Second Circuit: Kevin Flood, et al. v. Just Energy Marketing Group, et al.

To qualify for the Travelling Salesman exception to the Act, the  work of the employee must be closing sales.   The fact that the company could ultimately decline to ratify the deal and proceed with the transaction is irrelevant to this consideration, as the salesman's task is to get the customer's consent to the transaction.

Court did not err or abuse discretion in refusing offensive collateral estoppel against the insurer for litigating the opposite view in another form, as the two contract interpretations are not precisely identical, and not all claims have yet been litigated to their conclusion. 

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/85b366f3-f243-43e5-81c8-b4640a784328/3/doc/17-546_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/85b366f3-f243-43e5-81c8-b4640a784328/3/hilite/                                                                                  

Second Circuit: Munoz-Gonzalez, et al. v. D.L.C. Limousine Serv.

From the plain meaning of the statute, black cars are taxis.

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/85b366f3-f243-43e5-81c8-b4640a784328/2/doc/17-2438_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/85b366f3-f243-43e5-81c8-b4640a784328/2/hilite/

Second Circuit: Hartford Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp. v. Interstate Fire & Cas. Co.

The term "occurrence" in the policy generally signifies an unexpected event; under state law, except for some strict liability events, the test is actual subjective expectation, not that which a reasonable person would expect.

The challenging of claims by the insurer did not violate state trade practice laws. 

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/85b366f3-f243-43e5-81c8-b4640a784328/1/doc/16-2999_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/85b366f3-f243-43e5-81c8-b4640a784328/1/hilite/

Others

http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0205p-06.pdf

http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0206p-06.pdf

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/09/18/17-30061.pdf

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/09/18/16-50439.pdf

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/09/18/16-17347.pdf

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/09/18/15-15791.pdf

https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/17/17-3119.pdf

http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201710189.pdf

http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201710189.pdf

http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201712091.pdf

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/8AE80A6C0FBDFB7B8525830C004D863A/$file/16-1159-1751123.pdf

Fifth Circuit: George Alvarez v. City of Brownsville

Insufficient connection between municipality's policies and the withholding of the evidence in this case; placing sole discretion in a single officer does not amount to deliberate indifference, and the officer's conduct was no worse than negligent.

Deft did not have a constitutional right to pre-plea-deal disclosure of exculpatory evidence in the possession of the government.  

Concurrence: Federal District Court had obligation to allow challenges to potentially doctored pieces of evidence.

Concurrence: Brady is a trial right, waiveable at plea stage.

Dissent: Constitutional right.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/16/16-40772-CR2.pdf

Third Circuit: K. D. v. Downingtown Area School District

Student's free and appropriate public education was sufficient, since the student made reasonable progress, and there is no requirement that educational goals for disabled students ensure that they advance normally with their age cohort.

http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/173065p.pdf

Second Circuit: United States of America v. St. Juste (Paul)

Since the videotape of crime leaves no doubt as to what occurred, error for sentencing court to have held that the deft restrained the victims during the commission  of the crime.

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/ebd08708-88fc-4318-b2eb-94e7493863f0/2/doc/17-2702_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/ebd08708-88fc-4318-b2eb-94e7493863f0/2/hilite/

Second Circuit: United States v. Washington

Consent to polygraph testing as a condition of supervised release is onerous and not invariably part of similar sentences; the addition of the requirement in the written sentence after omitting it in the spoken sentence was therefore an impermissible modification. 

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/ebd08708-88fc-4318-b2eb-94e7493863f0/1/doc/17-2841_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/ebd08708-88fc-4318-b2eb-94e7493863f0/1/hilite/

First Circuit: US v. Pineda Mateo

In conspiracy prosecutions, the government cannot compel the testimony of a co-conspirator spouse.

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-1857P-01A.pdf

First Circuit: US v. Garcia-Ortiz (Corr.)

On page 17, line 4, the word "concurrent" is replaced with "consecutive." 

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/16-1405E-01A.pdf

Federal Circuit: Dupont v. Synvina

A party asserting right of statutory appeal from the patent board doesn't have to establish specific threat of infringement litigation; rather, for standing, a party must establish a controversy of sufficient immediacy and reality.  A competitor's concrete plans for present and future activity that presents a risk of infringement suffice to establish standing.

Given range disclosed in prior art, presumption of obviousness insufficiently rebutted.

http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/17-1977.Opinion.9-17-2018.pdf

Tenth Circuit: Smith v. Aldridge

State habeas determination that a judge's statement claiming that the jury was zealously watched was more credible than five juror affidavits asserting the jurors slept during the trial was not an unreasonable determination of the facts.

https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/17/17-6149.pdf

Ninth Circuit: Nunies v. HIE Holdings

Under the discrimination statute, the minor nature of an actual or perceived injury is an affirmative defense, and the burden to establish this subjective belief or actual condition is on the employer.

Plaintiff employee's claim that work was impossible with the injury sufficed to establish that a major life activity was impossible with the injury.

State statute's assertion that it is the sole remedy does not foreclose a claim under federal law.

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/09/17/16-16494.pdf

Casey Taylor v. Burlington North R.R.

Certified question & bench memo.

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/09/17/16-35205.pdf

Seventh Circuit: Patrick Hrobowski v. USA

As petitioner was sentenced according to four predicate offenses, two of which were facially infirm, a subsequent change in the law enabling a challenge to the other two predicates that was ultimately successful as to one of them does not allow a late challenge to the two infirm predicates.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D09-17/C:16-3549:J:Kanne:aut:T:fnOp:N:2219599:S:0

Seventh Circuit: Raul Perez-Gonzalez v. Jacqueline Lashbrook

State habeas determination that petitioner's plea deal did not implicitly waive the state's power to seek contempt sanctions for noncompliance was not an unreasonable determination of the facts or application of facts to law.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D09-17/C:18-1480:J:Brennan:aut:T:fnOp:N:2219305:S:0

Sixth Circuit: United States v. Joshua Pyles

As the arrest warrant for the owner of the car would have justified the stop if there had been a reasonable probability that she was in the car, police officer's initial statement that one passenger's gender was not clear suffices; later testimony that the officer believed all the passengers to be men is not sufficient contradiction to discount the narrative.

Sentencing court's taciturnity as to mental health factors did not rise to the level of procedural error.

Upward variance for criminal history was not an abuse of discretion.

http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0204p-06.pdf

Sixth Circuit: United States v. Tyrone Christian

En banc order.

http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0203p-06.pdf

Fifth Circuit: Angela Roberson-King v. State of LA Workforce Cmsn

State law claim must be brought under the law granting the specific cause of action, as opposed to the more procedurally lenient general tort recovery statute.

Discrimination claim under the federal statute does not present an issue for trial when the candidate who actually got the promotion and the plaintiff are equally qualified; the business judgment of the employer is a sufficiently non-pretextual race-neutral justification.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-30899-CV0.pdf

First Circuit: US v. Russell

Where a juror omits information on a written questionnaire, and that information presents a valid basis for challenge for cause, waiver is not presumed when counsel do not question the unfinished written reply at voir dire; the juror misconduct is structural error when it results in the vote of a single potentially biased juror.

Juror's lack of disclosure of de minimis contact with witness whose credibility was not at issue was sufficiently investigated by a single consultation with witness; the juror did not have to be recalled.

Drug quantities appropriately established by amounts of fertilizer purchases.

Potential juror's dozing off was sufficient neutral reason to avoid Batson challenge.

Preemptively testifying to prior convictions on direct waives appeal against admission of the convictions.

Potentially improper statements in prosecution's closing were isolated and minor comments in a much larger web of evidence.

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/16-2386P-01A.pdf