Pleading that alleged tortfeasor conducted business, formed contracts, and caused injury within the state suffices to state a claim involving sufficient purposeful availment for personal jurisdiction within the forum; further discovery is warranted where such a claim is made against a supplier who sells their product through a national retail chain.
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.
Sixth Circuit: Joan Weser v. Kimberly Goodson
Even deliberate mistruth would not be enough to implicate private citizen in S1983 false arrest claim, as it's not under the color of state law.
District Court should not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over false arrest state tort claim, as arrest with probable cause for an offense not justifying custodial arrest is a novel issue for the tort.
False statements by private individual not a sufficient basis for state tort claim of false arrest, as insufficient nexus to the arrest.
Fifth Circuit: Houston Aquarium, Incorporated v. OSHC, et al
Feeding and cleaning dives at an aquarium are scientific, not commercial, given plain meaning and the notes to the regulation, since they gather data and don't involve heavy tools. Also the protections for commercial divers seem unnecessary in this context.
Fifth Circuit: USA v. Louis Luyten
Fifth Circuit: USA v. Robert Montgomery
Plain error in offender registration conviction, as, under categorical analysis, the predicate conviction was for a crime that has a reasonable probability of sweeping more broadly than the Federal standard.
Concur: Categorical analysis is generally a muddle.
Fourth Circuit: US v. Billy Curry, Jr.
CJ, concur: Dissent's approach risks overpolicing, country at a moment of reckoning.
Concur: Sociology and predictive policing not a basis for law.
Concur: Scotus dictum sets standard for special needs exigency, searches must be discretionless and systematic.
Concur: Predictive policing = racial profiling.
Dissent 1: Having to stop and wait to get the details of the crime undercuts predictive policing, results in communities under-served by police.
Dissent 2: Upon reasonable suspicion of exigency, police must balance the gravity of the risk against the right infringed.
(Amended opinion presumably corrects typo from "waiving Constitutions in the air" to "waving Constitutions in the air, per Google archive of old file.)
Second Circuit: United States v. Jones
Pace the Ninth Circuit, the relevant statute's proscription of "false and fictitious" documents includes false versions of legitimate documents, not just novel types of instruments.
Second Circuit: Jack v. Barr
Considering the question de novo, agency erred in requiring petitioner to establish a reasonable probability that the state would prosecute conduct outside the federal and agency standard, as there is no ambiguity in the statute.
Federal Circuit: Prosperity TIEH Enterprise v. US
When agency adjudication merges two business entities for the purpose of assessing antidumping violations, consideration of the totality requires that subsequent merger of a third company must assess the relationships of each company severally.
Sufficient substantial evidence for agency adjudication finding of product misrepresentation, as common meaning implicates the universal criteria.
Federal Circuit: Hardy v. US
Given that state law looks to intent of parties, deeds conveying a strip of land for purposes of a right of way conveyed a right of way -- the habendum clause merely held the easement to exist in fee simple, some deeds stated a reversionary interest for the easement, and the state took the burden of providing sufficient drainage for the use.
Federal Circuit: Sellers v. Wilkie
To meet statutory requirements, a veteran's claim for relief must at a minimum identify within a high level of generality the sickness disease or injury for which relief is sought; the Secretary's duty to clarify the claim does not arise if this requirement is not met.
Federal Circuit: Jones v. Wilkie
Court did not err in holding that while a reconsidered claim can prompt an award that relates back to an earlier point in time, a tribunal that reconsiders a claim but then makes an award not based on the evidence that prompted the reconsideration need not back-date the award.
Court did not erroneously require claimant to establish that the reopening (as distinct from reconsideration, apparently) of the claim was based on the evidence that served as the basis for the reconsideration and the new award. Remark to the contrary held by court below to be harmless error, which is a question of fact that the Circuit Court has no jurisdiction to review.
DC Circuit: State of New York v. EPA
Agency denial of state petition was arbitrary and capricious, as it didn't state which of four criteria had not been met, or how many of the four criteria must be met to substantiate the petition. Past judicial approval of plan did not insulate it from suit, as it indicated that it was a first step.
Agency plan insufficient, as it relies on a compliance cutoff date after a date previously set by another statute; agency must permit claims that implicate a multi-state area.
Concur: Although claim waived by agency, state's petition impermissibly seeks to regulate single sources as opposed to regulations addressing individual states.
DC Circuit: Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe
The socially offensive nature of the copyrighted material cannot be considered in a motion to allow discovery in an infringement suit against an unknown deft.
Claim alleging infringement by an IP address has right to discovery process to discover the identity of the owner of the connection, as the information might reasonably be used to state a claim against a specific person or determine that such a claim would be impossible.
While a court can take judicial notice of a party's lawsuits in other forums, the number of suits cannot be the sole basis for concluding that the present suit is without merit, and the number of suits settled before trial is not sufficient basis to infer improper purpose in the present suit.
DC Circuit: Timothy Jeffries v. William Barr
Eleventh Circuit: USA v. Shusta Traverse Gumbs
No abuse of discretion in refusal of instruction on "forcibly," given plain meaning and other instructions.
No abuse of discretion in refusal of instruction on transportation exception to use of a vehicle as a weapon -- deft can separately establish that it was merely used to escape, and the statute only requires general intent.
No abuse of discretion in refusal of instruction on simple assault as lesser included -- elements for that would establish the charged offense.
No abuse of discretion in simple repetition of the instruction after jury question on mens rea on use of the vehicle as a weapon.
Sufficient evidence for conviction as to victims standing to the side of the car, in addition to the one in front.
Ninth Circuit: Andrea Schmitt v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan
Statute's nondiscrimination provision's reference to other civil rights laws implicates, but does not guarantee, the protections in those laws.
Prior caselaw as to previous statutes indicating that they don't cover health plan design are superseded by the reference in the present Act.
State enactment of plan's legislation cannot abrogate federal nondiscrimination provisions.
Specific protections don't imply that they are exhaustive -- no expressio unius.
Blanket exclusion of all treatments except one for a particular condition does not state a claim for discrimination.
Allegedly discriminatory conduct towards those with a certain condition is not proxy discrimination towards those with the associated disability.
Ninth Circuit: Sky-Med, Inc. v. FAA
Agency adjudication did not have jurisdiction, since the two notices of violation were consolidated into a single civil claim in excess of the statutory maximum. The Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over claims with an amount in conttroversy in excess of the statutory maximum during the actual pendency of the civil proceeding.
Eighth Circuit: United States v. Dante Benson-Henry
Social media posts showing person possessing firearm, one of which was in front of deft's garage, suffice to sufficiently establish felony possession for purposes of parole revocation and subsequent sentence.
Sentence substantively reasonable given public safety and substance abuse treatment needs.
Eighth Circuit: United States v. Kenton Eagle Chasing
Collateral challenge to federal jurisdiction for original crime cannot be made when appealing revocation of supervised release, as there is a separate statutory basis for revocation proceedings.
No Sixth Amendment right to jury trial in parole revocation proceedings, given circuit precedent to contrary.
Court's spoken opinions during revocation proceedings did not sufficiently demonstrate deep-seated antagonism.
No abuse of discretion in court's finding that escape from designated residence was excessive, if necessary.
Tribal police car without other markings was sufficiently marked by the emergency light to fall within the statute, alternately, harmless error.
Previous waiver of challenge to PSR elements permitted court to consider them, though disputed at revocation hearing.
Sentence substantively reasonable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)