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: Carlos Trevino v. Lorie Davis, Director
Habeas
Petitioner permitted to appeal denial of federal Habeas, as the trial Ineffective Assistance claim was not necessarily defaulted in state Habeas, given the Ineffective Assistance provided on initial collateral appeal, and while the lack of mitigation investigation at trial should have put initial collateral counsel on notice of claim (cause), the investigation that was done reveals enough of a claim to suggest that the error was dispositive (prejudice) as to the key aggravating factor.
Carlos Trevino v. Lorie Davis, Director
Fourth Circuit: Leopold Munyakazi v. Loretta Lynch
Immigration
Inconsistencies and vagaries in testimony offer substantial evidence for adverse credibility decision of IJ.
Substantial evidence for agency's finding that the petitioner will end up in the civilian justice system rather than the military prisons.
Leopold Munyakazi v. Loretta Lynch
Second Circuit: U.S. v. Gabinskaya
Corporations, Fraud, Conspiracy, Insurance
In state litigation involving no-fault insurance, courts may look beyond the formal indicia of ownership when attempting to determine whether a corporation has been fraudulently incorporated.
Testimony relating to the conspirators' legal advice doesn't speak to knowing participation in the scheme.
U.S. v. Gabinskaya
Second Circuit: Williams v. Correction Officer Priatno
S1983, Administrative, PLSRA
Claim was properly administratively exhausted, as there was no procedure for appealing a grievance that had been improperly not filed.
Williams v. Correction Officer Priatno
First Circuit: US v. Vazquez-Mendez
Sentencing
Court appropriately considered personal factors and legitimately considered community factors while performing the sentencing pavane.
US v. Vazquez-Mendez
First Circuit: Burns v. Johnson
Discrimination, Title VII, Employment
Circumstantial evidence can suffice to establish a claim under a mixed-motive theory of discrimination.
Discrimination need not be both severe and pervasive.
Fear of retaliation presents a genuine issue of material fact as to employer liability, despite reporting procedures.
Burns v. Johnson
First Circuit: US v. Ortiz-Islas
Souter, Crim, Conspiracy, FRE, Sentencing
Plan to sell drugs in the jurisdiction was a second plan within the same conspiracy, as opposed to a second conspiracy.
Post-indictment evidence was sufficiently probative to be allowed.
Courts potential assignment of minimum sentence was at most harmless error.
No abuse of discretion in disparate sentences for co-conspirators.
US v. Ortiz-Islas
This one (temporarily) didn't go to Eleven.
Housekeeping note, 11th Circuit seems to have vanished from the feed. Looks like it dropped some weeks back -- will troubleshoot that.
(Net damage, it looks like about a dozen published decisions hit during our active times. Not ideal.)
Past opinions here:
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/published-opinions-log
-CB
Federal Circuit: MEDICINES COMPANY v. HOSPIRA, INC.
Patents, UCC, En Banc
For purposes of Patent law, a product is considered to be onsale when the parties make a sale or offer for sale under the UCC. Title to the embodiments or rights to the manufacturing must change hands -- stockpiling, contract for manufacturing, and other transactions of commercial benefit do not necessarily qualify.
MEDICINES COMPANY v. HOSPIRA, INC.
Ninth Circuit: PACIFIC MARITIME ASSN V. NLRB
Labor, FRCP
Prospect of imminent settlement does not mean that District Court has statutory, constitutional, or extraordinary jurisdiction over interlocutory appeal from NLRB proceeding, as the prospective intervenor might either intervene in the agency proceeding prior to final order or appeal the eventual settlement.
PACIFIC MARITIME ASSN V. NLRB
Ninth Circuit: TIFFANY AGUAYO V. S.M.R. JEWELL
Tribe Law, Administrative
Although the agency acted according to a broad vesting statute, the decision is reviewable under the APA, since it centers on the agency's acceptance of a certain constitution by the band, although specific review of the legitimacy of the constitution is time-barred.
As there was a rational basis for the agency's hands-off approach at the time of the constitution's adoption, the agency's decision not to intervene in a present membership dispute was not arbitrary or capricious.
No general trust obligation, &c, &c.
TIFFANY AGUAYO V. S.M.R. JEWELL
Eighth Circuit: United States v. Juan Leanos
Sentencing
Elements of "safety valve" provision allowing for a sentence below the mandatory minimum do not need to be found by the finder of fact.
United States v. Juan Leanos
Eighth Circuit: Domick Nelson v. Midland Credit Management, Inc
FDCPA, Bankruptcy, Circuit Split
FDCPA does not allow for a claim against a time-barred debt filed as a claim against a bankruptcy estate.
Circuit split flagged.
Domick Nelson v. Midland Credit Management, Inc
Eighth Circuit: United States v. Cody James Horse Looking
Sentencing, Predicates
Under modified categorical analysis, a state domestic violence statute is not a predicate crime of violence, as court might have convicted under the provision prohibiting making of a credible threat. Although the sentencing colloquy established that physical violence occurred, the violence might have been in furtherance of the credible threat.
United States v. Cody James Horse Looking
Eighth Circuit: Gerald E. Carlson v. Midwest Professional Planners
Torts
Claim against an insurance agent for not listing co-owners of policy doesn't state a claim, as the primary owner of the policy was the only one who could legally cure the omission.
Gerald E. Carlson v. Midwest Professional Planners
Eighth Circuit: United States v. Donald Montgomery
Fourth Amendment
Sleepers inside unmarked van with copper pipes inside provided sufficient reasonable suspicion for search of the van, given that the area is often a place for trafficking in illegal scrap metal.
United States v. Donald Montgomery
Eighth Circuit: United States v. Belle Brave Bull
Sentencing
No plain error in under-explained upward departure from guidelines, as it was outside the heartland of the usual type of offense, and there were other factors that would have justified the increase.
United States v. Belle Brave Bull
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)