ADA
Where the plaintiff's physician and the deft's physician disagree on whether the plaintiff is capable of doing the job courts may impose a prudential administrative exhaustion requirement to reconcile the physicians' opinions.
Jimmie Williams v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc.
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.
Fifth Circuit: Jessie Grace, III v. Darrel Vannoy, Warden
FRCP
A stay of a federal Habeas petition to allow the petitioner to exhaust newly discovered claims in state court is not a collateral order subject to direct interlocutory appeal, as the issuance of the stay does not directly or indirectly moot the claims of either party.
Jessie Grace, III v. Darrel Vannoy, Warden
Fourth Circuit: Dora Beltran v. Brent Cardall
Habeas, Immigration
Where petitioner alleges detention in violation of Constitution and statutes, federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over Habeas petition on behalf of alien minor -- not a prohibited review of administrative determinations.
Determination that a minor is an unaccompanied alien child for purposes of the statute is a fact-intensive question, agency determination prevails.
As the specific controls the general, a statute authorizing detention and barring release to parent found inappropriate must be construed to bar inappropriate release even after the pendency of authorized detention.
Administrative decision that release to parent is inappropriate satisfies substantive DP.
Where a parent is seeking custody of child, procedural due process implies more than substantive due process inquiry -- full notice, appeal & Matthews v. Eldrige balancing implied.
Dissent:
Error as a matter of law to say that the statute allows gov't to determine that minor is "unaccompanied" if parent determined to be inappropriate.
Dora Beltran v. Brent Cardall
Fourth Circuit: Robert Sarvis v. James Alcorn
Election Law
Commonwealth's ballot ordering scheme does not impede access to ballot or association rights--no heightened scrutiny, despite potential "windfall vote" from order on the page.
Commonwealth's interest in preserving symmetry, reducing voter confusion properly pleaded. Little burden on petitioner.
Question for the political branches.
Robert Sarvis v. James Alcorn
Commonwealth's ballot ordering scheme does not impede access to ballot or association rights--no heightened scrutiny, despite potential "windfall vote" from order on the page.
Commonwealth's interest in preserving symmetry, reducing voter confusion properly pleaded. Little burden on petitioner.
Question for the political branches.
Robert Sarvis v. James Alcorn
Fourth Circuit: In re: John McFadden
Habeas/AEDPA
Newly discovered evidence that deft lost out on a favorable plea offer is not grounds for a second/successive petition.
In re: John McFadden
Second Circuit: N.Y.C. & Vicinity Dist. Council of the United Bhd. of Carpenters v. Ass’n
Labor Law, Arbitration
When an employer organization has an agreement with an International union, and that agreement contradicts elements of the Local's court-supervised contract, an arbitration award allowing the employers to follow the agreement with the International is within socpe, entitled to deference, and does not violate public policy.
The arbitrator's finding does present a question of whether the court-approved Local contract was approved with insufficient information.
N.Y.C. & Vicinity Dist. Council of the United Bhd. of Carpenters v. Ass’n
When an employer organization has an agreement with an International union, and that agreement contradicts elements of the Local's court-supervised contract, an arbitration award allowing the employers to follow the agreement with the International is within socpe, entitled to deference, and does not violate public policy.
The arbitrator's finding does present a question of whether the court-approved Local contract was approved with insufficient information.
N.Y.C. & Vicinity Dist. Council of the United Bhd. of Carpenters v. Ass’n
Second Circuit: Ashim Khattri Chettri, et al. v. Nepal Rastra Bank, et al.
FISA
When a foreign bank that is an instrument of the foreign sovereign freezes an account acting while acting in its governmental/regulatory capacity, the commercial exception to FISA isn't a basis for jurisdiction.
Freezing of account didn't happen in US, didn't have sufficient direct effects in US.
Routine law-enforcement freezing of funds doesn't rise to the level of a taking without compensation in violation of international law.
Ashim Khattri Chettri, et al. v. Nepal Rastra Bank, et al.
Second Circuit: Austin v. Town of Farmington
FHA does not impose a per se bar to a municipal requirement that accommodations constructed contrary to code be removed after the disabled person no longer lives there.
Whether the removal requirement violates the FHA is a question of reasonableness for the court; can't be made from pleadings.
Retaliation claim under the FHA must plead and prove animus.
Austin v. Town of Farmington
Federal Circuit: FORD MOTOR COMPANY v. US
Statute of Limitations
Filing time limit in statute is not jurisdictional, as there is no specific intent evident in the statute to make it one.
No error in CIT declining to issue declaratory relief, as there are other avenues for plaintiff to challenge.
Where a court dismisses claims on discretionary grounds and some similar claims under a statute of limitations that is later held not to be jurisdictional, the court of appeals can presume that the latter claims would similarly have been dismissed on discretionary grounds.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/14-1726.Opinion.2-1-2016.1.PDF
Filing time limit in statute is not jurisdictional, as there is no specific intent evident in the statute to make it one.
No error in CIT declining to issue declaratory relief, as there are other avenues for plaintiff to challenge.
Where a court dismisses claims on discretionary grounds and some similar claims under a statute of limitations that is later held not to be jurisdictional, the court of appeals can presume that the latter claims would similarly have been dismissed on discretionary grounds.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/14-1726.Opinion.2-1-2016.1.PDF
Eleventh Circuit: Crew One Productions, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
Labor, Employment, Agency
Given hiring agency's lack of control over stage hands on the job and several other factors, NRLB certification of an exclusive representative was not supported by substantial evidence.
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201510429.pdf
Given hiring agency's lack of control over stage hands on the job and several other factors, NRLB certification of an exclusive representative was not supported by substantial evidence.
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201510429.pdf
Eleventh Circuit: Ramon F. Danny, Jr. v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.
Habeas, AEDPA
Untimely state direct appeal captioned under the shared collateral/direct state procedural rule cannot be construed as a collateral challenge to toll the AEDPA clock, as it doesn't reach the merits of the collateral challenge.
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201415522.pdf
Untimely state direct appeal captioned under the shared collateral/direct state procedural rule cannot be construed as a collateral challenge to toll the AEDPA clock, as it doesn't reach the merits of the collateral challenge.
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201415522.pdf
Ninth Circuit: MARIO GARCIA V. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
S1983
Denials of state law quasi-judicial immunity can be appealed on an interlocutory basis, as the immunity is potentially absolute.
Arrest of a person with a a substantial difference in height from the person described on the warrant states a 14A S1983 claim.
State immunity statute shields only the arresting officer, and presumes reasonable belief.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/02/03/13-56857.pdf
Denials of state law quasi-judicial immunity can be appealed on an interlocutory basis, as the immunity is potentially absolute.
Arrest of a person with a a substantial difference in height from the person described on the warrant states a 14A S1983 claim.
State immunity statute shields only the arresting officer, and presumes reasonable belief.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/02/03/13-56857.pdf
Ninth Circuit: MANUEL VALENCIA V. LORETTA E. LYNCH
Immigration
Chevron deference to AG decision that grandfathering statute implicitly bars relief to later substituted applicants.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/02/02/13-70414.pdf
Chevron deference to AG decision that grandfathering statute implicitly bars relief to later substituted applicants.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/02/02/13-70414.pdf
Ninth Circuit: JERRY VILLAVICENCIO-ROJAS V. LORETTA E. LYNCH
Immigration
For immigration purposes, where there are two counts charged, but they are from a single event, case, and sentence, the petitioner remains a first-time offender.
Concurrence: Single case and sentence. The critical thing is that the petitioner has not previously been considered a first time offender.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/02/02/13-70620.pdf
For immigration purposes, where there are two counts charged, but they are from a single event, case, and sentence, the petitioner remains a first-time offender.
Concurrence: Single case and sentence. The critical thing is that the petitioner has not previously been considered a first time offender.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/02/02/13-70620.pdf
Eighth Circuit: State of Nebraska v. EPA
Environment, Administrative
Agency's lack of deference to state findings on costs accrued by different methods of pollution abatement was per se not an abuse of discretion, given that the Act contemplates more than ministerial approval.
Federal agency's regional rule that incorporates a national standard is not barred from review as a national rule, since the agency has not found it to be a national rule. The expertise involved mandates deference to the agency's findings, which are not an abuse of its discretion.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/02/123084P.pdf
Agency's lack of deference to state findings on costs accrued by different methods of pollution abatement was per se not an abuse of discretion, given that the Act contemplates more than ministerial approval.
Federal agency's regional rule that incorporates a national standard is not barred from review as a national rule, since the agency has not found it to be a national rule. The expertise involved mandates deference to the agency's findings, which are not an abuse of its discretion.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/02/123084P.pdf
Eighth Circuit: Travis Chaney v. Carolyn W. Colvin
SSA
ALJ's less than fully credible conclusions are nonetheless supported by substantial evidence.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/02/143433P.pdf
ALJ's less than fully credible conclusions are nonetheless supported by substantial evidence.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/02/143433P.pdf
Eighth Circuit: Herman Hutton v. Danny Maynard, Sr.
Discrimination
Discriminatory language used by employer between an employee's promotion of a minority candidate and the subsequent dismissal of the employee is insufficient to prove direct causation, and where the language is not employment-related, it is insufficient to establish indirect causation.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/02/151300P.pdf
Discriminatory language used by employer between an employee's promotion of a minority candidate and the subsequent dismissal of the employee is insufficient to prove direct causation, and where the language is not employment-related, it is insufficient to establish indirect causation.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/02/151300P.pdf
Seventh Circuit: Garrett Fishwick v. City of Chicago
Discrimination
Claims of a lack of transparency in hiring insufficient to violate consent order barring political influence in hiring,also time-barred.
Res judicata bars claim previously dismissed in state court.
No evidence that gov't consented to claim splitting, as it asserted res judicata in all filings.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D02-03/C:14-2977:J:Bauer:aut:T:fnOp:N:1697358:S:0
Claims of a lack of transparency in hiring insufficient to violate consent order barring political influence in hiring,also time-barred.
Res judicata bars claim previously dismissed in state court.
No evidence that gov't consented to claim splitting, as it asserted res judicata in all filings.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D02-03/C:14-2977:J:Bauer:aut:T:fnOp:N:1697358:S:0
Seventh Circuit: Terry Deets v. Massman Construction Company
Employment, Discrimination
Statement by employer that percentage of minority employees was to low creates genuine issue of material fact as to whether the subsequent layoff of a worker who had recently lost seniority was discriminatory.
Mitigation as an affirmative defense for Title VII operates as a damages offset.
S1981 allows suits against corporate entities in joint venture, as it contemplates interference with contracts.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D02-03/C:15-1411:J:Williams:aut:T:fnOp:N:1697105:S:0
Statement by employer that percentage of minority employees was to low creates genuine issue of material fact as to whether the subsequent layoff of a worker who had recently lost seniority was discriminatory.
Mitigation as an affirmative defense for Title VII operates as a damages offset.
S1981 allows suits against corporate entities in joint venture, as it contemplates interference with contracts.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D02-03/C:15-1411:J:Williams:aut:T:fnOp:N:1697105:S:0
Seventh Circuit: USA v. Lawrence McCarroll
Sentencing
Where a change in the sentencing law would not affect the guidelines calculation, a reduction of the term of imprisonment is not authorized by the statute, despite the fact that the lower point total might allow for more discretion at resentencing.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D02-03/C:15-2492:J:PerCuriam:aut:T:fnOp:N:1697080:S:0
Where a change in the sentencing law would not affect the guidelines calculation, a reduction of the term of imprisonment is not authorized by the statute, despite the fact that the lower point total might allow for more discretion at resentencing.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D02-03/C:15-2492:J:PerCuriam:aut:T:fnOp:N:1697080:S:0
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)