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.
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
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.
Eighth Circuit: Jonathan Truong v. Ahmad Hassan
S1983
To state a substantive due process claim against a bus driver for trying to remove an unruly passenger from the outside of the bus, the plaintiff must show that the driver intended to harm the unruly passenger.
Jonathan Truong v. Ahmad Hassan
Eighth Circuit: Lovelle Banks v. John Deere and Company
FRCP, Discrimination, Title VII
Unsworn testimony and a party's own interrogatories provided insufficient evidence that the employment action and work environment were inappropriately race-based.
Lovelle Banks v. John Deere and Company
Eighth Circuit: Susan Parks v. Ariens Company
Torts
State law would likely hold that a manufacturer meets the duty of care to a reasonably knowledgeable customer by offering an optional safety device for sale. Although the doctrine is not included in the statutorily defined list of affirmative defenses, it qualifies as an antecedent question of reasonable duty.
Susan Parks v. Ariens Company
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)