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.
Fifth Circuit: USA v. Florencio Rosales-Mireles
Prudential grant of mutual motion to vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing upon remand from the U.S. Supreme Court.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/16/16-50151-CR1.pdf
Second Circuit: Trusted Media Brands, Inc. v. United States of America
Tax. Where one section of a statute grants an extended period of time to do X, and Y is an alternative to X, a reference elsewhere in the law saying that X and Y are governed by the initial provision can simply mean that they are separately governed by it.
(Probably.)
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/cb713570-cf6f-478b-a928-4f292687255f/1/doc/17-3733_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/cb713570-cf6f-478b-a928-4f292687255f/1/hilite/
First Circuit: Torres-Pagan v. Berryhill
Omission of significant medical records can justify remand to the agency for insufficient development of the factual record where the petitioner suffers from cognitive impairment; the claimant does not have to make a showing of discriminatory effect of the omission.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-2146P-01A.pdf
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-2146P-01A.pdf
First Circuit: US v. Harrison
Within-guidelines sentence of lifetime supervised release procedurally and substantively reasonable, where the court specifically indicated an awareness of history and a desire to restrain the defendant.
As there was a plausible sentencing rationale and a defensible result, sentence not substantively unreasonable.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-2088P-01A.pdf
As there was a plausible sentencing rationale and a defensible result, sentence not substantively unreasonable.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-2088P-01A.pdf
First Circuit: US v. Reid
Below-guidelines sentence not substantively or procedurally unreasonable; given the deft's objective criminal history, the court did not abuse its discretion by not explicitly comparing the history to mitigating circumstances in the deft's life.
First Circuit: US v. Perez-Crisostomo
Increase in sentence for Obstruction warranted where deft maintains false name throughout proceedings, and there is some chance that the deception interfered with sentencing.
No plain error in denial of sentence reduction for acceptance of responsibility where, in addition to acquiescing in the sentencing procedures, the deft attempts otherwise to obstruct justice.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-1914P-01A.pdf
First Circuit: Medical Mutual Insurance Co. v. Burka
Given the terms of the policy, the insurer has no duty to defend a physician who allegedly improperly accessed medical records, since the records were not acquired in the course of professional treatment.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-1872P-01A.pdf
First Circuit: Carlson v. University of New England
Where an employer claims that an allegedly retaliatory transfer was voluntary, misrepresentations made by the employer to the employee must have a non-retaliatory justification in order to prevail at summary judgment.
In order to present an issue for trial, a claim that an annual raise was artificially low must be supported by a benchmark of prior years salary decisions.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-1792P-01A.pdf
First Circuit: Sexual Minorities Uganda v. Lively
Circuit courts do not have jurisdiction under the direct appeals statute to reform unflattering dicta in the opinion below.
Where diversity jurisdiction is pleaded but conceded during the proceedings to be a fiction, the court has the prudential right to invoke judicial estoppel against an attempt to shift the basis for jurisdiction to diversity of parties.
Where pendent state law claims raise sensitive and undeveloped questions of state law, the court does not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplementary jurisdiction and dismissing the pendent claims without prejudice.
Initial motion to dismiss did not ripen into grounds for the judgment, and is therefore unreviewable.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-1593P-01A.pdf
Where diversity jurisdiction is pleaded but conceded during the proceedings to be a fiction, the court has the prudential right to invoke judicial estoppel against an attempt to shift the basis for jurisdiction to diversity of parties.
Where pendent state law claims raise sensitive and undeveloped questions of state law, the court does not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplementary jurisdiction and dismissing the pendent claims without prejudice.
Initial motion to dismiss did not ripen into grounds for the judgment, and is therefore unreviewable.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-1593P-01A.pdf
End of Day
8th and above out of scope. Slew of cases out of the 8th today.
Going to try to work back up to full daily coverage over the next week or so -- seems like a good goal to have.
-CB
Going to try to work back up to full daily coverage over the next week or so -- seems like a good goal to have.
-CB
Eighth Circuit: Bruce Munro v. Lucy Activewear, Inc.
Product's name served as a source-identifying device for trademark claim, as the plaintiff is the person who produces things of this name.
Light-based art installation is protected by copyright, not trademark.
No error in denial of leave to amend.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/08/164483P.pdf
Light-based art installation is protected by copyright, not trademark.
No error in denial of leave to amend.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/08/164483P.pdf
Sixth Circuit: Robert Davis v. Detroit Pub. Sch. Cmty. Dist.
Refusal to place ballot issue is not sufficiently concrete or particularized for standing. Placing tax decisions in the hands of the electorate means that redressibility for tax harms is uncertain.
Fifth Circuit: Stephanie Odle v. Wal-Mart Stores, Incorporated
Dissent from denial: ln the caselaw, where parties voluntarily dismiss the action, the court does not have sufficient authority over the case to consider whether other intervenors should be added.
Statement in support of denial of en banc: Minor exceptions from exigency.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/16/16-10347.CV1.pdf
Third Circuit: USA v. Chaka Fattah, Sr.
Trial court judge did not abuse discretion in interviewing jurors in the course of deliberations about the conduct of another juror.
No abuse of discretion in dismissal of juror for not deliberating where juror informed courthouse deputy that he intended to hold out "no matter what."
Jury instructions did not comport with Supreme Court holding issued after verdict but before sentencing on the scope of official acts within the bribery statute -- remanded.
Formal proposal for Congress to fund a specific project was a sufficiently official act.
Sufficient evidence for RICO conspiracy convictions.
&c, &c...
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/164397p.pdf
No abuse of discretion in dismissal of juror for not deliberating where juror informed courthouse deputy that he intended to hold out "no matter what."
Jury instructions did not comport with Supreme Court holding issued after verdict but before sentencing on the scope of official acts within the bribery statute -- remanded.
Formal proposal for Congress to fund a specific project was a sufficiently official act.
Sufficient evidence for RICO conspiracy convictions.
&c, &c...
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/164397p.pdf
Second Circuit: United States v. Alston
Off-duty police officer who carries a weapon at the direction of the police force can still be charged for possessing a weapon in furtherance of the illegal acts, as weapons can be possessed for multiple reasons.
No error in denial of new trial based on the fact that one of the witnesses mis-stated their employment status.
Post-verdict jailhouse infractions of witness do not give rise to a Brady claim.
No error in denial of minor participant sentencing reduction, as the deft's interference with law enforcement allowed criminal conspiracy to proceed; similar logic for obstruction and breach of trust sentencing enhancements.
Second Circuit: United States of America ex rel. Wood v. Allergan, Inc.
As the statute bars bringing a claim when another claim is pending (even under seal), amendment of claim subsequent to the end of the first-filed suit does not allow the later-filed suit to survive the statutory bar.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/ef543637-0188-4de4-a0a9-d7b548d25e63/2/doc/17-2191_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/ef543637-0188-4de4-a0a9-d7b548d25e63/2/hilite/
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/ef543637-0188-4de4-a0a9-d7b548d25e63/2/doc/17-2191_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/ef543637-0188-4de4-a0a9-d7b548d25e63/2/hilite/
Second Circuit: Doe v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
Where the federal victim recovery statute looks to state law to determine whether funds are within reach of the statute, a state law determination that electronically transferred funds are reachable only by the entity that transferred the funds to the electronic transfer holding means that the funds cannot be reached by the entity that transferred the funds to the transferring entity, as that would be a transfer in violation of regulations, which is prohibited by another law entirely.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/ef543637-0188-4de4-a0a9-d7b548d25e63/3/doc/17-759_complete_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/ef543637-0188-4de4-a0a9-d7b548d25e63/3/hilite/
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/ef543637-0188-4de4-a0a9-d7b548d25e63/3/doc/17-759_complete_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/ef543637-0188-4de4-a0a9-d7b548d25e63/3/hilite/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)