Sixth Circuit: Joan Weser v. Kimberly Goodson

Presence on property sufficient for criminal trespass arrest for the purposes of S1983 claim, as officer's witness of the midemeanor as required by state law isn't a requirement under the Federal Constitution.

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.

Joan Weser v. Kimberly Goodson

Fifth Circuit: Houston Aquarium, Incorporated v. OSHC, et al

ALJ correctly accepted analysis on matters other than the ultimate issue from lay witness, as lay witnesses can draw conclusions based on their experience; deft's witnesses appropriately considered lay witnesses, as there was no foundation laid.

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.

Houston Aquarium, Incorporated v. OSHC, et al

Fifth Circuit: USA v. Louis Luyten

No clear error in sentencing bump for conduct that creates an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily injury, as deft. transported aliens in a small plane, one over the rated capacity, and had no pilot's license.

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.

USA v. Robert Montgomery

Fourth Circuit: US v. Billy Curry, Jr.

Suspicionless stop and search of person in proximity to audible gunshots was not justified under the emergency aid exception within exigent circumstances, as such a stop would require firm knowledge of the crime and a close geographical association with the place of the crime.

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.) 

US v. Billy Curry, Jr. 

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.

United States v. Jones

Second Circuit: Jack v. Barr

Conviction under state statute encompassing loaded antique firearms is not a categorical predicate for Immigration removal under federal statutory definition adopted by the agency, as that definition excludes antique firearms.

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.

Jack v. Barr

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.

Prosperity TIEH Enterprise v. US

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.

Hardy v. US

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.

Sellers v. Wilkie

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.

Jones v. Wilkie

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.

State of New York v. EPA

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.

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe

DC Circuit: Timothy Jeffries v. William Barr

Summary judgment appropriately granted for deft prior to discovery in Title VII suit, given facts in evidence, but abuse of discretion to deny non-movant's challenge as to one claim, as employer's apparent non-compliance with its policy on priority candidates might reveal facts that substantiate the claim.

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.

 USA v. Shusta Traverse Gumbs

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.

 Andrea Schmitt v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan

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.

Sky-Med, Inc. v. FAA

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.

United States  v.  Dante Benson-Henry

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.

 United States  v.  Kenton Eagle Chasing

Seventh Circuit: USA v. Nehemiah Felders

No plain error in District Court holding that officer testimony that deft was read Miranda rights from state-issued card that might or might not have been sufficient, since deft has burden in plain error review, and record is silent as to contents of card.

USA v.   Nehemiah Felders