Federal Circuit: VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation

Substantial evidence for finding of infringement. In determining similar function under the doctrine of equivalents, schematic diagrams of functions are less important than actual function-location maps, in addition to the determination of whether the differences in the allocations of functionalities are substantial.  Abuse of discretion to base the damages calculation on the results of a scientific test that considered both infringing and non-infringing functions.

Denial of motion to amend the answer was an abuse of discretion given diligent pursuit of claim, and given that the question of whether affiliates are bound by a contract under the state law identified in the contract is not a black-letter rule, and would require further development.

VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation

Federal Circuit: Saha Thai Steel Pipe Company Limited v. US

 Amendment to the statute allowing for a corrective methodology in calculating the constructed value of an item given a particular market situation cannot be applied by the agency to the parallel calculation of the cost of production, which is used to determine if a product is being sold at less than cost.

Saha Thai Steel Pipe Company Limited v. US

Tenth Circuit: Hampton v. Utah Department of Corrections

 A preexisting disability-neutral list of approved firearms for correctional peace officers cannot be the sole basis for denying a disability-related request to use another type of firearm. The request was plausible and facially reasonable.

Claim of instructions to delay accommodation requests until after initial probationary period does not present an issue for trial as to the existence of a discriminatory policy. A claim that accommodation requests "generally filter up" to the decisionmaker does not, standing alone, present a genuine issue for trial as to whether the decisionmaker was aware of the request.

Court did not abuse discretion in refusing to allow plaintiff to testify about the disability as an expert, given lack of proof of reliable scientific methodology.  

Hampton v. Utah Department of Corrections

Ninth Circuit: Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v. Deb Haaland et al.

 A claim of actual water savings elsewhere to offset water taken from a river under the Act must be established with reasonable certainty. An effect is reasonably certain if it is established by clear and substantial information, rather than speculation and conjecture. Reserving certain lands is insufficient absent proof that those lands would otherwise be used for agriculture.

Scientific proof that the species is an opportunistic forager provides sufficient evidence for the determination that its members are likely to migrate after the reduction in water levels. The distance a snake might travel away from a river is fundamentally different than the distance that a snake might travel along a river. Agency's determination of minimal impact to species not arbitrary and capricious. 

CONCURRENCE:

As the agency's determination doesn't meet the simple criterion of "likely," the standard of "reasonable certainty" is dicta.

Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v. Deb Haaland et al.

Ninth Circuit: Jaime Charboneau v. Tyrell Davis et al.

 In a second or successive Habeas petition, the clear and convincing proof of actual innocence must have a direct nexus to the facts underlying the claim of the constitutional violation, and it examines all of the evidence in the record available to the reviewing court, without regard to admissibility.  

The facts from the earlier findings that are to be taken to be true are not the ultimate determinations, but the evidentiary proffers underlying the claims; a presumption of correctness is attributed to findings of authenticity.  A letter held to be a copy of an unavailable original is sufficiently established as to authorship, but may be questioned for probity and reliability.  

Where the circumstances of the newly discovered evidence credibly suggest the petitioner's involvement in forgery, a rational factfinder might reasonably weigh the consciousness of guilt suggested by the events in determining the reliability and probity of the evidence.  

Jaime Charboneau v. Tyrell Davis et al.

Eighth Circuit: United States v. Juanita White Shield

 Court did not abuse discretion in denying mistrial where a witness referred more than once to the deft being on probation.  Evidence of guilt was more than ample, and a limiting instruction sufficed.  

Where a court waives interest for a monetary penalty in the delivered judgment, but this term is omitted from the written judgment, the delivered version controls.

United States  v.  Juanita White Shield

Eighth Circuit: Saul Aguilar-Sanchez v. Merrick Garland

 Where the proposed generic federal definition of the crime includes a mens rea element of desire or gratification, a state statute requiring the intent to hire someone for those purposes has sufficiently similar scienter.  State decision that an incidental harassing solicitation of passerby demonstrated sufficient intent for a parallel statute did not make the state statute's reach broader than that of the federal crime.

Saul Aguilar-Sanchez  v.  Merrick Garland

Sixth Circuit: Marlean Ames v. Ohio Dep't of Youth Servs

 Plaintiff's own circumstances insufficient to establish a pattern of discrimination, and when combined with the fact that the decisionmakers for the allegedly discriminatory employment decision are members of the same majority classification, is insufficient to establish the background circumstances required to find that a member of a majority classification was discriminated against.

Sufficient evidence for the nondiscriminatory explanation.  Having several nondiscriminatory reasons advanced for the decision after the fact is insufficient to establish pretext if the reasons don't contradict. 

Marlean Ames v. Ohio Dep't of Youth Servs

Sixth Circuit: Island Creek Coal Co. v. Elizabeth Maynard

 Sufficient evidence for the ALJ to have discounted the medical opinions as conclusory and disagreeing with the specific disability criterion rather than refuting it.

Materials filed with the Board cannot be incorporated by reference in an Article III appeal.  Sufficient evidence for the ALJ to find that the disability met the legal threshold, even absent proof that it met a clinical threshold.

Island Creek Coal Co. v. Elizabeth Maynard

Sixth Circuit: United States v. James Wilder, II

 No plain error in admission of testimony on competence of police officer in identifying a firearm, where a prejudicial inference might have existed that firearms were common in the area.

Rational factfinder could have found that the deft's statements were a substantial step towards witness tampering, distinct from solicitation, in that they counseled, commanded, or induced someone to engage in the practice.

Represented deft's pro se motions by letter separate from attorney's filing not considered. 

United States v. James Wilder, II

Fifth Circuit: USA v. Robinson

 Sufficient evidence for the jury to have disbelieved the witness' recantation.  Sufficient evidence for the federal obstruction charge where the prompting was procedurally about a separate state investigation, but dealt in substance with the set of events that became a federal matter.

Absent specific briefing, body camera footage outside of the portion agreed to be admissible as a prior statement of identification isn't coherent enough for appellate review as to specific statements. Admission not substantial injury and cumulative in nature with respect to admissible evidence.  Portions of phone calls admitted for context with admissible portions of the call, but without a limiting instruction, were harmless error, as they were cumulative with admissible statements elsewhere. Deft did not identify portions of the record that would justify a prior-inconsistent-statements instruction. Closing remarks were not improper, as they accurately characterized the victims as vulnerable, the invocation of justice was not calculated to inflame, inferences were appropriately made from the evidence, and the court appropriately limited the influence of the lawyers' opinions in the closing instruction.

Plain error where the court indicated that it might be bound by the earlier sentencing judge's order that the sentence for revocation of supervised release run consecutively with the subsequent sentence for the second offense.  

USA v. Robinson

Fifth Circuit: Robinson v. Lopinto

 Absent a showing as to an increased ability to afford the bail, Habeas is unavailable where at least one of the counts subject to retrial isn't affected by the claim seeking the writ; the pretrial detention would be justified under the single count.

Robinson v. Lopinto

Fifth Circuit: Marquette Trans v. Navigation Mrtm

 Although the appellant LLC did not sufficiently establish diversity jurisdiction by pleading the citizenship of all of it members, the fact that its claims sound in admiralty is sufficient for appellate jurisdiction, and the pleading should be amended on remand.

As state harbor pilotage regulation is a statutory exception to the general preemption of admiralty, the higher burden of proof under state law is not preempted by the preponderance standard of admiralty.

The pretrial objection to the admission of the evidence sufficiently preserved the issue for appeal; the argument in a separate pretrial motion that the evidence was inadmissible as summary evidence did not. Challenge to the admission of the accident reconstruction was harmless, as there was ultimately no claim that it was inaccurate or unreliable,

Motion to strike the jury demand for lack of the amount in controversy and an implied consent to proceed in admiralty doesn't preserve for appeal a claim that the jury trial was error because of lack of diversity.  Also no showing of harm or constitutional violation.

Challenge to jury finding of lack of negligence and award of damages was forfeited for lack of a post-judgment motion for judgment as a matter of law.  Evidence was sufficient, even under the higher standard of proof.

Court appropriately limited expert testimony.

Marquette Trans v. Navigation Mrtm

First Circuit: Gibson Foundation, Inc. v. Norris

 As a reasonable finder of fact could determine that the agreement to keep the piano in the warehouse was a consensual agreement that ultimately benefitted both parties, and under state law, claims regarding bailments can be subject to either the contract-claim or tort-claim statute of limitations, there exists an issue for trial as to whether the shorter limitation term applies.

Possession is sufficient for rebuttable proof of ownership at the time of the creation of the bailment; ownership, and therefore the validity of the bailment, therefore presents a genuine issue of material fact for trial.

A reasonable juror could find that the acceptance of the piano created an enforceable contract, as the owner of the piano saved storage costs, making for sufficient consideration. The term of the contract need not have been definite; possessing it until it was requested by the owner would be sufficient.

Genuine issue for trial as to ownership, given corporate succession beforehand; employee's statement that the piano would be "all yours" if picked up states a claim for transfer of ownership.

 Gibson Foundation, Inc. v. Norris

DC Circuit: James Blassingame v. Donald Trump

 An incumbent campaigning to retain their present office is not carrying out the duties of the office.  A President's speech on matters of public concern is not invariably an official function. Motion to the contrary can be made at summary judgment after development of facts supporting the claim.

The President attempted to alter the declared election results by various means.  

The President has official immunity for all acts within the outer perimeter of official presidential responsibility, including discretionary acts within a concept of duty associated with the office. An action's unlawful nature or inappropriate purpose does not move it past this outer perimeter.    

Actions taken in a plainly and purely unofficial context could be included in a test identifying matters of public concern. Inquiry into public/private capacity is distinct from this. An incumbent seeks re-election in a private capacity. Inquiry into capacity is objective and context-specific; if the inquiry yields no clear answer, the conduct is immune.

Claim under the "Take Care" clause presumes official capacity rather than establishes it. 

Structural separation of powers claim for lack of immunity actually establishes the contrary, as it's Executive action.  E.g., Steel Seizure cases.

First Amendment/incitement is a distinct calculus -- would afford protection when least needed, and vice versa.

Deft. has a right to develop the record for purposes of immunity prior to merits stage, as the immunity is immunity from suit.

CONCURRENCE:

Motive inquiry is intrusive.  Objective reading of content could mislead. Speech clothed in the trappings of the office generally immune.

PARTIAL CONCURRENCE:

Scope of the interlocutory analysis appropriately limited to the denial of absolute immunity as claimed, rather than setting out a calculus for the determination of context-specific immunity.  

James Blassingame v. Donald Trump

Ninth Circuit: Jigar Barabaria, et al. v. Antony Blinken et al.

 Denial of the temporary restraining order was appealable, given notice to parties, the fact that it was tantamount to the denial of a preliminary injunction, and the fact that it essentially decided the merits of the action.

Where the statute governing adjudication of status refers to availability of visas at the time of filing, but is silent as to availability at the time of adjudication, administrative rule requiring availability at adjudication is a reasonable construction of the statute. 

Jigar Barabaria, et al. v. Antony Blinken et al.

Eighth Circuit: Ind.-Alliance Party of Minn. v. Steve Simon

 Associational burden of a petition oath swearing to the lack of present intent to vote in a primary election for the contest in question is an insubstantial, and there are policy arguments in favor.  Those signing are presumed to know the law, and therefore that the lack of present intent to do so doesn't keep them from actually voting in the primary--the deterrent effect as to the associational burden on the petition signing isn't to be considered under per se/strict scrutiny.

Ind.-Alliance Party of Minn.  v.  Steve Simon

Fifth Circuit: USA v. Abbott

 Given documentary evidence, treaty claims, and the fact that the Supreme Court has taken judicial notice of the fact, there was no clear error in holding that the Rio Grande is a navigable river in Texas.  Navigability can include ferry traffic across the river.

No clear error in the District Court's holding that the floating obstruction devices tended to interfere with or diminish the navigable aspects of the river.  Structures were sufficiently permanent to come with the scope of the Act.

The constitutional gravity of a state's declaration of invasion and decision to mount an independent defense is inapposite to a motion for a preliminary injunction.  Court appropriately considered policy considerations when balancing equities.

DISSENT:

No showing that this segment of the river was historically navigable. Statutes and treaties precautionary and precatory, respectively.  Use of the river must have been more than sporadic, ineffective, and exceptional.  Out of context quote from the Supreme Court doesn't outweigh Texas geography.  Injunction directs the moving of the barrier, so the diplomatic harms aren't redressable.  Balance of equities favors the state. Allowing certain newspaper articles in under judicial notice was error.

USA v. Abbott

Fifth Circuit: USA v. Croft

 Listing qualified staff members who never showed up to work for purposes of a certification by a state agency was a violation of the identity theft statute, as the misrepresentation was at the crux of the fraud.

CONCURRENCE:

("Dubitante") The fraudulent aspect wasn't in the identities of the staff members, but in their qualifications.

USA v. Croft

Fourth Circuit: US v. Brent Brewbaker

Motion to shift the ground from per se violation to rule of reason was properly construed as a motion to dismiss the indictment, as it would have been an impermissible constructive amendment of the indictment.

Where two parties are alleged to have engaged in bid-rigging, and also relate vertically as supplier and contractor for awarded bids, the alleged conduct isn't an inherently anticompetitive restraint on trade subject to per se analysis.  Precedent requires that the companies be considered in their totality, so the horizontal bid-rigging isn't separable from the supply relationship.

Expert testimony as to the anticompetitive effects of the business practices should not have been excluded when considering a (constructive) motion to dismiss.

By ensuring that their competitor/distributor won the bidding war, the bidder could increase the demand for the supplier's product.

Fraud convictions for submitting a noncompetitive bid were not infected by the Sherman Act instructions reversed here.

US v. Brent Brewbaker