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.
Second Circuit: United States v. Jones
Given officer's observation of ammunition in the car, sufficient probable cause for the warrantless search of an automobile parked in a shared residential driveway.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/a2f2ecf0-a8b8-4c4b-b175-158f6c9eca38/2/doc/16-87_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/a2f2ecf0-a8b8-4c4b-b175-158f6c9eca38/2/hilite/
Second Circuit: Giunta, et al. v. Dingman, et al.
Domestic transaction was sufficiently irrevocable to establish culpability under the statute, despite the fact that the transaction would later have to be cleared by foreign banks -- any possible cancellation would come from the closing entity, not the counterparty.
Given the substantial connections to the US, including citizenship of the defts and the place of the transaction, the ties are sufficient to overcome the presumption against extraterritoriality.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/a2f2ecf0-a8b8-4c4b-b175-158f6c9eca38/3/doc/17-1375_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/a2f2ecf0-a8b8-4c4b-b175-158f6c9eca38/3/hilite/
First Circuit: Doherty v. Merck & Co., Inc.
State law defining a live, healthy birth as something without remedy at law does not offend state constitutional guarantees of open courts and jury trials.
First Amendment right to petition incorporates right to the courts, but states can define the boundaries of a claim.
Statute survives rational basis review under the federal right to privacy, as legislature had an interest in medical malpractice reform.
Seventh Amendment not incorporated against the states.
Gender discrimination claim insufficiently developed.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-1997P-01A.pdf
First Amendment right to petition incorporates right to the courts, but states can define the boundaries of a claim.
Statute survives rational basis review under the federal right to privacy, as legislature had an interest in medical malpractice reform.
Seventh Amendment not incorporated against the states.
Gender discrimination claim insufficiently developed.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-1997P-01A.pdf
First Circuit: US v. Lee
Out of court statements not subject to the Confrontation Clause and hearsay scrutiny had sufficient indicia of reliability to establish the drug quantities used at sentencing.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-1490P-01A.pdf
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-1490P-01A.pdf
First Circuit: Dimanche v. MBTA
Sufficient evidence for verdict and damages.
While it was error for the court to limit deft's case to the proffer made in the motion to lift the default judgment, it was insufficiently plain error to reverse.
Addition of a Hostile Work Environment claim on the last day of the trial did not sufficiently prejudice the deft, given lack of objection or proffer at trial.
Circuit precedent holding that S1981 claims do not lie against state actors merely allows dismissal of those claims; it doesn't deprive the courts of subject matter jurisdiction, and since the objection wasn't raised at trial, a general verdict for plaintiff that includes pendent state law claims can stand.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-1169P-01A.pdf
While it was error for the court to limit deft's case to the proffer made in the motion to lift the default judgment, it was insufficiently plain error to reverse.
Addition of a Hostile Work Environment claim on the last day of the trial did not sufficiently prejudice the deft, given lack of objection or proffer at trial.
Circuit precedent holding that S1981 claims do not lie against state actors merely allows dismissal of those claims; it doesn't deprive the courts of subject matter jurisdiction, and since the objection wasn't raised at trial, a general verdict for plaintiff that includes pendent state law claims can stand.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-1169P-01A.pdf
DC Circuit: US v. Dawayne Brown
Error on admission of prior conviction was invited, as counsel insisted that it be included.
No plain error in lack of special unanimity instruction.
No error in use of the term "narcotics" in Burglary instruction where illegal nature of drugs was necessarily implied.
Sufficient evidence for constructive possession inside the apartment.
Plea colloquy impermissibly suggested that deft may later challenge the reasonableness of the sentence.
Clear error for the sentencing court not to refer to the sentencing guidelines' recommendation that the sentence be imposed to run concurrent with the prior sentence.
Upward variance insufficiently explained.
Concurrence: acquitted conduct shouldn't be used to increase the sentence.
Dissent in part: Terms of written waiver were plain, upward departure sufficiently explained.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/11D51D8162565F72852582AD0054B1E6/$file/15-3056-1736068.pdf
No plain error in lack of special unanimity instruction.
No error in use of the term "narcotics" in Burglary instruction where illegal nature of drugs was necessarily implied.
Sufficient evidence for constructive possession inside the apartment.
Plea colloquy impermissibly suggested that deft may later challenge the reasonableness of the sentence.
Clear error for the sentencing court not to refer to the sentencing guidelines' recommendation that the sentence be imposed to run concurrent with the prior sentence.
Upward variance insufficiently explained.
Concurrence: acquitted conduct shouldn't be used to increase the sentence.
Dissent in part: Terms of written waiver were plain, upward departure sufficiently explained.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/11D51D8162565F72852582AD0054B1E6/$file/15-3056-1736068.pdf
DC Circuit: US v. Calvin Stoddard
Description of the investigation to this point and agent's general expertise established sufficient necessity for the wiretap order.
Insufficient evidence for money-laundering conviction, as the vehicle purchase was open, and there was insufficient evidence of intentionally promoting the illegal activity.
Sufficient evidence for conspiracy, despite unreliable witness.
Deft decision not to testify waived challenge to ruling that he could be impeached on cross with prior conviction.
Each member of the conspiracy must have sufficient knowledge or foreseeable understanding of drug amounts triggering mandatory minimums for those minimums to apply. Circuit split flagged.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/CF9C2E37DB18AFB9852582AD015-306054B206/$file/0-1736057.pdf
Insufficient evidence for money-laundering conviction, as the vehicle purchase was open, and there was insufficient evidence of intentionally promoting the illegal activity.
Sufficient evidence for conspiracy, despite unreliable witness.
Deft decision not to testify waived challenge to ruling that he could be impeached on cross with prior conviction.
Each member of the conspiracy must have sufficient knowledge or foreseeable understanding of drug amounts triggering mandatory minimums for those minimums to apply. Circuit split flagged.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/CF9C2E37DB18AFB9852582AD015-306054B206/$file/0-1736057.pdf
DC Circuit: Old Dominion Electric v. FERC
Filed rate doctrine and the prohibition on retroactive ratemaking barred utility's waiver request, as the extraordinary circumstances encountered were outside the specific mechanisms of the rates.
Market monitor has no legally cognizable interest, and therefore no standing to intervene; amicus instead.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/B88CD5B756357184852582AD0054B21C/$file/16-1111-1736083.pdf
Market monitor has no legally cognizable interest, and therefore no standing to intervene; amicus instead.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/B88CD5B756357184852582AD0054B21C/$file/16-1111-1736083.pdf
DC Circuit: Duke Energy v. FERC
Utility's insistence on full performance of the facility and characterization of the obligation as "not economic" was not a directive to purchase the costly fuel that would have ensured continued operation, and there was consequently no indemnification.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/7B92A385E50E4C04852582AD0054B231/$file/16-1133-1736096.pdf
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/7B92A385E50E4C04852582AD0054B231/$file/16-1133-1736096.pdf
DC Circuit: Island Architectural Woodwork v. NLRB
Given the substantially identical business, substantive control, and anti-union sentiment evinced, substantial evidence for Board's finding that diversion of part of production to a building out back supervised by the CEO's daughter was in fact a corporate alter ego.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/122F0282A1444FB7852582AD0054EF86/$file/16-1303.pdf
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/122F0282A1444FB7852582AD0054EF86/$file/16-1303.pdf
DC Circuit: Tamosiunus v. NLRB
No rational basis to think that Local's collection letter and employer's subsequent collection of full dues from employees who had requested financial core status could not be thought by a rational person to tend to restrain or coerce employees not to enforce their rights under the Act.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/9B76B67B9F567375852582AD0054B245/$file/16-1338-1736047.pdf
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/9B76B67B9F567375852582AD0054B245/$file/16-1338-1736047.pdf
DC Circuit: US v. Guadalupe Galaviz
When challenging a district court's procedurally correct decision not to lower a sentence imposed with reference to subsequently retroactively amended guidelines ranges, the petitioner must establish that the decision to leave the original sentence in place is itself substantively unreasonable.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/2F95E99A58F5CD4D852582AD0054B25F/$file/16-3052-1736019.pdf
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/2F95E99A58F5CD4D852582AD0054B25F/$file/16-3052-1736019.pdf
DC Circuit: US v. Ernest Akers
Retroactive revision in the sentencing guidelines did not modify the career offender guidelines for the offense, even where sentence was imposed according to plea with a substantial downward revision from the career offender level.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/D7C57C92A4A99672852582AD0054C99D/$file/17-3095.pdf
DC Circuit: Citizens for Responsibility v. FEC
Given presumption of unreviewability of agency's discretionary enforcement decisions, commission's decision not to enforce after tied vote is not reviewable under organic statute or APA. Plaintiff does not identify the specific statutory provision violated by inaction.
Dissent: It was a reasoned application of facts to law; inaction violates the organic statute, which sets a sufficiently specific task to overcome the presumption.
Federal Circuit: Sifab Solar, Inc. v. US
Where there is no probability of success on the merits, a preliminary injunction is not reviewed under a sliding scale as to the merits.
Congruency between presidential order on tarriffs and the commission's recommendations is a matter for Congress; commission findings did not preclude the tarriff under the NAFTA enablement act.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/18-1718.Opinion.6-15-2018.pdf
Congruency between presidential order on tarriffs and the commission's recommendations is a matter for Congress; commission findings did not preclude the tarriff under the NAFTA enablement act.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/18-1718.Opinion.6-15-2018.pdf
Federal Circuit: Xitronix Corp. v. KLA - Tencor Corp.
Denial of en banc.
Dissent from denial: Where plaintiff does not allege any non-patent-law theory of harm in an antitrust suit, the circuit is not divested of jurisdiction to hear the claim, given statutory grant of jurisdiction.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/16-2746.Order.6-15-2018.1.pdf
Dissent from denial: Where plaintiff does not allege any non-patent-law theory of harm in an antitrust suit, the circuit is not divested of jurisdiction to hear the claim, given statutory grant of jurisdiction.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/16-2746.Order.6-15-2018.1.pdf
Seventh Circuit: Kimberly Flanagan v. Office of the Chief Judge
Plaintiff's report of being told by a co-worker that others were conspiring to kill her was inadmissible double hearsay.
Ominous threats in parking lot were scattered empty threats, insufficient to state a claim for a hostile work environment.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D06-15/C:16-1927:J:PerCuriam:aut:T:fnOp:N:2171849:S:0
Ominous threats in parking lot were scattered empty threats, insufficient to state a claim for a hostile work environment.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D06-15/C:16-1927:J:PerCuriam:aut:T:fnOp:N:2171849:S:0
Seventh Circuit: Wendell Weaver v. Walter Nicholson
State Habeas court reasonably applied governing precedent in holding that disqualification of deft's chosen counsel due to representation of potential prosecution witness didn't violate the right; the third party representation here was much closer than in the precedent to the contrary.
Trial counsel not crossing on a particular point didn't prejudice the petitioner, as the witness' credibility was attacked elsewhere.
Petitioner didn't show that trial counsel didn't investigate a potential witness, merely that the witness wasn't called, which must be presumed to be a strategic decision.
Claim based in reported statements of witness who died shortly afterwards was procedurally defaulted for not being raised on direct review, and would have been considered inadmissible hearsay under governing Supreme Court precedent.
Pre-trial inconsistencies and post-trial recantation insufficient to establish Due Process violation for prosecution witness' perjury, given state court finding to contrary.
Admission of prior bad acts claim procedurally defaulted.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D06-15/C:16-2400:J:Kanne:aut:T:fnOp:N:2171664:S:0
Trial counsel not crossing on a particular point didn't prejudice the petitioner, as the witness' credibility was attacked elsewhere.
Petitioner didn't show that trial counsel didn't investigate a potential witness, merely that the witness wasn't called, which must be presumed to be a strategic decision.
Claim based in reported statements of witness who died shortly afterwards was procedurally defaulted for not being raised on direct review, and would have been considered inadmissible hearsay under governing Supreme Court precedent.
Pre-trial inconsistencies and post-trial recantation insufficient to establish Due Process violation for prosecution witness' perjury, given state court finding to contrary.
Admission of prior bad acts claim procedurally defaulted.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D06-15/C:16-2400:J:Kanne:aut:T:fnOp:N:2171664:S:0
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)