Statute requires that Plan Administrator reimburse for room and board at a mental health facility where a similar surgical or medical stay would be so reimbursed.
The court's reading does not conflict with agency interpretations.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/06/06/16-35609.pdf
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.
Ninth Circuit: John Doe v. Regents
State writ of administrative mandamus is a substantive state proceeding, not merely a mechanism, and as such, is not subject to the Ex Parte Young exception to state immunity for federal remedies.
State claim that plaintiff had not exhausted judicial remedies by seeking administrative mandamus did not operate as a sufficiently unambiguous waiver of state immunity.
Denial of motion to dismiss is on exhaustion grounds can be appealed as a pendent matter.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/06/06/17-56110.pdf
State claim that plaintiff had not exhausted judicial remedies by seeking administrative mandamus did not operate as a sufficiently unambiguous waiver of state immunity.
Denial of motion to dismiss is on exhaustion grounds can be appealed as a pendent matter.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/06/06/17-56110.pdf
Eighth Circuit: United States v. Ler Wah Guide
District Court judge's recognition at sentencing of a language barrier did not undercut the court's finding that an earlier waiver of jury trial and guilty plea had been knowing and voluntary, despite the deft's claim that simultaneous translation had made the proceedings impossible to follow. (Also given a written form.)
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/06/172431P.pdf
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/06/172431P.pdf
Eighth Circuit: Daniel Ayala v. CyberPower Systems (USA), Inc.
Compensation agreement voidable only for cause was, as a matter of law, insufficient to overcome the state presumption of employment at will, as it didn't specifically address the point.
Dissent: Matter for the finder of fact.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/06/171852P.pdf
Eighth Circuit: Mark Woodworth v. Kenneth Hulshof
A special prosecutor has absolute immunity for incidents of nondisclosure and conspiracy tied to the prosecution; such acts cannot be used to establish a conspiracy prior to the beginning of the prosecution.
Prosecutorial directives made by the judge did not strip him of absolute judicial immunity, as they were not binding on the prosecutor.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/06/171667P.pdf
Prosecutorial directives made by the judge did not strip him of absolute judicial immunity, as they were not binding on the prosecutor.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/06/171667P.pdf
Eighth Circuit: US v. Matthew Helm
Certain downward adjustments to a guideline range, including reduction for time served, are modifications to a certain range; a retroactive modification in that range does not justify a challenge to the sentence where the initial downward reduction resulted in a below-guidelines sentence.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/06/171284P.pdf
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/06/171284P.pdf
Eighth Circuit: James Humphrey v. Eureka Gardens Public Facility
A S1983 discriminatory treatment claim accrues for purposes of the statute of limitation when the plaintiff is aware of the adverse decision and capable of seeking injunctive or declaratory relief.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/06/171265P.pdf
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/06/171265P.pdf
Seventh Circuit: William Wheeler v. William Hronopoulos
In a Section 1983 action alleging improper search, a claim at trial that the tip was hearsay does not properly preserve a claim on appeal that the confidential informant might not have existed at all.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D06-06/C:17-2073:J:Gilbert:aut:T:fnOp:N:2166644:S:0
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D06-06/C:17-2073:J:Gilbert:aut:T:fnOp:N:2166644:S:0
Seventh Circuit: USA v. Charlise Williams
No constitutional error where a court limits cross-examination on a peripheral issue designed to suggest bias and motive to lie, so long as the theory of the attack is made plain.
No clear error in sentencing calculation of loss amounts that didn't take into account the lawfulness of claims asserted in the debt incurred during the fraud.
No error in sentencing calculation of number of victims by totalling the number of creditors stayed by each fraudulent petition.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D06-06/C:17-2244:J:Flaum:aut:T:fnOp:N:2166680:S:0
No clear error in sentencing calculation of loss amounts that didn't take into account the lawfulness of claims asserted in the debt incurred during the fraud.
No error in sentencing calculation of number of victims by totalling the number of creditors stayed by each fraudulent petition.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D06-06/C:17-2244:J:Flaum:aut:T:fnOp:N:2166680:S:0
Sixth Circuit: In re Blasingame
Trustee's sale of claim to a creditor operated as an assignment of claim under all theories of the claim; this removed the claim from the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy action.
A bankruptcy court's interpretation of its order assigning a claim to a creditor in exchange for value to the trustee is not a contract but an order, and is reviewed for abuse of discretion and not subject to clarification by extrinsic evidence.
http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18b0009p-06.pdf
A bankruptcy court's interpretation of its order assigning a claim to a creditor in exchange for value to the trustee is not a contract but an order, and is reviewed for abuse of discretion and not subject to clarification by extrinsic evidence.
http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18b0009p-06.pdf
Fourth Circuit: US v. Daniel Sanchez
When a deft elects not to challenge an almost-completed sentence by Habeas, a challenge to the imposition of additional time after revocation of supervised release cannot be raised on the grounds that the original sentence was unconstitutional, as statute requires such challenges to be made by direct appeal or collateral challenge.
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/174169.P.pdf
Fourth Circuit: US v. Eddie Fluker
Under categorical analysis, state robbery statute isn't a crime of violence, as it only required the minimum of force to take the object from the other person.
A postconviction challenge to a sentencing error after the completion of the sentence is not moot where the petitioner is currently incarcerated on a subsequent conviction to be served consecutively to the challenged sentence.
No error in allowing testimony not presented at trial during a full resentencing, so long as the government is not given a second bite at the apple with respect to a certain sentencing decision.
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/174690.P.pdf
Second Circuit: Certain Underwriting Members of Lloyds of London v. Insurance Company
In business arbitration, party-appointed arbitrators are not limited by the usual tests of evident partiality; rather, a party seeking to challenge the outcome must establish by clear and convincing evidence an improper nondisclosure or a prejudicial impact on the award.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/406cb98d-3b23-41bf-b154-c6c24ff325e7/1/doc/17-1137-cv_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/406cb98d-3b23-41bf-b154-c6c24ff325e7/1/hilite/
(Incertain members of Lloyds presumably limited to permissive intervention.)
Tenth Circuit: United States v. Tapaha
Testimony of prior bad acts properly excluded as speculative and duplicative; given the circumstances of the assault, self-defense claim would not have been bolstered.
No error in denial of cross on own witness, absent court's finding of adversity.
No error in refusal to admit parts of the police report under prior consistent statements exception where fabrication wasn't alleged until prosecution's closing.
No error in refusal to admit parts of the police report to impeach, as police testimony only referred to deft's actions on the date of the offense, and not prior events.
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/17/17-2104.pdf
No error in denial of cross on own witness, absent court's finding of adversity.
No error in refusal to admit parts of the police report under prior consistent statements exception where fabrication wasn't alleged until prosecution's closing.
No error in refusal to admit parts of the police report to impeach, as police testimony only referred to deft's actions on the date of the offense, and not prior events.
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/17/17-2104.pdf
Tenth Circuit: United States v. Francis
Challenge to sentencing factor element waived, as not raised at trial, and appeal does not cite plain error standard.
Police testimony that the recipient confidential informant had criminal record suffices to establish unlawful sale sentencing factor.
Insufficient proof to establish that deft thought that the informant was among the class of prohibited recipients for trafficking enhancement.
Imposition of sex-offender treatment without relevant findings was plain error, but no violation of substantial rights, given that treatment ordered earlier wasn't completed.
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/16/16-1449.pdf
Ninth Circuit: Moldix-Metric Inc. v. McKeon Products Inc.
Whether the color of a product is protectable trade dress or a functional aspect of design is a question for the finder of fact, who must consider the functionality of alternative colors.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/06/05/16-55548.pdf
Eighth Circuit: United States v. Daniel Stelmacher
Reimposition of supervised release conditions not unreasonable. Bar on contact with mother of child, herself a felon, is permissible, since alternate contacts for direction of raising the child are available.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/06/171421P.pdf
Eighth Circuit: United States v. Javier Pulido-Ayala
Instinctive jump into the car by police dog (aka: "Jampy") was constitutionally permissible search, as the dog's initial movement towards the car would have justified the search.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/06/171371P.pdf
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/06/171371P.pdf
Eighth Circuit: United States v. Harold Stanley
No denial of effective counsel where deft waives on the understanding that non-lawyer next friend can serve as counsel, and the next friend's participation in the trial is limited during the proceedings.
No error in jury instructions disclaiming the evidentiary value of pro se statements.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/06/164241P.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)