State assault with a deadly weapon statute is a valid predicate crime of violence, as the requirement that the victim's immediate fear of reasonable bodily harm implies a use or threatened use of physical force.
As state robbery statute can be violated with violence to property, it isn't a categorical predicate crime of violence, and it doesn't match the generic definitions of robbery and extortion.
Questions about advisory sentencing guidelines are addressed under the rule of lenity.
As there is no requirement that the force used be violent, the state extortion statute isn't a predicate crime of violence.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/06/08/16-10457.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: NLRB v. Ironworkers Local 433
First Amendment ruling as to speech against the government was an insufficient change in existing law to justify relief from judgment enforcing a contempt adjudication on secondary picketing under the Act, as alternate mechanisms of speech such as leaflets are still available, and the Act is content-neutral.
Concur: Not ripe, as only a vague desire to picket, and no indication of enforcement plans by management.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/06/08/88-07283.pdf
Concur: Not ripe, as only a vague desire to picket, and no indication of enforcement plans by management.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/06/08/88-07283.pdf
Eighth Circuit: Leslie Camick v. Jefferson B. Sessions III
As an alien has the power to challenge the knowingness of waiver and petition for an extension, overstaying a voluntary departure order exhausts the benefit of permitted departure and allows the government to finalize the alternative order of removal, with all waivers of the voluntary departure grant intact.
(Again, all this is quick work. Not legal advice. Don't rely.)
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/06/163506P.pdf
(Again, all this is quick work. Not legal advice. Don't rely.)
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/06/163506P.pdf
Seventh Circuit: Warren Johnson v. Advocate Health and Hospitals
Reported statement of partially anonymous comparator as to their pay is neither hearsay nor sufficient to establish the validity of the comparator.
Descriptions of comaparators on unfair promotion claim, unfair assignments claim, and termination claim were not specific enough to establish them as legitimate.
Sworn statements and depositions averring discriminatory language suffice to present an issue for trial.
Even where a contractor performs many supervisory duties, a supervening agent who retains the ability to hire, fire, and discipline workers (beyond "rubber stamp" approval) can be liable for a claim of workplace discrimination.
Concur/Diss: Reported workplace speech was too sporadic to present an issue of a hostile work environment.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D06-08/C:16-3848:J:Rovner:aut:T:fnOp:N:2168250:S:0
Descriptions of comaparators on unfair promotion claim, unfair assignments claim, and termination claim were not specific enough to establish them as legitimate.
Sworn statements and depositions averring discriminatory language suffice to present an issue for trial.
Even where a contractor performs many supervisory duties, a supervening agent who retains the ability to hire, fire, and discipline workers (beyond "rubber stamp" approval) can be liable for a claim of workplace discrimination.
Concur/Diss: Reported workplace speech was too sporadic to present an issue of a hostile work environment.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D06-08/C:16-3848:J:Rovner:aut:T:fnOp:N:2168250:S:0
Seventh Circuit: EEOC v. CVS Pharmacy, Incorporated
Award of fees against the Commission was an abuse of discretion, as there was a colorable argument that neither the Commission's own conciliation requirement nor the statutory requirement for same was a prerequisite to suit.
Sixth Circuit: United States v. Trevon Barcus - Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville
Categorically, the state statute was not a valid predicate for statutory offender registration, as it did not incorporate the specific intent required by the federal statute.
Given the statement in the commentary to the statute, offender lifetime monitoring is a valid predicate for a sentencing bump for crimes committed during a criminal justice sentence.
Release conditions mandating psychological treatment and polygraph are reasonably related to registration offense.
http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0109p-06.pdf
Given the statement in the commentary to the statute, offender lifetime monitoring is a valid predicate for a sentencing bump for crimes committed during a criminal justice sentence.
Release conditions mandating psychological treatment and polygraph are reasonably related to registration offense.
http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0109p-06.pdf
Sixth Circuit: Barbara Fletcher v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc.
The durational clause of a CBA applies to health coverage absent clear affirmative language to the contrary.
Lifetime health benefits for survivors of workers does not imply a similar vesting for workers; in fact, it argues against any ambiguity as to the question where the agreement is silent on that point.
http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0108p-06.pdf
Lifetime health benefits for survivors of workers does not imply a similar vesting for workers; in fact, it argues against any ambiguity as to the question where the agreement is silent on that point.
http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0108p-06.pdf
First Circuit: Caraballo-Caraballo v. Administracion de Correccion
In assessing comparators for a claim of workplace discrimination, the plaintiff's demonstrated ability in performing the present job should be taken into account.
Transfer to the Commissary, even absent diminution in rank or pay, was a sufficiently adverse employment action.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/16-1597P-01A.pdf
Transfer to the Commissary, even absent diminution in rank or pay, was a sufficiently adverse employment action.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/16-1597P-01A.pdf
First Circuit: US v. Rivera-Hernandez
Sentencing judge appropriately considered deft's particular situation, given reasoning outside of the sentencing memorandum.
No error in within-guidelines sentence above the level set by plea deal.
First Circuit: Doe v. Trustees of Boston College
State contractual guarantees of good faith and fair dealing apply to a student's relationship with their university; where procedures are published, this duty is displaced by a contractual guarantee of compliance with the stated procedures.
While the school's procedures were generally in accord with the published rule, possibly prejudicial ex parte communications during the tribunal's deliberations present a genuine issue of material fact for trial.
Despite plaintiff's indications of intent to file a lawsuit, an email from an officer of the deft promising an independent investigation did not create a binding contract, as plaintiff never evinced a willingness to strike a deal -- there was no consideration.
Statistics alone can't establish a Title IX claim on the outcome or for deliberate indifference; the specific mechanism of discriminatory action needed to be identified.
Procedural unfairness in student disciplinary decisions sounds in contract, not tort.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/16-2290P-01A.pdf
While the school's procedures were generally in accord with the published rule, possibly prejudicial ex parte communications during the tribunal's deliberations present a genuine issue of material fact for trial.
Despite plaintiff's indications of intent to file a lawsuit, an email from an officer of the deft promising an independent investigation did not create a binding contract, as plaintiff never evinced a willingness to strike a deal -- there was no consideration.
Statistics alone can't establish a Title IX claim on the outcome or for deliberate indifference; the specific mechanism of discriminatory action needed to be identified.
Procedural unfairness in student disciplinary decisions sounds in contract, not tort.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/16-2290P-01A.pdf
First Circuit: US v. Laureano-Perez
Sentencing judge sufficiently weighed individual concerns, given recitation of deft's age, education, and work history.
Given that the present crime occurred while on supervised release for a drugs offense, no error in drug testing as a release condition.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/16-2399P-01A.pdf
Given that the present crime occurred while on supervised release for a drugs offense, no error in drug testing as a release condition.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/16-2399P-01A.pdf
First Circuit: US. Robles-Paron
Claim of ineffective assistance and judicial error in sentencing need not be refiled in a collateral proceeding where the government stipulates to the error. Sentence can be vacated and remanded on direct appeal.
Judicial sentencing script sufficiently weighed individual considerations, and did not impermissibly focus on social concerns.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/16-2455P-01A.pdf
Judicial sentencing script sufficiently weighed individual considerations, and did not impermissibly focus on social concerns.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/16-2455P-01A.pdf
First Circuit: Caraballo-Caraballo v. Administracion de Correccion
When a superseding indictment adds charges arising out the same act, transaction or common scheme, the Sixth Amendment speedy trial clock for the added charges still runs from the initial indictment.
The protections of the Sixth Amendment are generically distinct from Due Process and double jeopardy, and differ from the statutory protections offered under the Speedy Trial Act; the protection therefore arises directly from the Sixth Amendment.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-1961P-01A.pdf
The protections of the Sixth Amendment are generically distinct from Due Process and double jeopardy, and differ from the statutory protections offered under the Speedy Trial Act; the protection therefore arises directly from the Sixth Amendment.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-1961P-01A.pdf
Eleventh Circuit: Finest Meridor v. Attorney General
Immigration Judge's finding as to likely future danger was a finding of fact that could only be reviewed for clear error; the agency erred by reversing de novo.
Subsequent statute holding that a certain agency is the only authority to issue a certain visa under that article operates as a context-specific enhancement to an earlier statute authorizing the issuance of the visa by other authorities.
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201514569.pdf
Subsequent statute holding that a certain agency is the only authority to issue a certain visa under that article operates as a context-specific enhancement to an earlier statute authorizing the issuance of the visa by other authorities.
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201514569.pdf
Federal Circuit: PGS Physical v. Iancu
(Reminder: We don't know many things. We especially don't know Patent.)
Agency decision presenting both non-instituted claims and rulings on instituted claims and grounds is sufficiently final for judicial review.
Erroneous non-institution is waiveable, and presents no sua sponte obligation in subsequent judicial review.
(Again, completely guessing here.)
Board decision on motivation to combine prior art was reasonable.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/16-2470.Opinion.6-6-2018.1.pdf
Agency decision presenting both non-instituted claims and rulings on instituted claims and grounds is sufficiently final for judicial review.
Erroneous non-institution is waiveable, and presents no sua sponte obligation in subsequent judicial review.
(Again, completely guessing here.)
Board decision on motivation to combine prior art was reasonable.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/16-2470.Opinion.6-6-2018.1.pdf
Federal Circuit: Martin v. O'Rourke
Although the All Writs Act isn't an independent basis for jurisdiction, Mandamus against unreasonable administrative delay validly runs from the Circuit Courts when necessary to protect their future jurisdiction.
Mandamus against delay by the Dept of Veterans Affairs should be governed not by a finding of the official's refusal to act, but by a common-law balancing test.
Concur: An over five-year appeals process, mostly composed of ministerial tasks and docketing, is excessive. Mandamus is the only viable option.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/17-1747.Opinion.6-5-2018.1.pdf
Mandamus against delay by the Dept of Veterans Affairs should be governed not by a finding of the official's refusal to act, but by a common-law balancing test.
Concur: An over five-year appeals process, mostly composed of ministerial tasks and docketing, is excessive. Mandamus is the only viable option.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/17-1747.Opinion.6-5-2018.1.pdf
Havensight Capital LLC v. Nike Inc.
Appeal of Rule 11 sanctions and dismissal of amended complaint does not not incorporate appeal of post-judgment sanctions orders.
Pending post-judgment motion that can be construed as a challenge to the decision on the merits, when filed before entry of judgment, does not toll the time limit for appeals.
Numerous and voluminous motions justified Rule 11 sanctions.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/06/07/15-56607.pdf
Pending post-judgment motion that can be construed as a challenge to the decision on the merits, when filed before entry of judgment, does not toll the time limit for appeals.
Numerous and voluminous motions justified Rule 11 sanctions.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/06/07/15-56607.pdf
Ninth Circuit: White v. Square, Inc.
Visiting a website with the intent to use its services and then declining to advance past a user agreement that incorporated an allegedly discriminatory bar on the use of its services constitutes a sufficiently concrete and particularized Article III injury.
Questions certified to California: whether a patron must use a business services to qualify for the statutory antidiscrimination provisions at issue, or if merely presenting themselves is sufficient. Also -- what the internet correlative to this standard might be.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/06/07/16-17137.pdf
Questions certified to California: whether a patron must use a business services to qualify for the statutory antidiscrimination provisions at issue, or if merely presenting themselves is sufficient. Also -- what the internet correlative to this standard might be.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/06/07/16-17137.pdf
Ninth Circuit: Ellis v. Harrison
State court's holding that Habeas petitioner must establish prejudice from his counsel's racial animus by a preponderance was an unreasonable application of federal constitutional law.
To establish prejudice from counsel's racial animus, petitioner must establish either his or her knowledge of the animus at a critical phase of the proceedings, resulting in a communications breakdown, or another adverse effect of the animus.
Concurrence to per curiam: prejudice should be the presumption in strategic decisions once animus is established.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/06/07/16-56188.pdf
To establish prejudice from counsel's racial animus, petitioner must establish either his or her knowledge of the animus at a critical phase of the proceedings, resulting in a communications breakdown, or another adverse effect of the animus.
Concurrence to per curiam: prejudice should be the presumption in strategic decisions once animus is established.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/06/07/16-56188.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)