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.
Sheriff entitled to qualified immunity as to S1983 claim arising from jail violence and overcrowding, as there was no personal knowledge of the specific circumstances that caused the particular harm, the claim does not establish that the Sheriff would be incompetent in thinking that the responses to the situation met constitutional muster, and there is no specific precedent indicating otherwise.
Criminal forfeiture under the statute is in personam, and therefore money judgments are permitted, despite the common law's historical aversion.
Proceeds from the crime that are subsequently disbursed to co-conspirators are a permissible basis for a forfeiture order against the deft.
No clear error in court's calculation of forfeiture, including funds possessed during the conspiracy and property acquired during the conspiracy, as deft could likely not have legitimately afforded the latter.
No Apprendi protections for criminal forfeiture determinations -- the protections are statutory.
Forfeiture not excessive under 8A.
Motion to remove to federal court was untimely, as the facts underlying the claimed notice of federal subject matter were already evident in the claim prior to the amendment of claim that prompted the removal.
Where an arresting officer later initiates a nolle prosequi, and the credibility-dependent facts of the case might allow a reasonable person to find that the plaintiff was innocent, a S1983 claim for malicious prosecution presents a genuine issue for trial -- the nolle prosequi might prove to be a sufficiently favorable termination.
For standing to challenge state firearms licensing scheme, plaintiffs must either apply for a license or demonstrate the futility of doing so.
11th Amendment bars claims against judges in their individual capacity when adjudicating firearms licensing applications, as the licenses issue under judicial order, although the refusals are communicated administratively.
As firearm licenses can be legitimately withheld for certain reasons, the statutory requirement of good moral character can be read to incorporate these reasons, and is therefore not unconstitutionally vague.
Licensing scheme doesn't offend Second Amendment, as there is a substantial relationship between the legitimate goals of the licensing scheme and the restrictions that it imposes.
[If I have this right...] Investment bank's payments to noteholders of SPV on the occasion of its pre-petition default can't be recouped in bankruptcy, as the relationship between the bank and the SPV was of the type of asset-exchange swap obligation explicitly immunized from bankruptcy's modification of contractual rights and obligations.
Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. v. Bank of America N.A.
As the order does not itself finally resolve any question on the merits and the statute provides for a second mechanism, a denial of a certificate of appealability on a motion to set aside the sentence is not a sufficiently final order for purposes of appeal.
Circuit split/tension flagged.
As Congress retains the power to legislate on police power matters in Puerto Rico, the amendment of the relevant statute to include commonwealths sufficiently indicated the intent of Congress that the law should apply to crimes committed entirely within the non-state commonwealth.
Sufficient evidence for conviction, as the impeachment of the witness didn't make the finder of fact's crediting of other evidence unreasonable.
Instructing the jury on the state predicate offense didn't confuse them about which offense they were weighing.
As live video testimony is only available in certain situations where the witness cannot reasonably communicate because of fear, allowing a witness to testify remotely where the fear was generalized to the situation and not specific to the deft, and the court accepted the witness' statement without adopting it as a reasoned finding, a retrial is an appropriate remedy.
Concur:
Constitutional status of Puerto Rico is still that of an unincorporated territory, as the law creating the Commonwealth changed governance procedures rather than constitutional status, and was not a compact.
There were a handful of decisions out from the 9th & Federal Circuit on Friday, but other work calls, and I need to close this window. Possibly to be covered tomorrow, depending on how long the list is.
Again, folks, if for some reason you're reading this, you're basically watching somebody take batting practice. Don't rely; don't rely; don't rely. Cheers.
CB
Given the specific misrepresentations made, and the fact that insurers would have otherwise more carefully scrutinized the clinic, sufficient evidence for a scheme or artifice to defraud, despite the fact that some percentage of the claims were legitimate.
Restitution, and sentencing calculations should have been offset for the percentage of treatments that were medically necessary. Forfeiture, though, looks to the gross proceeds of the criminal activity and did not have to be offset.
Earlier administrative determination of employer's identity does not bind later adjudication under claim preclusion, since the earlier determination found no liability, and the determination of the employer's identity was therefore not essential to the decision.
Administrative regulation, state law, and equitable considerations of delay prevent an ex ante rescission of workers' compensation insurance contract, where that rescission would defeat the insurer's liability for adjudicated claims.
No 5A DP violation where the agency's administrative error was in a proceeding that eventually proved nondispositive.
Arbitrator's decision that damages request was too speculative was not arbitrary or capricious, given insufficient evidence in the claim.
Federal statute providing for state administrative remedy, followed by federal arbitration, followed by Article III review provides sufficient enforcement mechanism to displace S1983 remedy.
Sheila Armstrong v. Mich. Bureau of Servs. for Blind Persons
Alien's appeal citing an exceptional situation justifying sua sponte reopening of the matter did not sufficiently exhaust a claim for a statutory reopening of the matter due to exceptional circumstances.
Given the evidentiary proffers of the parties at the preliminary injunction stage, state law compelled the court to attempt a reformation of the noncompete agreement as opposed to a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement on the basis of overbreadth.
State trial court's determination that detective's summary of statements of non-testifying witness was not inadmissible hearsay because it didn't recite the witness' words and the detective's purpose in describing the statements was to explain the course of the investigation was an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent.
State intermediate appeals citation referencing harmless error does not independently preserve the issue for the federal habeas claim, as the decision was looked through in favor of the reasoned decision of the lower court, and the issue was not presented in the federal collateral challenge.
District court "misapplied" its discretion by recognizing two contracts in its holding, but only reversing its holding as to one on the motion to reconsider due to the fact that the other party had not argued the second contract; the other party was not sufficiently put on notice by one sentence mentioning the agreement in a brief.
Statute's categorical bar on contractual restrictions on subsequent employment, followed by closely defined exceptions, creates a presumption that the statute ratifies the common law antipathy to such restrictions, rather than a rule of reason.
State consumer protection law in the state law elected in the contract doesn't apply, as there is a common law presumption against its extraterritorial exception, and no conduct harming consumers occurred in the state.
Continued possession of potential trade-secret materials from prior employer insufficient to establish acquisition under the law of the state.
District Court's interpretation of the terms of the arbitral agreement enjoining use of the technology and methods in a patent application is reviewed for plain error, as the reviewing court must make factual determinations as to whether the uses are sufficiently similar.
District court's restatement of the arbitral award did not substantially alter the law of the case.
Fees incurred prior to the filing of claim can be recovered under a fee-shifting statute where they are an attempt to resolve a threatened claim.
Court reasonably found fees to be nonsegregable as they generally advanced the litigation position.
State rules requiring party to seek contingent appellate fee award in the trial court are procedural, so the federal rule allowing award of fees by the reviewing court prevails.
Dismissal with prejudice of a erroneous claim that an earlier decision of a regulatory body relied on a preempted state statute does not deprive the plaintiff of the right subsequently to assert the preemption of the statute as relied upon by another regulatory decision.
Dispute as to two of the parties is now moot, given private settlement of claims, and subsequent procedural steps and the possibility that an allegedly preempted statute might be relied upon in the future is insufficient to preserve a live case or controversy between the parties.
While the voiding of a past agency order is not obtainable under the Ex Parte Young exception to state sovereignty, subsequent enforcement actions in furtherance of such an order do state a claim.
As the suit is seeking a remedy in equity, the non-jurisdictional bar against S1983 claims against political subdivisions does not deprive the court of jurisdiction.
Statutory requirement of utility capability implies an inquiry into nearby infrastructure.
CJ, et al., Concur/Dissent:
Federal statute defining utility service area applies to the degree that federal funds were used to construct the infrastructure.
Concur/Concur with Concur/Dissent:
Fact-bound decision on remand.
Concur:
Where a state law statute creating a private cause of action is preempted, the c/a can arise in equity, and where the claim presents a substantial question of federal law, there is federal jurisdiction.
Concur:
Although, by Bivvens analogy, S1983's exclusion of political subdivisions should extinguish a correlative implied cause of action in equity arising under Ex Parte Young, precedent sufficiently recognizes the validity of an equitable suit for prospective relief against state officials' actions that violate the federal constitution.
Execution of administrative warrant under the auspices of the state medical board and the subsequent preparation of a report is entitled to the qualified immunity of law enforcement, not the absolute immunity of a prosecutor.
Claims of malicious prosecution and abuse of process are inherently tort claims, not constitutional violations, and do not sound in S1983 actions -- any underlying constitutional violation must be raised according to its own terms.
Remand for the district court to consider whether underlying plausible 4A claims were waived by the plaintiff's initial tort-based filing under notice pleading.
Sufficient basis for plea to specific drug quantities, given duration of daily drug sales; sufficient basis for conspiracy plea as to buyer/seller relationship where the relationship goes on for long enough and sufficient mutual trust is established.
Court's instructions at plea colloquy did not rise to the level of plain error.
Ineffective assistance waived for not being raised below, preserved for collateral challenge.