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.
Even if made in a good faith belief in the validity of the claim, lawsuits and communications made to collect time-barred debts (and that do not acknowledge the lapsed time limit) are both unfair and misleading, and incur strict liability under the federal debt collection law. A mistake about the state law statute of limitations underlying the claim is a mistake of fact that might qualify as an exculpatory bona fide error under the federal law.
Where the meaning of the state statute is plain, categorical review of state criminal statute for purpose of immigration law does not require that the petitioner establish that there is a reasonable probability of prosecution for conduct falling within the state statute but not within the scope of its federal analogue.
The statute regulating time from indictment to trial cannot be tolled for general court congestion, even when the Judicial Conference has declared an emergency in that district. Remand to decide whether dismissal is with prejudice.
Anxiety is insufficient prejudice upon which to base a Sixth Amendment speedy trial claim.
Concurrence: Delay was due to counsel's last minute disclosures, not general congestion.
As there was no contemporaneous objection to the exclusion from statutory calculations, review should be for plain error.
(Not labelled a concurrence in judgment, but begins by explicitly agreeing with the relief and then setting forth different reasoning.)
Actionable refusal of settlement was within the terms of the policy as an act deemed wrongful by timely reporting, despite an earlier holding of the court that the act was ultimately not wrongful as defined by a separate exclusion within the policy.
As a claim is an assertion of an existing right, demands for damages and indemnification prior to the change in the law that created the right of recovery against the plaintiff were not considered claims under the policy.
Rise in tolls ultimately directed to state treasury rather than maintenance does not unconstitutionally burden interstate commerce, because the state is acting as a marketplace participant; at the time of the Founding, roads were largely private, and the state has a right to its revenues.
Disproportionate effect on interstate commerce was not established, and is irrelevant to the state's actions as market participant.
Given the proximity of the guns to the drugs in the deft's domain, sufficient evidence to establish a sentencing bump by a preponderance, despite acquittal on the drug trafficking charge.
Although the denial of compassionate release during the pandemic looked to commentary in the guidelines that applies only to motions by the government, it also individually considered the other appropriate factors, and the denial can be upheld on those grounds.
The modification to the Habeas statute requiring that the application be filed with the sentencing court is jurisdictional limit on the original statute.
Given the savings clause, the federal statute doesn't create field preemption.
Although employees can seek relief under state or federal statutes, the federal statute preempts any state tort claims within its scope.
Bivvens not extended to cover a federal agent's preventing the plaintiff from leaving a parking lot and then using excessive force to effect an unlawful seizure.
Court's order requiring an in-person appearance at arraignment is not subject to interlocutory review under the criminal collateral order rule.
Court's requirement that the deft secure housing within the district of the court was a reasonable amendment to the release conditions, given the deft's reluctance to travel during a time of pandemic disease. Due Process did not require a hearing, or a finding of a violation of the prior conditions.
Concur/dissent: a requirement to secure new housing four days before an arraignment with presumptive incarceration isn't ripe for review, as a subsequent release condition wouldn't be a modification but a new finding.
Dicta: Court did not sufficiently take into account administrative determination that in-person hearings presented a danger.
Federal officer removal was appropriate, because at the time of removal, there was a colorable claim that the government was specific and complete, the contractor could not deviate from it, and it was implemented under the direct supervision of the government, and the government had more comprehensive knowledge of the risk at issue than did the contractor.
Challenges to discovery orders must identify the crucial evidence that would otherwise have been obtained.
As the expert testimony claiming exposure to the substance prior to the enactment of the statutory exclusive remedy was derived from factual assumptions rather than actual evidence, the statute provides the sole remedy.
Communication with an employee of a represented corporate party whose statements might be imputed to the corporate party wasn't an abuse of discretion, but as fee-shifting isn't in the state's rules, imposing a monetary sanction would require a finding of either bad faith or willful disobedience of a court's order.
Clear error to exclude evidence in preliminary injunction hearing as hearsay following finding that the situation lacked sufficient urgency to justify admitting hearsay; in a preliminary injunction hearing, the hearsay nature of the evidence always goes to the weight of the evidence.
Clear error to exclude a category of evidence in a preliminary injunction hearing after determining that two documents of the type were unreliable, and another after being unable to determine the reliability of that type of evidence (latter harmless error). Everything in for appropriate weight.
For purposes of the obstruction statutes, a minor delay is not per se a reasonable obstruction; the court must still determine if the delay was a reasonable one.
Placement of signs on a sidewalk in a manner that does not functionally exclude access can still be an attempt to intimidate or obstruct within the terms of the statute, even if no pedestrians appear.
When a protester's actions necessitate that an escort step in front of the protected person, the protester has caused the physical obstruction defined in the statute.
Regardless of the consensual nature of the conversation, speaking to someone inside a vehicle through an open door or placing hands on the car while speaking impeded the car from driving away, and could be considered obstruction.
When taken in the context of recent local violence, and given the subjective fear that the listeners felt, stating that death might come at any time would objectively be taken as a true threat not protected by the First Amendment; similar statements conjoined with an exhortation to repent, or referencing disasters distinct from recent local violence present a different question.
As the decision to have an abortion involves a formidable and poignant process, protesters' seeking to force their ideals on patients approaching a facility creates an inference of intent to harass, annoy or alarm. An explicit or implicit request to be left alone dispels the legitimate intent of potential interlocutors.
Likely repetition of the violations of the statutes suffices to establish irreparable harm for the injunction.
In the interests of judicial economy, cross-appeal of non-movants' early motions not referenced in the memorandum denying the preliminary injunction are appropriately addressed in the appeal of the denial of the injunction under pendent jurisdiction.
Abortion facility speech limitations are content neutral, as they apply to every abortion facility in any context.
Statutes not void for vagueness, given general definitions in criminal code.
Municipal statute creating a cause of action for "any person" legitimizes a parens patriae action by the state in which the municipality is located; sufficient quasi-sovereign interest demonstrated here.
Concurrence:
Municipal statute is a state statute, since the municipality is a creation of the state; certifying the question to the state would be necessary to determine if the state could act parens patriae by its own statute.
Concur/Dissent:
General dissent as to not honoring the determinations of the finder of fact.
Since the cause of action doesn't list government bodies and the rest of the code generally does, and the statute designates a specific enforcement entity with power to seek an injunction, the state does not have parens patriae standing.
Courts are permitted to consider hearsay in a preliminary injunction hearing; they are not required to do so.
Statute's restriction on making access unreasonably difficult or dangerous explicitly excludes de minimis interference. Concluding otherwise impermissibly burdens speech.
Finder of fact held that a reasonable observer familiar with the speaker's preaching would not have interpreted the statements about impending death as true threats.
Irreparable harm finding requires ongoing plans and activities.
Completing a form to report tax noncompliance under a statute that authorizes the payment to the reporter of the portion of the monies recovered does not create an enforceable contract with the government; a contract arises only if the reporter and the government specifically negotiate its terms.
Appeal sufficiently indicated its scope despite not mentioning the collateral order at issue; additionally, defts did not suffer prejudice by the omission.
Reasonable finder of fact could have determined that the use of force to trip up a suspect while holding his arms was a use of excessive force under the Fourth Amendment.
Circuit precedent on the right to be free of nontrivial force when engaging in passive resistance sufficiently clearly established.
Sufficient evidence for a reasonable finder of fact to conclude that the deft sold the drugs that caused the death, although the trace amounts found afterward were of the mixture's component parts.
As the executive had access to the financials, exercised purchasing authority, and ran the day-to-day operations, evidence was sufficient for a finding of willful blindness as to the representations; also, the willful blindness instruction was appropriate.
Indictment alleging two codefts engaged in conspiracy and wire fraud was not constructively amended by a theory of the case that the offenses were committed with others as opposed to each other, since the text of the law refers to a single defendant.
No clear error in the court's refusal to give an explicit unanimity instruction, or in not explicitly defining the scienter alternatives to willful blindness.
Court's not polling the jury can't be raised on appeal when explicitly waived at trial.
Requests for expenses in the current litigation did not amount to a false statement of monies owed under the federal debt collection act.
Lawsuit that didn't meet the evidentiary burden for establishing the assignment of claims didn't offend the federal debt collection act.
Nicole Smith v. Stewart, Zlimen & Jungers, Ltd
(8th continues its run on "Cleaned Up," with five uses in 12 pages.)
Where a past admission against interest can't be rebutted due to a discovery sanction against the speaker, the statement must be taken at face value.
As the validity of the assignment of the interest hinged on the application of foreign law, a motion to consider foreign law in the proceeding was untimely when made at the summary judgement stage.
Agent testimony sufficient to establish by a preponderance that the deft committed bank robberies during supervised release; within-guidelines sentence wasn't an abuse of discretion.