Administrative, Arbitration
Statutory time period for arbitration is a housekeeping rule, not a jurisdictional limit on the scope of arbitrablility of claim.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-3032.Opinion.1-12-2016.1.PDF
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.
Ninth Circuit: USA v. Estate of Wayne Hage
Property, Administrative
Water rights merely alow for access to divert the water - there are no appurtenant grazing rights implied as an easement of necessity.
Filing of government suit is not a final agency decision subject to review under the APA.
Reassigned on remand.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/15/13-16974.pdf
Water rights merely alow for access to divert the water - there are no appurtenant grazing rights implied as an easement of necessity.
Filing of government suit is not a final agency decision subject to review under the APA.
Reassigned on remand.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/15/13-16974.pdf
Eighth Circuit: United States v. Justin Janis
Tribe Law, Agency
While tribal police, as a class, are considered federal employees as a matter of law, as they are enforcing order pursuant to a contract with the BIA, the question of whether any person is acting as a tribal officer is a question of fact to be resolved at trial.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/143888P.pdf
While tribal police, as a class, are considered federal employees as a matter of law, as they are enforcing order pursuant to a contract with the BIA, the question of whether any person is acting as a tribal officer is a question of fact to be resolved at trial.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/143888P.pdf
Eighth Circuit: Shane Bailey v. Don Feltmann
S1983 - DP/4A
No error in grant of qualified immunity on claim of unconscionable delay in medical treatment, as there was no clearly established right under the Fourth Amendment or Due Process.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/143859P.pdf
No error in grant of qualified immunity on claim of unconscionable delay in medical treatment, as there was no clearly established right under the Fourth Amendment or Due Process.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/143859P.pdf
Eighth Circuit: Inoel Gonzalez Cano v. Loretta E. Lynch
Immigration
Sufficient evidence for agency finding that petitioner's social group was too ill-defined to warrant relief.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/143730P.pdf
Sufficient evidence for agency finding that petitioner's social group was too ill-defined to warrant relief.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/143730P.pdf
Seventh Circuit: Kelly Sonnenberg v. Amaya Group Holdings (IOM) Ltd
Statutory Construction
Anti-gambling statute does not have an implied cause of action for third parties to recover gambling losses from websites that hosted the game, but that were not the winning parties in the game.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-15/C:15-1887:J:Posner:aut:T:fnOp:N:1688160:S:0
Anti-gambling statute does not have an implied cause of action for third parties to recover gambling losses from websites that hosted the game, but that were not the winning parties in the game.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-15/C:15-1887:J:Posner:aut:T:fnOp:N:1688160:S:0
Fourth Circuit: Philip McFarland v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Contracts
Under state law, lack of a showing on substantive unconscionability of the agreement does not bar a finding of unconscionable inducement.
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/142126.P.pdf
Under state law, lack of a showing on substantive unconscionability of the agreement does not bar a finding of unconscionable inducement.
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/142126.P.pdf
Third Circuit: In Re Trump Entertainment Resorts
Labor / Bankruptcy
The Bankruptcy Code provisions referencing CBAs apply to the terms of the prior CBA left in place after the end of a prior CBA -- the District Court therefore had jurisdiction under the Code to allow modification of the terms of the agreement, subject to the close scrutiny of the court.
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/144807p.pdf
The Bankruptcy Code provisions referencing CBAs apply to the terms of the prior CBA left in place after the end of a prior CBA -- the District Court therefore had jurisdiction under the Code to allow modification of the terms of the agreement, subject to the close scrutiny of the court.
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/144807p.pdf
Federal Circuit: McCarthy v. MSPB
Administrative
Denial of motion to reopen a case when issued in the form of a letter is sufficiently final for review when the motion is based on an intervening change in the substantive law.
Where the statute gives the board the task of reopening a case, the decision of the board is subject to APA review.
As complaint phased the substantive issues but not the legal ones, insufficient exhaustion of administrative remedies.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-3072.Opinion.1-12-2016.1.PDF
Denial of motion to reopen a case when issued in the form of a letter is sufficiently final for review when the motion is based on an intervening change in the substantive law.
Where the statute gives the board the task of reopening a case, the decision of the board is subject to APA review.
As complaint phased the substantive issues but not the legal ones, insufficient exhaustion of administrative remedies.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-3072.Opinion.1-12-2016.1.PDF
Federal Circuit: Hymas v. US
Administrative
Cooperative agreements were initiated under permissible agency rulemaking and are therefore not procurement contracts subject to Tucker Act jurisdiction.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/14-5150.Opinion.1-12-2016.1.PDF
Cooperative agreements were initiated under permissible agency rulemaking and are therefore not procurement contracts subject to Tucker Act jurisdiction.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/14-5150.Opinion.1-12-2016.1.PDF
DC Circuit: R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Administrative
Summary judgment based on appointment of committee members with conflicts of interests was error, as the claimed harms were too remote and speculative -- there was no proof that the committee's report would prompt an eventual rulemaking, no proof of confidential disclosures, and no evidence of inappropriate shaping of the committee's report.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/4535A54A84790EC685257F3B0054CC05/$file/14-5226-1593800.pdf
Summary judgment based on appointment of committee members with conflicts of interests was error, as the claimed harms were too remote and speculative -- there was no proof that the committee's report would prompt an eventual rulemaking, no proof of confidential disclosures, and no evidence of inappropriate shaping of the committee's report.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/4535A54A84790EC685257F3B0054CC05/$file/14-5226-1593800.pdf
DC Circuit: National Security Counselors v. CIA
Fees
A bona fide corporation with an identity distinct from that of the natural person who represents it in court is eligible for fee-shifting provisions of FOIA. In house counsel presumptively distinct from corporation, despite close involvement and personal commitment.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/EBD08628AB46B5D185257F3B0054CBEF/$file/14-5171-1593790.pdf
A bona fide corporation with an identity distinct from that of the natural person who represents it in court is eligible for fee-shifting provisions of FOIA. In house counsel presumptively distinct from corporation, despite close involvement and personal commitment.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/EBD08628AB46B5D185257F3B0054CBEF/$file/14-5171-1593790.pdf
DC Circuit: Silverado Stages, Inc. v. FMCSA
Administrative
Challenge to mechanics of system for challenging material in online database insufficiently developed for review.
Auer deference to agency exempting database from regulatory process.
Notice and comment challenge to findings of safety violations waived here for not being raised in District court.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/6F8CBD8F8930A7CB85257F3B0054CBD0/$file/14-1298-1593796.pdf
Challenge to mechanics of system for challenging material in online database insufficiently developed for review.
Auer deference to agency exempting database from regulatory process.
Notice and comment challenge to findings of safety violations waived here for not being raised in District court.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/6F8CBD8F8930A7CB85257F3B0054CBD0/$file/14-1298-1593796.pdf
Ninth Circuit: Elton Mendoza Rizo v. Loretta E. Lynch
Immigration / Administrative
Remand to IJ doesn't make case insufficiently final for review, as IJ's remit is to provide for the possibility of voluntary departure.
Petitioner insufficiently developed claims against denial of asylum -- insufficient exhaustion.
No constitutional harm in aggressive questioning by IJ.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/14/13-74216.pdf
Remand to IJ doesn't make case insufficiently final for review, as IJ's remit is to provide for the possibility of voluntary departure.
Petitioner insufficiently developed claims against denial of asylum -- insufficient exhaustion.
No constitutional harm in aggressive questioning by IJ.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/14/13-74216.pdf
Ninth Circuit: Steve Klein v. City of Laguna Beach
S1983, Fees
Error to deny fees for S1983 action, as although nominal claims were awarded in a suit seeking compensatory damages, the primary goal of the suit was to change government policy.
No error in denial of fees under state statute, as the other party prevailed on the state law claims.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/14/13-56973.pdf
Error to deny fees for S1983 action, as although nominal claims were awarded in a suit seeking compensatory damages, the primary goal of the suit was to change government policy.
No error in denial of fees under state statute, as the other party prevailed on the state law claims.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/14/13-56973.pdf
Ninth Circuit: USA v. Christopher James
Statutory construction, Crim
Federal statute does not import state standards for the ability to consent -- fundamentally a decision for the jury.
Dissent: (Koz) No ambiguity in statute.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/14/13-10543.pdf
Federal statute does not import state standards for the ability to consent -- fundamentally a decision for the jury.
Dissent: (Koz) No ambiguity in statute.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/14/13-10543.pdf
Ninth Circuit: Grand Jury Investigation
At this hour, the Ninth has posted an opinion and an order appearing to revoke that opinion for redaction. As other cases have been posted since, we'll just link without comment to both the opinion and the order.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/14/15-50450o.pdf
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/01/14/15-50450.pdf
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/14/15-50450o.pdf
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/01/14/15-50450.pdf
Ninth Circuit: USA v. Mark Spengler
White collar, FRE
Deft can challenge exclusion of expert on appeal, even if deft didn't offer any witnesses at trial.
Exclusion of expert under Daubert/6A upheld, as even if investments were ultimately prudent, deft thought his acts fraudulent at the time.
Prosc witnesses' references to deft as fiduciary did not mislead jury.
No error in court not striking count from superseding indictment, despite the improper citation of statute and omission of willfulness element, as willfulness was alleged broadly in the indictment.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/15/14-30042.pdf
Deft can challenge exclusion of expert on appeal, even if deft didn't offer any witnesses at trial.
Exclusion of expert under Daubert/6A upheld, as even if investments were ultimately prudent, deft thought his acts fraudulent at the time.
Prosc witnesses' references to deft as fiduciary did not mislead jury.
No error in court not striking count from superseding indictment, despite the improper citation of statute and omission of willfulness element, as willfulness was alleged broadly in the indictment.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/15/14-30042.pdf
Ninth Circuit: Mike McGee v. China Electric Motor
Securities, Fees
No error in district court's use of lodestar as opposed to percentage of fund, but the lodestar analysis was insufficiently explained.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/15/13-56903.pdf
No error in district court's use of lodestar as opposed to percentage of fund, but the lodestar analysis was insufficiently explained.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/15/13-56903.pdf
Ninth Circuit: Steven Fue v. Marin Biter
Habeas, AEDPA
No error in denial of equitable tolling of AEDPA limit, as petitioner didn't inquire into status of state habeas for fourteen months.
Dissent: State didn't notify, policy reasons against new rule.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/15/12-55307.pdf
No error in denial of equitable tolling of AEDPA limit, as petitioner didn't inquire into status of state habeas for fourteen months.
Dissent: State didn't notify, policy reasons against new rule.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/15/12-55307.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)