018EBEB666041BD2852582BB005130D4/$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/$file/15-3074.pdf
Assuming manufactured venue is a thing, agents' instructions to wire funds to DC was not an impermissible creation of venue.
As venue was not objected to prior to the close of the prosecutions case in chief, no error in court's holding that it was not an issue for the finder of fact.
No Brady claim in late release of co-conspirator's grand jury testimony, as insufficiently exculpatory.
Purportedly false evidence presented insufficiently prejudicial.
Introduction of co-conspirator's guilty plea not plain error, as insufficiently prejudicial.
No ineffective assistance.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/38541443F92BCBB4852582BB00514136/$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
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
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
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
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/06/171682P.pdf
Eighth Circuit: US v. Kwame Askia
Federal embezzlement statute is not a continuing offense; once the threshold has been reached, the offense is complete. For purpose of the stature of limitations, however, so long as the limit is reached within the relevant timeframe, the fact that the offense began earlier doe not bar the indictment.
No plain error in introduction of evidence of theft outside the statute of limitation's timeframe; no sixth amendment claim arising from pro se / standby.
Hearsay claim arising out of pretrial detention hearing moot. No 6A claim.
Sufficient evidence.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/06/171515P.pdf
No plain error in introduction of evidence of theft outside the statute of limitation's timeframe; no sixth amendment claim arising from pro se / standby.
Hearsay claim arising out of pretrial detention hearing moot. No 6A claim.
Sufficient evidence.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/06/171515P.pdf
Seventh Circuit: Isaac Capps v. Kevin Drake
Sua sponte referral of postjudgment motion to another court is within the inherent authority of the court.
Whatever the legal status of the fee agreement, error to deny fees under S1988 where petitioner's primary interest is the vindication of the claim and the award is not de minimis; the fact that the award was under the last settlement offer does not negate the basis for the award.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D06-29/C:17-1876:J:Kanne:aut:T:fnOp:N:2179169:S:0
Whatever the legal status of the fee agreement, error to deny fees under S1988 where petitioner's primary interest is the vindication of the claim and the award is not de minimis; the fact that the award was under the last settlement offer does not negate the basis for the award.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D06-29/C:17-1876:J:Kanne:aut:T:fnOp:N:2179169:S:0
Seventh Circuit: Chicago Joe's Tea Room, LLC v. Village of Broadview
Denial of equitable relief can suffice for interlocutory appeal despite pendent unresolved damages.
Sufficient standing for the owner where owner leases to a party who leases to another party for use barred by the action in question.
Claim arising from municipality's barring of the use is moot, as the lessee's planned use would always have violated governing law, so enforcement of the municipal regulation is not barred by the vested rights doctrine; an earlier finding of licit use does not bind under law of the case, as it is a subjective, discretionary consideration of jurisdiction, and there is no indication that the earlier finding considered the relevant statute.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D06-29/C:16-1989:J:Hamilton:aut:T:fnOp:N:2178625:S:0
Sufficient standing for the owner where owner leases to a party who leases to another party for use barred by the action in question.
Claim arising from municipality's barring of the use is moot, as the lessee's planned use would always have violated governing law, so enforcement of the municipal regulation is not barred by the vested rights doctrine; an earlier finding of licit use does not bind under law of the case, as it is a subjective, discretionary consideration of jurisdiction, and there is no indication that the earlier finding considered the relevant statute.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D06-29/C:16-1989:J:Hamilton:aut:T:fnOp:N:2178625:S:0
Sixth Circuit: United States v. Marcus Fleming
Plain procedural error in sentencing where the court bases an upward variance on extrinsic evidence first revealed at sentencing, and the deft is not given a meaningful opportunity to dispute the veracity or relevance of that evidence.
http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0129p-06.pdf
http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0129p-06.pdf
Sixth Circuit: Rita McDaniel v. Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc.
Where the claim arises from a state product liability statute that looks to the federal guidelines as to the level of medical warnings to be provided, a claim under the tort based on the omission of the warning is impliedly preempted by federal law.
Concur/dissent (CJ) -- Violation of the federal statute is not a necessary element of the claim, so not preempted. Learned intermediary doctrine does not save defts.
http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0128p-06.pdf
Concur/dissent (CJ) -- Violation of the federal statute is not a necessary element of the claim, so not preempted. Learned intermediary doctrine does not save defts.
http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0128p-06.pdf
Fifth Circuit: Kymberli Gardner v. CLC of Pascagoula, L.L.C.
In a Title VII action for hostile work environment, when an employer becomes aware of harassing or violent conduct by a thord party, it has an obligation to attempt a remedy.
A wrongful termination action under the same statute presents an issue for trial where the protected activity is a refusal to deal with the harassing third party and there is a showing of direct evidence associating the refusal with the firing.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-60072-CV0.pdf
A wrongful termination action under the same statute presents an issue for trial where the protected activity is a refusal to deal with the harassing third party and there is a showing of direct evidence associating the refusal with the firing.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-60072-CV0.pdf
Fifth Circuit: Fisk Electric Company v. DQSI, L.L.C.
As the rights and liabilities arising from claims on a contract to construct a federal building are derivative of federal statutes, federal law governs a claim of fraudulent inducement.
As the federal common law of contracts mirrors the common law, the Restatement standard of de minimis burden to investigate fraudulent inducement, the claim presented a genuine issue of material fact where a party made reasonable attempts to gain the relevant documents through FOIA requests.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-30091-CV0.pdf
As the federal common law of contracts mirrors the common law, the Restatement standard of de minimis burden to investigate fraudulent inducement, the claim presented a genuine issue of material fact where a party made reasonable attempts to gain the relevant documents through FOIA requests.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-30091-CV0.pdf
Fifth Circuit: Fallon Family, L.P. v. Goodrich Petroleum Corp.
Under state law, where a continuing contractual scheme of payments for a mineral lease is not reflected in the property's recordation, a party to the contract cannot exercise the power of dissolution against the debtor-in-possession counterparty otherwise liable for the pre-petition payments, as the latter has acquired the status of bona fide puchaser for value.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-20278-CV0.pdf
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-20278-CV0.pdf
Hebdominal sabbatical
As CB has a conference presentation to prepare, dissertation work to do, and wants to spend more quality time on bar prep, there will likely be no batting practice here next week.
G-d willin' and the crick don't rise, I'll likely be back the following week, or some time after that.
Keep yer stick on the ice.
-- CB
G-d willin' and the crick don't rise, I'll likely be back the following week, or some time after that.
Keep yer stick on the ice.
-- CB
Eleventh Circuit: Cozzi v. Thomas
Denial of qualified immunity for arrest when tips merely established present location of suspect, and that he matched the description; as tattoos were not examined and a bag of 32 pills was insufficient indication that suspect had taken six during the robbery, arrest was not arguably within reasonable suspicion.
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201711011.pdf
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201711011.pdf
Eleventh Circuit: Dennis Haynes v. Hooters of America, LLC
Suit seeking relief that is parallel to an already-agreed settlement with a third party is not moot, as there is no proof in the record of present compliance, no guarantee of ongoing compliance, and the plaintiff wouldn't have standing to enforce the third-party agreement.
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201713170.pdf
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201713170.pdf
DC Circuit: USA v. Marlon Haight
No abuse of discretion in denial of delay in trial when gov't moves to include new holograph evidence two weeks before trial.
Harmless non-abuse-of-discretion to allow hearsay report of identification of deft, as declarant was available to testify at trial, and did testify at trial, and, on direct, didn't remember the identification.
No abuse of discretion in admission of deft's holograph writings in backpack, as sufficiently authenticated, and probative of deft's ownership of backpack and general knowledge of guns and drugs.
Ineffective assistance remanded for factual development.
District Assault with a Dangerous Weapons statute is a valid ACCA predicate, given its elements; a violent force can be indirect or made with merely reckless intent.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/6DDDED8EB99FE1A5852582B4004FFDDF/$file/16-3123.pdf
Harmless non-abuse-of-discretion to allow hearsay report of identification of deft, as declarant was available to testify at trial, and did testify at trial, and, on direct, didn't remember the identification.
No abuse of discretion in admission of deft's holograph writings in backpack, as sufficiently authenticated, and probative of deft's ownership of backpack and general knowledge of guns and drugs.
Ineffective assistance remanded for factual development.
District Assault with a Dangerous Weapons statute is a valid ACCA predicate, given its elements; a violent force can be indirect or made with merely reckless intent.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/6DDDED8EB99FE1A5852582B4004FFDDF/$file/16-3123.pdf
DC Circuit: Ameren Services Company, et al v. FERC
A regulated party has standing to challenge the regulation.
Question is ripe, as possible future displacement of a utility's approved projects due to the change in the cost allocation scheme's structure is conceded by all parties, and further factual development wouldn't speak to the question of law at issue.
Claim first made in Article III review that the agency impermissibly shifted the burden of proving reasonableness to the utility needed to be exhausted in the pertition for agency review.
On merits, Commission's ruling that already-approved projects needed to be revisited in light of the regionally interconnected projects was not arbitrary or capricious, as there are public policy benefits from that sort of thing, and proper accounting for the interregional projects requires integration of the costs of the already-approved projects.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/6440A9564E36D841852582B4004FED20/$file/16-1150.pdf
Question is ripe, as possible future displacement of a utility's approved projects due to the change in the cost allocation scheme's structure is conceded by all parties, and further factual development wouldn't speak to the question of law at issue.
Claim first made in Article III review that the agency impermissibly shifted the burden of proving reasonableness to the utility needed to be exhausted in the pertition for agency review.
On merits, Commission's ruling that already-approved projects needed to be revisited in light of the regionally interconnected projects was not arbitrary or capricious, as there are public policy benefits from that sort of thing, and proper accounting for the interregional projects requires integration of the costs of the already-approved projects.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/6440A9564E36D841852582B4004FED20/$file/16-1150.pdf
Federal Circuit: Starry Associates v. US
The statute authorizing an award of fees does not contemplate egregiously dilatory agency conduct as a basis for increasing the base rate of compensation; as the "special factor" basis is listed with a "cost of living" basis, the statute authorizes increases in the award where the base rate is insufficient due to the character of the representation. Because noscitur.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/17-2148.Opinion.6-22-2018.pdf
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/17-2148.Opinion.6-22-2018.pdf
Tenth Circuit: United States v. Vance
If the traffic stop on a theory of presenting a hazard to others was due to a mistake of law, it was a reasonable mistake of law, given the state's law about changing lanes.
As an element of the lane-changing law is the driver's omission of checking to see if the lane is clear, the police had reasonable cause for the stop in order to determine if the required visual check had been performed.
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/17/17-2008.pdf
As an element of the lane-changing law is the driver's omission of checking to see if the lane is clear, the police had reasonable cause for the stop in order to determine if the required visual check had been performed.
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/17/17-2008.pdf
Tenth Circuit: United States v. Pacheco-Donelson
No plain error in procedural reasonableness of supervised release condition barring all contact with gang members--including family members--as deft had the burden to prove close association.
No abuse of discretion in substantive reasonableness of same condition, given past extensive gang associations and the need to protect the public.
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/17/17-1180.pdf
No abuse of discretion in substantive reasonableness of same condition, given past extensive gang associations and the need to protect the public.
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/17/17-1180.pdf
Ninth Circuit: Jeffrey Short v. Edmund G. Brown
No abuse of discretion in denial of injunction against voting-by-mail scheme, as there is no burden placed on the voters, and, under current precedent, a claim of vote dilution would have to allege a discriminatory allocation of votes, not the de minimis individual burden here.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/06/22/18-15775.pdf
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/06/22/18-15775.pdf
Ninth Circuit: Shame On You Productions, Inc. v. Elizabeth Banks
No abuse of discretion in awarding fees to deft in a copyright action, as the claim was denied after an extrinsic review of the scripts, and the plaintiff did not timely provide their script; recent circuit precedent emphasizing the reasonability of the litigating position does not compel the award to be revisited.
State breach of implied contract intermixed with question of infringement, court's non-apportionment of that portion was therefore justified.
No abuse of discretion in the reasonableness of the fees.
Motion for fees timely e-filed, but in the wrong category and then later filed in the correct category was properly considered, as the time limit isn't jurisdictional.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/06/21/16-55024.pdf
State breach of implied contract intermixed with question of infringement, court's non-apportionment of that portion was therefore justified.
No abuse of discretion in the reasonableness of the fees.
Motion for fees timely e-filed, but in the wrong category and then later filed in the correct category was properly considered, as the time limit isn't jurisdictional.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/06/21/16-55024.pdf
Eighth Circuit: Santos Rosales-Martinez v. Nick Ludwick
State court's re-imposition of limits on the confrontation of a witness during retrial after simply adopting the findings of the previous proceeding is not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of federal law on the subject.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/06/171910P.pdf
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/06/171910P.pdf
Eighth Circuit: Bobby Hargis v. John Koskinen
Owner of passthrough corporations must establish an actual outlay of resources to establish sufficient basis in the corporation to list the corporations losses on their taxes. Signing as a co-borrower a corporate loan does not establish a personal outlay.
[again, folks, this site doesn't contain advice of any kind.]
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/06/171694P.pdf
[again, folks, this site doesn't contain advice of any kind.]
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/06/171694P.pdf
Eighth Circuit: United States v. Gervais (Ken) Ngombwa
No ineffective assistance where attorney declines to investigate family relations, thinking there to be a substantial likelihood that unsavory details might be discovered.
Misstatements to agency properly grouped with later immigration offenses, as the purpose of the agency action was immigration enforcement, which serves society -- the victims were identical.
No Ex Post Facto violation in using a version of the sentencing guidelines in effect at the time of the later crimes that contains a new enhancement relevant to the earlier crimes, as sufficient notice before the later crimes is presumed.
No abuse of discretion in use of foreign convictions as proxies for the factual finding that the criminal history level underrated the deft's acts.
No abuse of discretion in use of genocide witness statements -- if hearsay, they had sufficient indicia of credibility.
Foreign expert testifying on video-link at sentencing is not unreliably unsworn.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/06/187168P.pdf
Misstatements to agency properly grouped with later immigration offenses, as the purpose of the agency action was immigration enforcement, which serves society -- the victims were identical.
No Ex Post Facto violation in using a version of the sentencing guidelines in effect at the time of the later crimes that contains a new enhancement relevant to the earlier crimes, as sufficient notice before the later crimes is presumed.
No abuse of discretion in use of foreign convictions as proxies for the factual finding that the criminal history level underrated the deft's acts.
No abuse of discretion in use of genocide witness statements -- if hearsay, they had sufficient indicia of credibility.
Foreign expert testifying on video-link at sentencing is not unreliably unsworn.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/06/187168P.pdf
Eighth Circuit: Mario Ortiz v. Ferrellgas Partners
Where injunctive antitrust relief is sought, and the remedy parallels existing FTC consent orders, the complaint, to establish an injury, must contain sufficient factual content to support the rational inference that the nonmovant has violated the consent orders.
Indirect purchasers cannot seek disgorgement, given the risk of multiple and inconsistent proceedings.
Remanded to consider if state law claims are sufficient to retain jurisdiction.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/06/164086P.pdf
Indirect purchasers cannot seek disgorgement, given the risk of multiple and inconsistent proceedings.
Remanded to consider if state law claims are sufficient to retain jurisdiction.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/06/164086P.pdf
Seventh Circuit: USA v. Jose Maldonado
Sufficient evidence for conspiracy, as the distrustful arms-length relationship with the drug supplier was extensive, and occasionally worked on credit; a second connection between two dealers described as brotherly in fact speaks to the closeness of the conspirators.
Multiple conspiracies instruction proper, as there was no necessary hub to the group.
No error in denial of meeting-of-the-minds instruction, as distrust among the participants did not negate the business purpose of their association.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D06-21/C:17-1402:J:Bauer:aut:T:fnOp:N:2174265:S:0
Multiple conspiracies instruction proper, as there was no necessary hub to the group.
No error in denial of meeting-of-the-minds instruction, as distrust among the participants did not negate the business purpose of their association.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D06-21/C:17-1402:J:Bauer:aut:T:fnOp:N:2174265:S:0
Seventh Circuit: Brooks Goplin v. WeConnect, Incorporated
No clear error where the court reviews a website discussed in briefing and uses the content in coming to a decision, as the other party had to carry the burden, and the proof introduced was minimal.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D06-21/C:18-1193:J:Barrett:aut:T:fnOp:N:2174452:S:0
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D06-21/C:18-1193:J:Barrett:aut:T:fnOp:N:2174452:S:0
Sixth Circuit: Filippo Leone v. BMI Refractory Servs., Inc.
Under state law, third party contractor has separate and distinct duty of care towards employees to avoid harmful acts when it is contracted to handle a pre-existing hazard.
Sixth Circuit: United States v. Clifton Satterwhite
As the statute requiring indictment within 30 days is followed by a provision mandating a speedy trial, and the latter clause establishes that the right in "this section" is waived if not asserted, that qualification can be imputed to the first clause.
An untimely indictment is therefore not a jurisdictional flaw, and a deft who waived all challenges to earlier proceedings is validly sentenced after receiving an indictment defective under the statute.
http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0118p-06.pdf
An untimely indictment is therefore not a jurisdictional flaw, and a deft who waived all challenges to earlier proceedings is validly sentenced after receiving an indictment defective under the statute.
http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0118p-06.pdf
Sixth Circuit: United States v. Frank Susany, Jr.
Error for sentencing court not to consider reduction due to the fact that the conspiracy hadn't gotten very far along, but since the error entitled the deft to a greater reduction for acceptance of responsibility and the court subsequently varied downwards to a level beneath the correct guidelines range, there was no prejudice. Harmless error.
http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0117p-06.pdf
http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0117p-06.pdf
Sixth Circuit: United States v. Jamal Cooper
Wiretap Act does not require a different application for each authorization, but merely that each application conform to the Act.
No clear error in authorizing the tap where many of the alternatives were discounted prospectively.
No error in denial of Franks hearing where the challenged omissions on the affidavit might be construed from the contents of the affidavit.
Sealing and delivery of tapes four days after the end of the tap did not transgress the two-day limit, as the government needed to confirm that the deft was no longer using that line.
Where trial judge accepts govt contention at trial that the content of the recorded conversation establishes that the confidential informant consented to the taping, no clear error in the admission of the tapes.
Parolee confidential informers can validly consent to the taping of conversations.
http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0116p-06.pdf
No clear error in authorizing the tap where many of the alternatives were discounted prospectively.
No error in denial of Franks hearing where the challenged omissions on the affidavit might be construed from the contents of the affidavit.
Sealing and delivery of tapes four days after the end of the tap did not transgress the two-day limit, as the government needed to confirm that the deft was no longer using that line.
Where trial judge accepts govt contention at trial that the content of the recorded conversation establishes that the confidential informant consented to the taping, no clear error in the admission of the tapes.
Parolee confidential informers can validly consent to the taping of conversations.
http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0116p-06.pdf
Fifth Circuit: Robert Furlough v. Lowell Cage
Owner of debtor corporation who was joined to a pendent civil suit does not have standing to challenge engagement of special counsel as veil-piercing expert in the bankruptcy suit on the basis that the appointee is affiliated with one of the creditors and would act in a manner adverse to the estate.
Standing is determined at the time of filing -- an after-acquired interest in the estate does not convert the plaintiff's interest to that of a creditor for purposes of standing.
[caveat -- quick work. as always, entertainment purposes only.]
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-20603-CV0.pdf
Standing is determined at the time of filing -- an after-acquired interest in the estate does not convert the plaintiff's interest to that of a creditor for purposes of standing.
[caveat -- quick work. as always, entertainment purposes only.]
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-20603-CV0.pdf
Fifth Circuit: Lois Davis v. Fort Bend County
Plain error where the deft's sentence was twice the correct amount after the court counted a state conviction for a crime that is more broadly defined than the generic federal version used in sentencing.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/16/16-41378-CR0.pdf
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/16/16-41378-CR0.pdf
Fourth Circuit: Lee Malvo v. Randall Mathena
Given the substantive right of a juvenile not to be sentenced to a mandatory life without parole sentence articulated by the Supreme Court and made retroactive to cases on collateral review, petitioner's initial sentencing must be reviewed, as it was unclear at trial whether the judge could suspend part of the life sentence, and additionally, relief might be warranted outside of mandatory sentences in the strict sense.
As there was no finding of incorrigibility, the jury's vote for life without parole needs to be revisited. Additional sentences imposed under plea deal are not shielded from review by the appeals waiver, as collateral challenges of new rights and assertions of substantive constitutional violations weren't enforceably waived.
Interesting peroration.
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/176746.P.pdf
As there was no finding of incorrigibility, the jury's vote for life without parole needs to be revisited. Additional sentences imposed under plea deal are not shielded from review by the appeals waiver, as collateral challenges of new rights and assertions of substantive constitutional violations weren't enforceably waived.
Interesting peroration.
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/176746.P.pdf
Second Circuit: United States v. Olmeda
Where conduct relevant to the offense (here, grounds for a sentence enhancement) is the subject of a contemporaneous prosecution in state court, the federal sentencing court must consider the Guidelines instruction that the terms are to run concurrently; there is no requirement that the state prosecution be on the docket at the time of federal sentencing.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/37d309e7-2938-46a7-887d-c286c9866ef7/1/doc/15-3449_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/37d309e7-2938-46a7-887d-c286c9866ef7/1/hilite/
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/37d309e7-2938-46a7-887d-c286c9866ef7/1/doc/15-3449_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/37d309e7-2938-46a7-887d-c286c9866ef7/1/hilite/
Second Circuit: Copeland v. Vance
As plaintiffs seek relief holding the law void for vagueness as to an entire category of folding knives, the challenge is construed as a facial challenge; a past enforcement against one of the plaintiffs provided sufficient notice of the proscribed activity, establishing that it is possible to enforce the law constitutionally -- therefore not facially unconstitutional. While it is possible to enforce the law in a discriminatory manner, and there might be evidence of this discrimination in past enforcement, the law itself does not unduly invite such discrimination.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/37d309e7-2938-46a7-887d-c286c9866ef7/2/doc/17-474_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/37d309e7-2938-46a7-887d-c286c9866ef7/2/hilite/
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/37d309e7-2938-46a7-887d-c286c9866ef7/2/doc/17-474_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/37d309e7-2938-46a7-887d-c286c9866ef7/2/hilite/
Second Circuit: Villanueva v. United States of America
Given Supreme Court precedent relating to another statute, a state Assault statute is a valid violent crime predicate under modified categorical review.
Dissent: All the courts are doing it, but that doesn't make it right. Scotus specifically said it doesn't apply in this context; where the statute applies to non-forceful harm such as poison, it's an offensive touching, not a use of force.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/37d309e7-2938-46a7-887d-c286c9866ef7/3/doc/16-2528_complete_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/37d309e7-2938-46a7-887d-c286c9866ef7/3/hilite/
Dissent: All the courts are doing it, but that doesn't make it right. Scotus specifically said it doesn't apply in this context; where the statute applies to non-forceful harm such as poison, it's an offensive touching, not a use of force.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/37d309e7-2938-46a7-887d-c286c9866ef7/3/doc/16-2528_complete_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/37d309e7-2938-46a7-887d-c286c9866ef7/3/hilite/
Federal Circuit: Royal Crown Company, Inc. v. The Coca-Cola Company, Inc.
A mark is generic if the public would understand that it referred to a key aspect of the genus, leading it to believe the mark is a generic term. This can be established from any competent source.
The inquiry into distinctiveness becomes more stringent as the mark grows more specific.
Association of the mark with the genus is not necessarily proof of the generic nature of the mark.
Ninth Circuit: Nu Image v. IATSE Local 720
The relevant statute only grants federal jurisdiction over claims of CBA violations; a suit alleging that the provision is void for lack of formation under state law therefore does not state a claim under the statute.
Dissent: It can be construed as a request for declaratory judgment as to the plaintiffs own alleged violation of that provision of the CBA.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/06/20/16-55451.pdf
Dissent: It can be construed as a request for declaratory judgment as to the plaintiffs own alleged violation of that provision of the CBA.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/06/20/16-55451.pdf
Ninth Circuit: Robert Stephens v. CoreLogic, Inc.
To establish contributory infringement under the statute, plaintiff needs to establish a likelihood of specific future infringement; specific allegations of the theory of infringement are necessary. While the software removes the metadata that aids in the detection of infringement, plaintiffs do not demonstrate how removal of this information alone will prompt a future infringement.
Discovery denials appropriate, as there was no specific statement of how the additional time and productions would show such future specific infringement.
Costs for testimony of employees of deft corporation can be taxed to opposing party.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/06/20/16-56089.pdf
Discovery denials appropriate, as there was no specific statement of how the additional time and productions would show such future specific infringement.
Costs for testimony of employees of deft corporation can be taxed to opposing party.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/06/20/16-56089.pdf
Eighth Circuit: United States v. Nicholas Ryan Hemsher
Inconsistencies in self-interested witnesses' testimony were subject to cross, and do not establish lack of sufficient evidence.
Exclusion of prior inconsistent statement to police was harmless, as inconsistencies explored elsewhere, and no contemporaneous proffer; exclusion of exited utterances by police during search was proper, since police officers don't get excited--also harmless.
Sufficient evidence for sentence enhancement based on number of firearms. Enhancement for another felony found by a preponderance can apply to firearm trafficking and possession, so long as it's not the actual underlying crime charged. Texts from incarceration referencing "snitches" sufficed for obstruction enhancement. Disparities in co-conspirators' sentences not per se unreasonable.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/06/172189P.pdf
Exclusion of prior inconsistent statement to police was harmless, as inconsistencies explored elsewhere, and no contemporaneous proffer; exclusion of exited utterances by police during search was proper, since police officers don't get excited--also harmless.
Sufficient evidence for sentence enhancement based on number of firearms. Enhancement for another felony found by a preponderance can apply to firearm trafficking and possession, so long as it's not the actual underlying crime charged. Texts from incarceration referencing "snitches" sufficed for obstruction enhancement. Disparities in co-conspirators' sentences not per se unreasonable.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/06/172189P.pdf
Eighth Circuit: United States v. Thomas Grace
A sentencing judge may properly consider offenses already incorporated in the guidelines calculations when deciding to vary upwards where the prior offenses strongly parallel the present crime. Argument that elements of state statute raised in sentencing were not met in present crime was waived since it was first raised in reply brief. Consideration of the statute not per se unreasonable.
Seventh Circuit: Henry Fiorentini v. Paul Revere Life Insurance
As a claimant has the burden to establish a covered condition, a CEO who has returned to work and exercises control over the corporation cannot establish a claim for disability based on the inability to perform another management task (sales) that he deems essential for the corporation to succeed.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D06-21/C:17-3137:J:Barrett:aut:T:fnOp:N:2174099:S:0
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D06-21/C:17-3137:J:Barrett:aut:T:fnOp:N:2174099:S:0
Seventh Circuit: USA v. Donald S. Harden
Sufficient evidence to establish death from the drugs sold where timeline suggests proximate consumption, despite statements in the record to the contrary regarding the substance's toxicity.
Sentencing enhancement for death requires merely actual causation, not proof of proximate cause; conspiracy provision does not imply reasonable forseeability.
Court's exclusion of testimony about another source for drugs was harmless error and not an abuse of discretion, as it might have tended to confuse.
Giving a timestamped convenience store surveillance photograph of the deft to the jury during deliberations did not warrant a mistrial.
Prosecution statements in closing and rebuttal closing (saying that the deft knew the present batch of heroin to be fatal, as opposed to the previous batch; saying that deft furnished drugs on both days as opposed to just one) don't warrant reversal, sufficiently cured ("if what the lawyers said is different than the evidence that you remember, the evidence is what counts.")
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D06-20/C:17-1270:J:Flaum:aut:T:fnOp:N:2173545:S:0
Sentencing enhancement for death requires merely actual causation, not proof of proximate cause; conspiracy provision does not imply reasonable forseeability.
Court's exclusion of testimony about another source for drugs was harmless error and not an abuse of discretion, as it might have tended to confuse.
Giving a timestamped convenience store surveillance photograph of the deft to the jury during deliberations did not warrant a mistrial.
Prosecution statements in closing and rebuttal closing (saying that the deft knew the present batch of heroin to be fatal, as opposed to the previous batch; saying that deft furnished drugs on both days as opposed to just one) don't warrant reversal, sufficiently cured ("if what the lawyers said is different than the evidence that you remember, the evidence is what counts.")
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D06-20/C:17-1270:J:Flaum:aut:T:fnOp:N:2173545:S:0
Seventh Circuit: Pain Center of SE Indiana, LLC v. Origin Healthcare Solutions LLC
Anonymous parties to case are sufficiently de minimis for diversity purposes, so there's jurisdiction.
Actively supported software license is, under state "predominant thrust" test, a contract for services, rather than goods, making the UCC inapplicable.
State tort claims are time-barred, as the plaintiff had knowledge of the harm during the continuing contract.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D06-20/C:17-1276:J:Sykes:aut:T:fnOp:N:2173943:S:0
Actively supported software license is, under state "predominant thrust" test, a contract for services, rather than goods, making the UCC inapplicable.
State tort claims are time-barred, as the plaintiff had knowledge of the harm during the continuing contract.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D06-20/C:17-1276:J:Sykes:aut:T:fnOp:N:2173943:S:0
Seventh Circuit: Comsys Incorporated v. Frank Pacetti
While the restrictions on freedom of speech while in the employ of the government apply to contracted corporations and their employees, where the line between protected and unprotected speech is ambiguous, qualified immunity protects the government from claims of unlawful retaliation.
As the Fourth Amendment only protects against invasion by public actors, accessing of email records by employee of contracted corporation did not violate; the question of direction by state actors is ambiguous enough to warrant qualified immunity.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D06-20/C:17-2053:J:Easterbrook:aut:T:fnOp:N:2173897:S:0
As the Fourth Amendment only protects against invasion by public actors, accessing of email records by employee of contracted corporation did not violate; the question of direction by state actors is ambiguous enough to warrant qualified immunity.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D06-20/C:17-2053:J:Easterbrook:aut:T:fnOp:N:2173897:S:0
Seventh Circuit: Anthony Simpkins v. DuPage Housing Authority
In considering whether a worker is an employee for the purposes of the FSLA, questions of fact are reviewed for clear error, while questions of law are reviewed de novo; at summary judgment, though, since the court makes no findings of fact, the question of genuine issue of material fact is reviewed de novo.
Here, sufficient question for trial.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D06-20/C:17-2685:J:Bauer:aut:T:fnOp:N:2173923:S:0
Here, sufficient question for trial.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D06-20/C:17-2685:J:Bauer:aut:T:fnOp:N:2173923:S:0
Seventh Circuit: US v. Larry Norton
Where conflicting testimony at trial suggests that deft was zero to five mph over the speed limit, no clear error in holding that traffic stop at prompting of drug task force didn't violate the Fourth Amendment.
Admission of informant's statements on recording, if hearsay, was harmless error, as they merely provided useful context for others statements.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D06-20/C:17-2898:J:Kanne:aut:T:fnOp:N:2173776:S:0
Admission of informant's statements on recording, if hearsay, was harmless error, as they merely provided useful context for others statements.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D06-20/C:17-2898:J:Kanne:aut:T:fnOp:N:2173776:S:0
Sixth Circuit: Randy Pearce v. Chrysler Grp. LLC Pension Plan
Error for District Court to simultaneously bar challenges raised before the magistrate and hold all challenges not raised before the magistrate to be waived.
Employer had a duty to list the firing exception in the summary of plan benefits; this exclusion justifies reformation of the plan, which should be considered by the court sitting in equity as being similar to the fraud element of equitable estoppel.
As Plan provisions enabled the individual to accurately calculate benefits, standalone claim of equitable estoppel is not available.
http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0114p-06.pdf
Employer had a duty to list the firing exception in the summary of plan benefits; this exclusion justifies reformation of the plan, which should be considered by the court sitting in equity as being similar to the fraud element of equitable estoppel.
As Plan provisions enabled the individual to accurately calculate benefits, standalone claim of equitable estoppel is not available.
http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0114p-06.pdf
Fourth Circuit: Ohio Valley Environmental v. Scott Pruitt
Plaintiffs have sufficient Article III standing to challenge EPA action affecting a state's rivers when they can establish concrete and particular harms arising from some subset of the rivers.
State's lack of filing is insufficiently clear and ambiguous to trigger the constructive submission of a refusal to file -- the question of agency obligation is therefore one for trial.
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/171430.P.pdf
State's lack of filing is insufficiently clear and ambiguous to trigger the constructive submission of a refusal to file -- the question of agency obligation is therefore one for trial.
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/171430.P.pdf
Fourth Circuit: Alan Metzgar v. KBR, Inc.
Suit against military contractor for trash burn pits and water provision is barred under the political question doctrine, given that the military's control over the processes at issue was plenary and actual.
As the suit is dismissed as nonjusticiable, the pendent FTCA suit is moot -- statutory exemption not reached.
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/171960.P.pdf
As the suit is dismissed as nonjusticiable, the pendent FTCA suit is moot -- statutory exemption not reached.
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/171960.P.pdf
Fourth Circuit: US v. Edward Kehoe
One anonymous tip and one named tip sufficed for the search of the deft, given that the location was known to be the type of bar where people might drink with concealed weapons.
Court's instruction to counsel to consider why a caucasian person might have brought a gun to a predominantly african-american bar was egregious, but it didn't taint the proceeding, as the tips could still be weighed, and argument wasn't impeded.
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/174536.P.pdf
Court's instruction to counsel to consider why a caucasian person might have brought a gun to a predominantly african-american bar was egregious, but it didn't taint the proceeding, as the tips could still be weighed, and argument wasn't impeded.
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/174536.P.pdf
Third Circuit: Gerald Carroll v. E One Inc
Award of fees to deft upon dismissal with prejudice following plaintiffs' mistaken motion to unilaterally dismiss a suit that had advanced past discovery and answer was not an abuse of discretion; plaintiff's lack of investigation, combined with their practices in other districts presented a sufficiently extraordinary circumstance to justify the grant.
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/172183p.pdf
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/172183p.pdf
Second Circuit: Simon v. City of New York
Denial of qualified immunity for custodial arrest and interrogation over the course of two days on the basis of a warrant issued to produce the arrestee in court at a certain time for a hearing to determine if she should be detained as a material witness. Although the procedures violated a state statute, the variance from the terms on the face of the warrant created a Fourth Amendment violation. Sufficiently clear to be contrary to law despite lack of on-point precedent in the circuit.
Arrestee's return to the police station on the next day was not voluntary, given instruction to do so and reminder that police had an arrest warrant for her.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/c248c3bb-2a44-49a0-968d-6c71d649d45e/1/doc/17-1281_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/c248c3bb-2a44-49a0-968d-6c71d649d45e/1/hilite/
Arrestee's return to the police station on the next day was not voluntary, given instruction to do so and reminder that police had an arrest warrant for her.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/c248c3bb-2a44-49a0-968d-6c71d649d45e/1/doc/17-1281_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/c248c3bb-2a44-49a0-968d-6c71d649d45e/1/hilite/
First Circuit: US v. Cabrera-Rivera
Given the previous discussion among counsel during which they looked up the relevant statutes on their cellphones, plea bargain was sufficiently knowing and voluntary, despite deft's contention that he understood the term of the sentence to include any periods of supervised release.
Although the rest of the conditions of supervised release don't rise to the level of miscarriage of justice that would justify looking past the appeals waiver in the plea bargain, the unexplained provision barring unapproved contact with deft's children was plain error.
Concurrence: When supervised release conditions don't match the plea deal, contract principles come into play.
Dissent: Conditions weren't a miscarriage of justice, all considered. Seemingly excessive conditions give probation officers useful power.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/15-1337P-01A.pdf
Although the rest of the conditions of supervised release don't rise to the level of miscarriage of justice that would justify looking past the appeals waiver in the plea bargain, the unexplained provision barring unapproved contact with deft's children was plain error.
Concurrence: When supervised release conditions don't match the plea deal, contract principles come into play.
Dissent: Conditions weren't a miscarriage of justice, all considered. Seemingly excessive conditions give probation officers useful power.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/15-1337P-01A.pdf
First Circuit: In re: App of George W Schlich
The prudential factors in deciding whether to order discovery for use in a foreign proceeding do not imply that either party has an obligation to establish or rebut any factor; the court did not abuse its discretion when deciding that the marginal relevance of the information sought, while sufficient to establish a prima facie claim under the statute, meant that the foreign court would likely not be receptive to the information.
Circuit split flagged.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-1377P-01A.pdf
Circuit split flagged.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-1377P-01A.pdf
DC Circuit: Cellco Partnership v. NLRB
When holding that employees dismissal for untruthfulness was pretextual, ALJ impermissibly intruded into business judgment by determining that other violations of company policy that were generally unpunished were more severe.
Discussions involving Section 7 matters are not categorically shielded from such rules.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/8BA86CC8FAF54C77852582B10051858A/$file/17-1158-1736658.pdf
Discussions involving Section 7 matters are not categorically shielded from such rules.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/8BA86CC8FAF54C77852582B10051858A/$file/17-1158-1736658.pdf
DC Circuit: FTC v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmace
Communication of business facts between employees and in-house counsel are subject to privilege where a significant provision of the communication is to obtain or provide legal advice; underlying data, however, is not protected with the communications.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/A81BAEEA3D756416852582B100518ADF/$file/16-5356.pdf
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/A81BAEEA3D756416852582B100518ADF/$file/16-5356.pdf
DC Circuit: Electronic Privacy Information Center v. FAA
Drone organization doesn't have associational standing to challenge rulemaking, as the commercial concerns are largely outside the scope of the proposed rule, and the personal privacy concerns are speculative.
Also, no organizational standing, as bare assertion of not being able to inform its members is an insufficient showing.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/DA5DA28557555A8C852582B100518571/$file/16-1297-1736670.pdf
Also, no organizational standing, as bare assertion of not being able to inform its members is an insufficient showing.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/DA5DA28557555A8C852582B100518571/$file/16-1297-1736670.pdf
DC Circuit: Western Organization v. Ryan Zinke
No legal duty to conduct a further environmental review of the federal government's coal regulation scheme, as the adoption of the plan in 1985 was the major federal action that triggered the obligation of environmental review.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/FCE27F0BA64C40A1852582B100518555/$file/15-5294-1736645.pdf
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/FCE27F0BA64C40A1852582B100518555/$file/15-5294-1736645.pdf
Federal Circuit: Sirona Dental Systems v. Institut Straumann
Patent something or other. (Running a bit late today.)
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/17-1341.Opinion.6-19-2018.pdf
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/17-1341.Opinion.6-19-2018.pdf
Tenth Circuit: Rodriguez v. FDIC
As now-bankrupt bank's contractual agreement with its now-bankrupt affiliated group is incredibly complex and ambiguous, the provision of the agreement mandating that any ambiguities be construed in favor of the bank means that there was only an agency relationship between the bank and the organization and the latter has no equitable title to the tax refund due the affiliated organization; the refund now belongs to the bank's FDIC receiver.
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/17/17-1281.pdf
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/17/17-1281.pdf
Tenth Circuit: Odom v. Penske Truck Leasing Co.
Remand to District Court after certified question to examine whether affiliated company had a persona distinct from the employer for purposes of workers compensation.
A motion to dismiss a suit in federal court on the basis that state law deprives state courts of the ability to hear a similar claim asserts not a lack of jurisdiction, but the invocation of a waiveable affirmative defense that should be construed as a motion for summary judgment.
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/17/17-6065.pdf
A motion to dismiss a suit in federal court on the basis that state law deprives state courts of the ability to hear a similar claim asserts not a lack of jurisdiction, but the invocation of a waiveable affirmative defense that should be construed as a motion for summary judgment.
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/17/17-6065.pdf
Tenth Circuit: Lujan-Jimenez v. Sessions
In the state Trespass statute, the ulterior crime intended during the trespass is irrelevant to the theory of the offense -- a jury could convict under different theories of the ulterior crime. The statute is therefore not susceptible to modified categorical review, which, in an immigration context, would have shifted the burden to the petitioner to establish that they had not trespassed in the vehicle to commit an ulterior offense that evinced moral turpitude. Categorically, then, the statute isn't a valid predicate conviction for immigration purposes.
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/16/16-9555.pdf
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/16/16-9555.pdf
Tenth Circuit: Auto-Owners Insurance Company v. Csaszar
Exclusion of driver from specific vehicles under an auto insurance policy bars her recovery as a family member under the uninsured motorist provisions when the driver is injured in an accident not involving the scheduled vehicles.
Exclusion from no-fault coverage when excluded from regular policy doesn't violate public policy.
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/17/17-1075.pdf
Exclusion from no-fault coverage when excluded from regular policy doesn't violate public policy.
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/17/17-1075.pdf
Ninth Circuit: ASARCO, LLC. v. Allied Industrial and Service Workers
If an employer concedes arbitrability of a question, an arbitrator reviewing a collective agreement that prohibits changes in arbitration may reform the terms of the agreement for mutual mistake, subject to rational basis review; such reformation does not offend public policy.
Dissent: As the arbitrator's authority arises from the collective agreement, the no-add clause stripped the arbitrator of jurisdiction sufficient to amend.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/06/19/16-16363.pdf
Dissent: As the arbitrator's authority arises from the collective agreement, the no-add clause stripped the arbitrator of jurisdiction sufficient to amend.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/06/19/16-16363.pdf
Seventh Circuit: Adam Delgado v. Merit Systems Protection Board
Where a regulation establishes that claimant has the burden to establish statutorily required administrative exhaustion, the Board cannot require that the employee prove that they typed something into a web form in order to establish jurisdiction.
As the statute only requires that the report must be of something reasonably believed to be a crime, there is no obligation on the reporter to establish all of the elements in the crime in the initial report, or to establish that the report to the Board was identical with the earlier report to internal special counsel.
The exhaustion required by the statute is accomplished by presenting a claim to the special counsel that a legally sophisticated reader could understand and investigate.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D06-19/C:16-1313:J:PerCuriam:aut:T:aOp:N:2173082:S:1
As the statute only requires that the report must be of something reasonably believed to be a crime, there is no obligation on the reporter to establish all of the elements in the crime in the initial report, or to establish that the report to the Board was identical with the earlier report to internal special counsel.
The exhaustion required by the statute is accomplished by presenting a claim to the special counsel that a legally sophisticated reader could understand and investigate.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D06-19/C:16-1313:J:PerCuriam:aut:T:aOp:N:2173082:S:1
Seventh Circuit: Kevin Carmody v. Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois
If a university official provides incorrect information to investigators, it doesn't, standing alone, present a due process issue for trial, as it doesn't affect the notice and fair hearing protections of due process.
University administrators and officers who would have no reason to doubt the proceeding are not liable for a pre-firing due process claim.
Absent specific waiver, claims against the Board of Trustees of a state university are barred by the state's sovereign immunity.
Denial of summary judgment cannot be challenged on appeal, as the matter of law was fact-bound, and the questions went to trial.
Defts did not waive privilege on inadvertently disclosed document, as production was reasonably diligent, and request for claw-back was timely.
Although plaintiff had no obligation to renew objection to in limine ruling excluding certain evidence, there was insufficient proffer beforehand to preserve the issue for appeal. ("Deft construes?")
Although appeal was converted to interlocutory status on remand, and the court was therefore free to consider new documents, where these challenged the appellate holding, they needed to surmount the law of the case doctrine and the mandate doctrine.
Seventh Circuit: Anthony Oliver v. Joint Logistics Managers, Inc
In a S1981 employment discrimination claim, A CBA provision allowing the employer to consider many factors in selecting employees for layoffs does not establish that the employer's use of seniority needs to be defended as nondiscriminatory. (The burden doesn't shift.)
Allegation of discriminatory refusal to rehire is sufficiently rebutted by employer's contention that candidate's skills were insufficient.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D06-19/C:17-1633:J:Kanne:aut:T:fnOp:N:2172953:S:0
Allegation of discriminatory refusal to rehire is sufficiently rebutted by employer's contention that candidate's skills were insufficient.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D06-19/C:17-1633:J:Kanne:aut:T:fnOp:N:2172953:S:0
Seventh Circuit: Bennie Kennedy v. Schneider Electric
Impeachment evidence against claims of opposing witnesses did not rise to the clear and convincing level of deliberate perjury required for fraud on the court; they should have been raised on direct appeal or in a post-judgment motion.
Rule 11 sanctions upheld, as delay in filing couldn't be ascribed to a reluctance to assert such a thing against opposing counsel.
Motion for appellate sanctions needs to be raised in a separate motion; they can't just be mentioned in the briefing.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D06-19/C:17-1786:J:Hamilton:aut:T:fnOp:N:2173108:S:0
Rule 11 sanctions upheld, as delay in filing couldn't be ascribed to a reluctance to assert such a thing against opposing counsel.
Motion for appellate sanctions needs to be raised in a separate motion; they can't just be mentioned in the briefing.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D06-19/C:17-1786:J:Hamilton:aut:T:fnOp:N:2173108:S:0
Seventh Circuit: Scott Milliman, Sr. v. William Prim
In a S1983 First Amendment retaliatory firing claim, outside contact with the medical examiner and an expert's criticism of their methodology is insufficient to raise a question of pretext for trial when a law enforcement officer is fired based on a medical review that was ordered after he made accusations of highly abnormal corruption in the office.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D06-19/C:17-2687:J:Flaum:aut:T:fnOp:N:2172987:S:0
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D06-19/C:17-2687:J:Flaum:aut:T:fnOp:N:2172987:S:0
Seventh Circuit: USA v. Aaron Lamon
A weapons-possession count should not be grouped with a drugs count when tallying up the offense level during sentencing, as the weapons-possession charge incurs a statutory minimum term of imprisonment, removing the justification for such grouping.
Circuit split flagged, and doubled down upon.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D06-19/C:17-2764:J:PerCuriam:aut:T:fnOp:N:2172766:S:0
Circuit split flagged, and doubled down upon.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D06-19/C:17-2764:J:PerCuriam:aut:T:fnOp:N:2172766:S:0
Fifth Circuit: USA v. Latroy Burris
State Robbery statute does not have violence as an element, and, as the relevant standard implies physical force as opposed to offensive touching, can be accomplished without the use of force; it is therefore not a valid ACCA predicate under the elements prong.
Fifth Circuit: Leoncio Garcia v. Wal-Mart Stores Texas, L.L.C.
Where the defendant denies actual knowledge on a state premises-liability tort claim, circumstantial particularized evidence of the hazard's creation suffices to establish an issue for trial where the plaintiff's scenario is more reasonable than the defendant's alternative conjecture.
Fifth Circuit: USA v. Karl Scott
@justicewillett
Conspiracy for Possession with Intent to Distribute doesn't require actual or constructive possession; it suffices that the deft formed an agreement for the others to possess the drugs, knew of that agreement, and voluntarily participated in it.
Aiding and Abetting on the same charge is established when deft associates with a criminal venture, ensures its occurrence, purposefully participated in the venture, and sought to make it succeed.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-40552-CR0.pdf
Conspiracy for Possession with Intent to Distribute doesn't require actual or constructive possession; it suffices that the deft formed an agreement for the others to possess the drugs, knew of that agreement, and voluntarily participated in it.
Aiding and Abetting on the same charge is established when deft associates with a criminal venture, ensures its occurrence, purposefully participated in the venture, and sought to make it succeed.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-40552-CR0.pdf
Fifth Circuit: Valero Marketing & Supply Co. v. M/V Almi Sun, IMO
Subcontractor cannot assert lien against vessel, as the vessel did not control the selection or the performance of the subcontractor, and under the statute, a lien only arises against a counterparty to a contract for necessities, or a subcontractor whose selection or performance was controlled by the vessel.
Dissent: There was implicit approval of the selection of the subcontractor. Disputed question of whether this creates a circuit split.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/16/16-30194-CV0.pdf
Dissent: There was implicit approval of the selection of the subcontractor. Disputed question of whether this creates a circuit split.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/16/16-30194-CV0.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)