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.
The visits to the house by the seller of drugs during the transactions created a fair probability or sufficient common sense inference for a search warrant for the house.
The appropriateness of a no-knock warrant sounds in S1983 claims, not a suppression hearing.
Since mutual promises are sufficient consideration under the state's law, there was sufficient consideration for the arbitration agreement.
Revision of the bank account terms to incorporate an arbitration agreement had insufficient mutual assent, as the terms were revised by simple notice and opportunity to cancel, creating a contract of adhesion, since the change in the terms was unreasonable and breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
Sevier Cnty. Schs. Fed. Credit Union v. Branch Banking & Trust Co.
Where the insurance contract defines floods as occurring on normally dry land, the flood exclusion does not encompass boats damaged in harbor; given that plaintiff introduced evidence that the boats were not damaged by the change in water level, summary judgment for the plaintiff was appropriate.
Exclusions drafted within coverage provisions are addressed under the shifting burdens standard of state law; the plaintiff is not required to establish that the exclusion does not apply when establishing coverage.
Agreement reached between parties after summary judgment placing fault for damage on the acts of a third party while liquidating the remaining damages did not undo the grant of summary judgment.
Given finding that the deft abused (rather than merely used) illegal drugs, the court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a ban on alcohol consumption during supervised release; the condition is reasonably related to the verdict, the deprivation is minimal, and the condition is consistent with the goals of sentencing.
As civil immigration detainees fall outside the traditional employment paradigm, in in that the work is not a bargained-for exchange of labor, the federal minimum wage law does not apply. The situation of the detainees is similar enough to those in criminal incarceration that the rules for work in prison apply.
Historical cell site information obtained without a warrant appropriately considered under the good faith exception.
Where the underlying data was also admitted, testimony by only one of several collaborating investigators did not violate the Confrontation Clause.
Investigator's testimony that the technical evidence was consistent with the physical investigation was not improper vouching or bolstering.
As Hobbs Act Robbery is simply the common law felony in an interstate commerce and a non-physical threat therefore wouldn't fall within its scope, the completed crime is categorically a crime of violence.
As the attempt presumes the full offense, the US Code generally defines attempts specific to each offense, and the intent of the legislature was to prevent violent crime, attempted Hobbs Act Robbery is categorically a crime of violence.
Jury instructions sufficiently identified the robbery, and not the conspiracy as the predicate for convictions under the Hobbs Act.
Given intervening state court decisions, the economic loss doctrine (barring recovery in tort from claims arising from a contract) does not bar claims for economic loss under the federal deceptive practices statute.
Gist of the action doctrine does not bar recovery in tort for claims squarely arising in contract, where the contract is collateral to the fraud or negligence.
As Congress has explicitly recognized National Guard dual service technicians as civilian employees, a plain reading of the statute suggests that the employment does not fall within the military exception to the benefits limitation statute.
Circuit split flagged.
Court appropriately considered Plan Manager's contracts with employer in granting dismissal for not stating a claim; no discovery was required to establish authenticity.
Intermediary that compiles a list of investment options from which Plan Managers select fixed options (after selecting the intermediary) is not transformed into a Plan fiduciary by the infrastructure fees assessed to the providers of the investment options, the ability ot modify the array of options open to Plan Managers, or the funds provided by the participation by the Plan Beneficiaries.
Where deft counsel approves plan of insulating confession of codefendant from incriminating the deft, review is for plain error; in this case, no error plain or otherwise when incriminating conclusion could only be reached by inference.
District Court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a protective order prohibiting leaving cooperating witnesses' statements with the deft, as there was sufficient showing of good cause, the Jencks Act statutory right to the materials was adequately preserved, and deft's courtroom misbehavior justified the limitation on the 6A right to the materials.
Court adequately ensured sufficient Jencks Act access to agents' notes by questioning testifying agent as to scope of note-taking and accepting their answer.
Limiting instruction delivered standing-up after deft's courtroom outburst appropriately preserved the proceedings against mistrial.
Prosecutor's recital of plea condition that cooperating witness must tell the truth was not improper vouching, neither was the court's reference to "a cooperating witness of the United States of America."
No plain error in instruction on deft's testimony indicating an interest in the case, as it didn't belabor the fact; lack of limiting instruction against codeft's outburst wasn't plain error given other evidence of guilt.
Identification and withdrawal of claim of sentencing error during proceeding waives the claim in direct review.
No abuse of discretion in not considering mandatory minimums for other counts.
Court appropriately refused to consider elements of competency report as hearsay, as they lacked required indicia of credibility.
Plausible rationale makes 228 month bank robbery sentence not substantively unreasonable.
Deft claim that money could be cleaned from the damage done by anti-theft devices is speculative; FDIC coverage of stolen funds should not be considered in restitution order, as insurance is generally not considered.
No substantive sentencing error in 228 month sentence for bank robbery.
Ineffective Assistance claim insufficiently clear in the record for consideration on direct review.
There are a few more cases in the DC/Federal Circuits, but I'm out of time for this, so what happens in the Beltway stays in the Beltway.
Similarly, as useful as this is in the multitasking rotation, some projects will have my exclusive attention in the coming days. Back in about a week, G-d willin' and the crick don't rise.
(There have been times when this commonplacing covered absolutely every slip in the circuits, and I might get back to that, but not in the coming weeks.)
-CB
Former prisoner on federal supervised release might have reasonably believed that he was compelled by the terms of the supervised release to unlock his phone and answer the questions truthfully, so while the information can be used to revoke the supervised release, the 5A right to silence was invoked by operation of law, meaning that the information cannot be used in a subsequent prosecution.
Remand for consideration of inevitable discovery exception.
Dissent:
Deft's invocation wasn't automatic, since his subjective belief wasn't reasonable in light of the prevailing law.
A registered holder of a compilation copyright holds copyright in the totality of the work, not merely as described in the registration.
The protectable expressionof a day-planner notebook consists of the arrangement of the graphic and literary elements that might themselves be protectable works of authorship.
The order, dimensions, and division of the elements, however, is an unprotectable idea -- the protectable expression is limited to the material protected under authorship and its actual layout on the page.
Evidence of actual copying and significant sales does not as a matter of law present a genuine issue of material fact on a Lanham Act claim of product design trade dress -- the question of secondary meaning requires an interpretationof the meaning of sales and the form of the dress.
Substantial evidence that pension contribution scehme was integrated into the CBA, the Board decision affirmed the ALJ, who drew a rate from an earlier form of the agreement, but the ALJ's determination was arguably not dispositive of the holding, and substantial evidence exists to the contrary.
Accepted appendix to CBA and a reference in the CBA incorporating an attachment were sufficient writings to permit the pension contributions under a stsatute requiring written agreements for such payements.
Employer practice consistent with the writings at the end of the CBA meant that those terms remained in force after the period of the CBA, so the diminution of contributions was an unfair labor practice.
Disssent:
Unsigned, undated standalone writing insufficient. ALJ implicitly made this determination in accepting the earlier rate.
Anticompetitive effects of a supplier's monopoly behaviour on downstream adjacent markets are beyond the reach of Sherman Act rule of reason analysis, as the relevant market is different.
Refusal to deal horizontally with another supplier is outside of S2 where there is no indication that the dealing was profitable for the deft, there was a valid business reason to end the dealing, and the refusal to deal wasn't targeted.
Absent intentional deception, breach of contract to deal horizontally with other suppliers doesn't create a monopoly harm unless a harm to competition - as opposed to competitors - is proved.
Patent royalty rates different than the current market value of the technology are not inherently anticompetitive under antitrust law.
As the products of the supplier's rivals inherently embody some of the packaged patents, the supplier's licensing of the downstream use of its terchnology within its rivals products is not an inherently anticompetitive surcharge on its rivals products. Subsequent low but non-predatory pricing of its own units is also not an inherently anticompetitive behaviour.
A supplier's requirement that a downstream manufacturer commit to a license for products both supplied by the supplier and its rivals does not distort the area of effective competition; any unfair pricing of the license sounds in patent law, not antitrust.
Even if the exclusive dealing contracts that the supplier claimed were merely volume contracts in fact substantially foreclosed competition in the relevant markets, past harms do not justify a prospective injunction. And there were no viable competitors at the time.
Substantial evidence for denial of alien's claim of persecution because of her family's access to money, since within the claimed group, access to money is a more important factor than the fact of the family relationship.
Female heads of household and vulnerable females are not cognizable groups subject to persecution within the foreign country.
Although the photographs of the mannequins in the possession of the deft wasn't inextricably interlinked with the crime, their admission was more probative than prejudicial.
Testimony on historical abuse was appropriately admitted to establish character or propensity to commit certain acts.
Hearsay evidence from prior police investigation appropriately cabined by limiting instruction.
CJ:
Denial of a motion to intervene as of right, or, in the alternative, permissively is sufficiently final for appellate review even when made without prejudice, and the court invites the potential intervenor to file a "standby" motion not formalized in the rules.
Risk of nullification of right held under permit to build lucrative electrical transmission line suffice for standing in case adjudicating the permit.
Where a regulatory agency is defending a permit that vests economic rights in a company, the shared interests are not sufficient for a higher threshhold of shared interests. For the intermediate threshhold, more is required than simply being in favor of the same outcome. As the company's rights of eminent domain and its interest in the pace of the project are outside the regulator's remit, the company is entitled to intervene as a matter of right under the intermediate standard.
Comparator evidence in Title VII claim was not legally insuffient for being descriptions of individual comparators rather than statistical analysis of the discovery data.
Manager who made the discriminatory adjudication decision need not have been involved in ending the employment of the plaintiff, or even the unwitting dupe of those who did. The sole question is whether the plaintiff lost his job due to his race.
Business judgment jury instruction distinguishing discrimination from business judgment calls was not required as a matter of law.
District court's exclusion of witnesses on a late-amended list did not have to be analyzed in terms of the rule for information otherwise available to the other party; the relevant information was that they were to testify, and the court could rule that the notice was too late.
No error in back pay, given mitigation; no error in punitive damages, even given the existece of written policies against discrimination; no error in denial of reinstatiment given facts.
No clear error in sentencing court's determination that, by a preponderance of the facts, a functioning gun was used in the commission of the robbery.
5A claim properly preserved despite not being raised below, since the theory was that the sentencing factor found by a preponderance took into consideration deft's lack of testimony about the possession of the firearm.
Deft's misrepresentations waived 5A protections.