Bankruptcy, standing
State tax sale isn't a transfer for value, as the purchasers bid on the lien obligation without explicit reference to the value of the property.
Both parties have standing, where one was the initial plaintiff, and the other was later joined prior to their divorce, which left the joined plaintiff with sole rights in the property but other issues unresolved.
Plaintiff's recovery limited to homestead exception.
Purchaser of the lien obligation was the initial transferee, as the state merely facilitated the transfer.
Second purchaser had no constructive knowledge of fraudulence of transfer in the circumstances.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-20/C:15-1166:J:Hamilton:aut:T:fnOp:N:1689637:S:0
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.
Fourth Circuit: USA v. Wendy Annette Moore
Crim
No variance from indictment when a court instructs according to both prongs of a statute when the indictment only charged one prong of the statute.
The trustworthiness of a statement against interest hearsay exception refers to the statement actually made, not the trustworthiness of the reporting. No confrontation clause issue in statement to fellow detainee.
No plain error in admission of statements of prior bad acts/character, as gov't was required to correct.
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/144645.P.pdf
No variance from indictment when a court instructs according to both prongs of a statute when the indictment only charged one prong of the statute.
The trustworthiness of a statement against interest hearsay exception refers to the statement actually made, not the trustworthiness of the reporting. No confrontation clause issue in statement to fellow detainee.
No plain error in admission of statements of prior bad acts/character, as gov't was required to correct.
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/144645.P.pdf
First Circuit: Harrington v. Simmons
Crim, FRCrimP
Indictment not duplicative, as fraudulent schemes are inherently complex, and the scheme had a discrete sole desired outcome - a desire to score a run, not to hit a double and then steal two bases.
No variance from indictment given the diversity of interests of those who sustained losses, e.g., lenders, borrowers. No prejudice, as single theory.
The misstatements to lenders need only have a tendency to influence the lenders decisions to be considered material -- actual reliance need not be proven.
Given the structure and conduct of deft's organization, intent can be fairly inferred.
Court'd decision to deny funding for expert witness was without clear error, given concerns as to materiality and admissibility.
Where ten of the eleven counts are severed just before the case goes to the jury, a general directive to ignore the evidence offered in support of the counts sufficed.
Restitution challenge waived by spoken acceptance by counsel at trial, despite lack of victim statements.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/14-1325P-01A.pdf
Indictment not duplicative, as fraudulent schemes are inherently complex, and the scheme had a discrete sole desired outcome - a desire to score a run, not to hit a double and then steal two bases.
No variance from indictment given the diversity of interests of those who sustained losses, e.g., lenders, borrowers. No prejudice, as single theory.
The misstatements to lenders need only have a tendency to influence the lenders decisions to be considered material -- actual reliance need not be proven.
Given the structure and conduct of deft's organization, intent can be fairly inferred.
Court'd decision to deny funding for expert witness was without clear error, given concerns as to materiality and admissibility.
Where ten of the eleven counts are severed just before the case goes to the jury, a general directive to ignore the evidence offered in support of the counts sufficed.
Restitution challenge waived by spoken acceptance by counsel at trial, despite lack of victim statements.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/14-1325P-01A.pdf
First Circuit: US v. Manso-Cepeda
Bankruptcy
A denial of discharge due to insufficient record-keeping in the pre-petition period is not a strict liability standard, but can be offset by a justification that is objectively reasonable.
Claiming that the petitioner was not the true principal for the assets in question is insufficient basis for denying discharge based on the unexplained dissipation of assets.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/15-9005P-01A.pdf
A denial of discharge due to insufficient record-keeping in the pre-petition period is not a strict liability standard, but can be offset by a justification that is objectively reasonable.
Claiming that the petitioner was not the true principal for the assets in question is insufficient basis for denying discharge based on the unexplained dissipation of assets.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/15-9005P-01A.pdf
First Circuit: US v. Prieto
Crim - accessory
Sufficient evidence for conviction for accessory to use of a firearm where jury might have inferred deft's prior knowledge of possession and deft didn't stop the car and walk away after possession was revealed.
Challenge to jury instructions might have been more appropriate.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/14-2068P-01A.pdf
Sufficient evidence for conviction for accessory to use of a firearm where jury might have inferred deft's prior knowledge of possession and deft didn't stop the car and walk away after possession was revealed.
Challenge to jury instructions might have been more appropriate.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/14-2068P-01A.pdf
Federal Circuit: Mortgage Grader Inc. v. First Choice Loan Services
Patent, FRCP
Sufficient cause to overwhelm presumption of non-diligence when an element of claim dropped in initial proceedings is revived in final proceedings, given intervening holding from S.Ct.
Consideration of cause does not necessitate inquiry into prejudice.
Claims not patent-eligible, as they are directed at abstract ideas without an inventive concept.
Limited consideration of expert depositions permissible in summary judgment.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1415.Opinion.1-15-2016.1.PDF
Sufficient cause to overwhelm presumption of non-diligence when an element of claim dropped in initial proceedings is revived in final proceedings, given intervening holding from S.Ct.
Consideration of cause does not necessitate inquiry into prejudice.
Claims not patent-eligible, as they are directed at abstract ideas without an inventive concept.
Limited consideration of expert depositions permissible in summary judgment.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1415.Opinion.1-15-2016.1.PDF
Eleventh Circuit: Christopher Brooks v. Warden, et al.
Death Penalty.
District court denial of stay upheld, as petitioner didn't make sufficient showing of there being a better combination of drugs to cause death.
Claim time barred, as it accrued on the switch to lethal injection, and not when the drugs at issue changed.
The fact that other suits were challenging the method of prompting death doesn't affect the equities of considering the petitioner's delay in joining a similar suit.
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201515732.pdf
[Brief editorial: The death penalty is morally unjustifiable. -CB]
District court denial of stay upheld, as petitioner didn't make sufficient showing of there being a better combination of drugs to cause death.
Claim time barred, as it accrued on the switch to lethal injection, and not when the drugs at issue changed.
The fact that other suits were challenging the method of prompting death doesn't affect the equities of considering the petitioner's delay in joining a similar suit.
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201515732.pdf
[Brief editorial: The death penalty is morally unjustifiable. -CB]
Tenth Circuit: Christy v. Travelers Indemnity
Insurance, Contracts
Not disclosing a change of form from sole proprietorship to corporation is not, as a matter of law, a material misrepresentation under state law when renewing an insurance policy.
Questions of duty that sound in tort implicate public policy; questions of duty involving contracts don't.
Breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing is not necessarily a question of fact.
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/14/14-2168.pdf
Not disclosing a change of form from sole proprietorship to corporation is not, as a matter of law, a material misrepresentation under state law when renewing an insurance policy.
Questions of duty that sound in tort implicate public policy; questions of duty involving contracts don't.
Breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing is not necessarily a question of fact.
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/14/14-2168.pdf
Tenth Circuit: NLRB v. Community Health Services
Labor
Deference to NRLB award of back pay without offset for interim wage where the employee was adversely affected, but employment didn't end, so there was no explicit duty to mitigate.
Dissent: No basis in statute for the purposes outlined by the adjudication.
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/14/14-9614.pdf
Deference to NRLB award of back pay without offset for interim wage where the employee was adversely affected, but employment didn't end, so there was no explicit duty to mitigate.
Dissent: No basis in statute for the purposes outlined by the adjudication.
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/14/14-9614.pdf
Tenth Circuit: American Fidelity Assurance v. Bank of New York Mellon
FRCP, General Jurisdiction
Party waived general jurisdiction challenge, as it didn't raise it initially, and the recent S. Ct. holding in Daimler restated the already-prevailing standards for general jurisdiction.
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/15/15-6009.pdf
Party waived general jurisdiction challenge, as it didn't raise it initially, and the recent S. Ct. holding in Daimler restated the already-prevailing standards for general jurisdiction.
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/15/15-6009.pdf
Ninth Circuit: Hector Ramirez v. Loretta E. Lynch
Immigration, Predicates
State statute is not categorically an aggravated felony for immigration purposes, and the statute isn't divisible.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/20/08-72896.pdf
State statute is not categorically an aggravated felony for immigration purposes, and the statute isn't divisible.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/20/08-72896.pdf
Ninth Circuit: Nat'l Federation of the Blind v. United Airlines Inc.
Preemption, administration
State law claims not expressly preempted by Federal airline deregulation act, as the information kiosk at issue is an amenity peripheral to the business of transportation.
State law claims preempted by an implied field preemption manifested by a Federal regulation promulgated during the pendency of the suit.
Concurrence: no need to reach the first part of the holding.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/19/11-16240.pdf
State law claims not expressly preempted by Federal airline deregulation act, as the information kiosk at issue is an amenity peripheral to the business of transportation.
State law claims preempted by an implied field preemption manifested by a Federal regulation promulgated during the pendency of the suit.
Concurrence: no need to reach the first part of the holding.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/19/11-16240.pdf
Seventh Circuit: USA v. Julius Lawson
Crim, Brady
Single witness' testimony sufficient evidence for conviction for use of a firearm.
Jury instruction holding that deft could know of weapon either before or during the crime (proper: before) held harmless error.
Brady error in withholding of police misconduct file not material, as the officer in question provided merely forensic evidence.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-19/C:14-3276:J:Kanne:aut:T:fnOp:N:1688989:S:0
Single witness' testimony sufficient evidence for conviction for use of a firearm.
Jury instruction holding that deft could know of weapon either before or during the crime (proper: before) held harmless error.
Brady error in withholding of police misconduct file not material, as the officer in question provided merely forensic evidence.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-19/C:14-3276:J:Kanne:aut:T:fnOp:N:1688989:S:0
Seventh Circuit: Thomas Costello v. BeavEx, Incorporated
Preemption, Class Actions
Federal motor carrier act does not expressly preempt state wage law, as the purposes of the state law aren't relevant to the purposes of the Federal act.
State statute seeming to require individual assessment of plantiff's future employment doesn't categorically bar a finding of predominance for class certification.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-19/C:15-1110:J:Kanne:aut:T:fnOp:N:1689158:S:0
Federal motor carrier act does not expressly preempt state wage law, as the purposes of the state law aren't relevant to the purposes of the Federal act.
State statute seeming to require individual assessment of plantiff's future employment doesn't categorically bar a finding of predominance for class certification.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-19/C:15-1110:J:Kanne:aut:T:fnOp:N:1689158:S:0
Seventh Circuit: USA v. Rico J. Speed
Sentencing
For plain error to apply on appeal, trial court must specifically ask parties whether the main arguments in mitigation have been addressed -- a simple "anything further" doesn't suffice.
Where a condition of the sentence does not appear in the statute or guidelines, review is for abuse of discretion, not plain error.
Sentence conditions (association with those convicted of felony, consumption of alcohol, dangerous weapons) upheld.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-19/C:15-1561:J:Manion:aut:T:fnOp:N:1688655:S:0
For plain error to apply on appeal, trial court must specifically ask parties whether the main arguments in mitigation have been addressed -- a simple "anything further" doesn't suffice.
Where a condition of the sentence does not appear in the statute or guidelines, review is for abuse of discretion, not plain error.
Sentence conditions (association with those convicted of felony, consumption of alcohol, dangerous weapons) upheld.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-19/C:15-1561:J:Manion:aut:T:fnOp:N:1688655:S:0
Fifth Circuit: Jerry Hartfield v. Frank Osborne, Sheriff
Habeas
When a state prisoner's speedy trial Federal Habeas claim shifts from a pretrial Habeas to a postconviction Habeas during the pendency of the appeal, the appeals court must dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
(The only issue in the COA was the threshold question of whether the pretrial Habeas standard for state exhaustion was met.)
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-20275-CV0.pdf
When a state prisoner's speedy trial Federal Habeas claim shifts from a pretrial Habeas to a postconviction Habeas during the pendency of the appeal, the appeals court must dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
(The only issue in the COA was the threshold question of whether the pretrial Habeas standard for state exhaustion was met.)
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-20275-CV0.pdf
Third Circuit: In re: Thomas C. Wettach
Bankruptcy, Burdens
At trial, bankruptcy petitioner has production burden to show that funds transferred were used for household purposes, although the creditor still retains the burden of persuasion on the voidability of the transfer.
Burden under constructive transfer state statute is identical to the Federal.
No clear error in trial court factual findings on the transfer.
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/143140p.pdf
At trial, bankruptcy petitioner has production burden to show that funds transferred were used for household purposes, although the creditor still retains the burden of persuasion on the voidability of the transfer.
Burden under constructive transfer state statute is identical to the Federal.
No clear error in trial court factual findings on the transfer.
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/143140p.pdf
Second Circuit: T.K. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ.
IDEA
School system's refusal to discuss bullying concerns with parents was a denial of a free appropriate public education under the act.
Finding in equity that private school funds were reimbursable.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/0b6bfc4e-816c-4c93-9b12-e9c8a95d89c0/1/doc/14-3078-cv_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/0b6bfc4e-816c-4c93-9b12-e9c8a95d89c0/1/hilite/
School system's refusal to discuss bullying concerns with parents was a denial of a free appropriate public education under the act.
Finding in equity that private school funds were reimbursable.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/0b6bfc4e-816c-4c93-9b12-e9c8a95d89c0/1/doc/14-3078-cv_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/0b6bfc4e-816c-4c93-9b12-e9c8a95d89c0/1/hilite/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)