Ninth Circuit: IN RE COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT


Judicial Ethics, Legal Ethics


Judges' external teaching and speaking on law-related subjects and association with members of the bar did not require recusal in disbarment proceedings against those members of the bar.  The challenge to refusal to recuse is merits-based, and must be dismissed.
 

IN RE COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

Eighth Circuit: United States v. Stoney End of Horn


Crim, FRE, Hearsay


Sufficient evidence despite inconsistencies, as inconsistencies could have been raised in cross-examination.

Error to admit hearsay, as external corroboration is not an indicium of speaker's truthfulness.  Harmless error, given corroboration.

No abuse of discretion in upward departure in sentencing.



United States  v.  Stoney End of Horn

Eighth Circuit: United States v. Bob Woods


Fourth Amendment, Miranda


Police had sufficiently reasonable suspicion to extend traffic stop for canine search, given odor of drugs, digital scales, and tip that there was a hidden compartment.

Refusal to sign Miranda waiver does not make subsequent statements inadmissible.


United States  v.  Bob Woods

Eighth Circuit: Luis Herrera v. United States


Habeas, Drugs, Ineffective Assistance


Denial of writ for ineffective assistance, as a statute referring to one quantity of pure substance and a second quantity of diluted substance applies where the deft sold a quantity of diluted substance containing the proscribed amount of the pure substance.

Luis Herrera  v.  United States

Eighth Circuit: Kenneth Stewart, Jr. v. Nucor Corporation


Contracts, Employment, Torts


Boilerplate negligence release valid and not unconscionable, as the language was plain and the trainee employee was permitted to ask questions about the form. 


Kenneth Stewart, Jr.  v.  Nucor Corporation

Seventh Circuit: Robert Schaefer v. Walker Bros. Enterprises, Inc.


FLSA, Deference, Administrative


To determine whether additional duties are related to or incidental to tipped duties, look to logical relation to the tipped duties, not industry practice.

No Auer deference to agency boilerplate language for statutory notification of rights.


Robert Schaefer v.  Walker Bros. Enterprises, Inc.

Seventh Circuit: FDIC v. Kenneth Hoffman, Jr.


Federal Jurisdiction, Contracts


Court retains jurisdiction when FDIC assigns its interest in the loan to a private company, as the case continues to arise under federal law.

Under state law, release of claim that contains a general release of claim as well as a release of a specific claim is facially ambiguous.

Under state law, the fair and customary meaning prevails.


FDIC v. Kenneth Hoffman, Jr.

Seventh Circuit: Laura Hatcher v. Board of Trustees


Employment, Discrimination, Title VII


Employee's mistaken belief that statute compelled reporting of misconduct did not transform the speech in the context of employment to protected speech.

No genuine issue of fact over pretextual nature of nondiscriminatory motive, given decisions of impartial committee and subjective judgement of decisionmaker. 


Laura Hatcher v.   Board of Trustees

Seventh Circuit: USA v. Brian Miller


Statutory Construction, Sentencing


The intent of the creator is properly considered when determining the lasciviousness of an image.

No procedural error, as mitigation factors need not be itemized.  Court cannot consider reasonableness of statutory minimum.  De minimus errors in conditions of supervised release do not justify resentencing.


USA v.   Brian Miller

Third Circuit: Sebastian Richardson v. Director Federal Bureau of Prisons


Class Actions, Mootness, FRCP


Where a representative of a class seeking prospective injunctive relief files a claim susceptible to mootness, there is not an untimely delay in seeking class certification, and the class nature of the claim is evident from the initial claim, the class certification can relate back to the filing date of the initial claim.


Sebastian Richardson v. Director Federal Bureau of Prisons

Second Circuit: Fuentes v. Griffin


Brady, Habeas, AEDPA


Habeas granted, as psychiatric records of critical witness offered substantial impeachment value.

Dissent: Materiality is intrinsically subjective.


Fuentes v. Griffin

Second Circuit: Mazzei v. Money Store


Class Actions, FRCP


A court has the power and obligation to decertify a class after a jury verdict.  Class members enjoy equitable tolling for the duration of the class.  Findings of facts by the jury must be respected, unless egregious, serious error, or a miscarriage of justice.

No abuse of discretion in court's determination that lack of categorical privvity barred the class formation on grounds of typicality of representative and predominance of claim.

Mazzei v. Money Store

Federal Circuit: CROOKER v. US


Sentencing, Torts


As federal sentencing law governs claims for monetary damages for imprisonment due to convictions later reversed, when a subsequent sentencing credits that time to offset the sentence, the statutory monetary remedy is unavailable.

CROOKER v. US

Federal Circuit: COAST PROFESSIONAL, INC. v. US


Administrative, Contract


Additional procurements merited by prior performance are not options, as negotiated elsewhere in the contract, but rather new contracts, and the court below therefore properly has jurisdiction over related claims.


COAST PROFESSIONAL, INC. v. US

Ninth Circuit: GARY OZENNE V. CHASE MANHATTAN BANK


Going to en banc.



GARY OZENNE V. CHASE MANHATTAN BANK

Eighth Circuit: Jamie Smith v. AS America, Inc.


FMLA, Estoppel


No clear error in court's holding that back illness was a chronic condition.

Liquidated damages are appropriate unless affirmative defense of good faith conduct is established.

Since fees evidence didn't go to merits, no abuse of discretion in court's award of fees despite lack of disclosure in discovery.

No clear error in court refusing to bar award under judicial estoppel where there is no showing that there was a deliberate misrepresentation or one that gave the party any advantage in the proceeding.

Given limited probative value of the records, court erred in reducing award by crediting the after-acquired-evidence as a basis for the end of employment, rather than crediting the witness' testimony.

Jamie Smith  v.  AS America, Inc.

Eighth Circuit: United States v. Marcus Eason



 FRE, Crim


No abuse of discretion in barring police videotape on cross, as it would be impeachment on a collateral matter, or on recall, as the prosecution hadn't been given a copy and the omission didn't impact deft's substantial rights.

No abuse of discretion in barring deft's crime scene photos, as prosecution hadn't been given a copy, and the omission didn't impact deft's substantial rights.

Sufficient evidence on possession charge.

United States  v.  Marcus Eason



Eighth Circuit: Joel Munt v. Kent Grandlienard


Habeas, Jury Selection


State courts did not unreasonably determine that a trial court's empaneling of a juror who said that a deft who confessed but claimed mental illness should be convicted was constitutional, as the juror was speaking of mental illness, and not of the relevant law.

Joel Munt  v.  Kent Grandlienard

Eighth Circuit: United States v. Enrique Trevino


FRCrimP, Sixth Amendment, Sentencing


No abuse of discretion in denial of attempt to withdraw guilty plea, as the potential sentence was explained, deft stated in colloquy that representation was adequate, and deft's ability to challenge sentencing amounts was preserved.  Court's statement that ineffective assistance claims should be deferred to Habeas was inappropriately categorical, but not prejudicial.

Court's refusal to appoint substitute counsel was correct, as dissatisfaction stemmed from results, not from process.

Court did not threaten deft with reduction in acceptance of responsibility sentencing offset if he challenged the PSR--unchallenged aspects of PSR therefore stand.

United States  v.  Enrique Trevino

Eighth Circuit: Kent Bernbeck v. John Gale


Elections, Standing


Plaintiff has no standing to raise OPOV claim based on state law setting a minimum number of petition signatures from each geographical area, as the alleged inability to engage in future conduct is insufficiently imminent.

Plaintiff has not proved his own voter registration, so he has no basis for claim as a petition signer.

Dissent -- This issue wasn't briefed, and there is no such thing as a registered voter in this state.