Arzuaga v. Quiros, Faucher, Cieboter, et al. -- Prisoner law - Where a petitoner received back SSA payments, it is not a cause for revocation of IFP (pauper) status, as they cannot access these finds while incarcerated; IFP does not require prisoner to exhaust all personal resources in costs of the appeals.
Amanda Smith v. R. Ray S1983 - Denial of qualified immunity upheld, as excessive force need not be on all fours with that described in precedent to be clearly prohibited by the Constitution; tackling the suspect in response to an innocent question was too much.
Bonnilyn Mascio v. Carolyn Colvin -- SSI/Administrative Law - ALJ erred in not specifically defining the other work that the petitioner was capable of; There is no per se rule for remand in these cases, but remand should be ordered where the ALJ's analysis sufficiently frustrates appellate review.
US v. Xavier Lymas -- Sentencing - Court committed procedural error in not sufficiently explaining its reasons for the departure from Guidelines where it simply believed that the Guidelines didn't effectuate goals of sentencing, even in a 'mine run' case.
Wendy Davis, et al v. Rick Perry, et al -- Election Law/ Fee Shifting: Where a district during the pendency of a challenge adopts the court-authorized plan, the plaintiff is not necessarily entitled to fees where the specific challenges raised by the suit are not remedied in the plan.
USA v. Justin Ortiz -- Fourth Amendment: Given that the deft was told that he was free to leave, the stop was noncustodial, and no Miranda warning was needed prior to the admissions. Dissent: when they went into the government's car, things changed.
Elizabeth Goodwin v. City of Painesville -- S1983: Denial of Qualified Immunity in tasering case.
Lexon Insurance Co. v. Aziz Naser --- FRCP/ K -- Appeals clock ran from entry of amended judgment, not the simple ruling on the Rule 59(a) motion; as the Officer of the Corporation signed the instrument twice, once in personal capacity, once in corporate.
USA v. Raymond Burch, Jr. -- FRCP - When challenging a post-judgment ancillary order allowing a party additional time to file a motion, a motion to dismiss does not reach the question -- there must be a cross-appeal of the ancillary order.
Eighth Circuit (Summaries from Circuit):
133265P.pdf 03/20/2015 Karl Adams v. ActionLink U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 13-3265 and No: 13-3380 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock [PUBLISHED] [Melloy, Author, with Benton and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Fair Labor Standards Act. The district court did not err in determining that certain of defendant's employees were non-exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act as they performed non-exempt promotional work for the company to stimulate sales that would be made by someone else and were not, themselves, outside salesman for FLSA purposes; nor were they administrative employees as they did not meet the tests for administrative employees established in 29 C.F.R. Sec. 541.200; the district court erred in determining that one group of the employee plaintiffs had waived their right to pursue additional claims against defendant by cashing proposed settlement checks; the court joins other courts which have held that the plain language of 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(c) requires an agreement by the employee to accept a certain amount of back wages and requires the employer to pay those wages; this involves more than simply tendering a check and having the employee cash it, as an agreement must exist independently of the payment; here, the language on the checks was insufficient as a matter of law to constitute proper notice to the employees and did not serve as a release of their rights.141595P.pdf 03/20/2015 Tri-National, Inc. v. Canal Insurance Company U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 14-1595 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau [PUBLISHED] [Riley, Author, with Colloton and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Motor Carrier Act of 1980. Tri-National held a default judgment against Canal's insured and was the real party in interest under Missouri law; Alabama court did not render a final judgment on the merits of Tri-National's present claim on the MCS-90 endorsement issue since that claim was voluntarily dismissed, and the present claim was not barred by res judicata; Tri-National could assert its rights as a member of the general public under the MCS-90 endorsement and that fact that its insurer had satisfied its claim did not preclude this action or absolve defendant of its obligations under the endorsement.132918P.pdf 03/19/2015 Sletten & Brettin Orthodontics v. Continental Casualty Company U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 13-2918 U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis [PUBLISHED] [Gruender, Author, with Murphy and Smith, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Insurance. The policy in question excluded coverage for intent-to-injure acts; since the complaint against the insured alleged defamation with intent to injure,the policy did not provide coverage and the insurer did not have a duty to defend the suit.Ninth Circuit:ABDULHALIM ALI V. ROBERT ROGERS -- Employment/Admiralty -- As the claims sounded in statutory contract, not Admiralty tort, the proper defendant was the government, not the ship's owner.SOPHIA DAIRE V. MARY LATTIMORE -- AEDPA - Deference to state court holding on Ineffective Assistance claim.BERNARD PICOT V. DEAN WESTON -- Personal Jurisdiciton -- Insufficient purposeful availment even when the deft travelled to the forum state in order to make the agreement and the agreement had ties to the forum state.FREDDY CURIEL V. AMY MILLER -- AEDPA/Habeas - Two unadorned citations in summary denial of Habeas did not mean that the Court reached the merits of the claim in a manner that vacated the procedural default found by the court below; No equitable tolling of AEDPA SOL, even given pro se petitioner.CHRIS KOHLER V. EDDIE BAUER -- ADA: Court erred in finding compliance, given statements in DOJ manual interpreting the Act.BRUCE LISKER V. CITY OF LOS ANGELES -- S1983/FRCP: Police fakery of reports is not so inextricably tied to their testimony at trial so as to give them immunity; Motion for summary judgment on merits can't be reached here under ancillary jurisdiction.Eleventh Circuit:Curtis J. Collins v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. -- Summary denial of rehearing, as issue was waived by not being raised below.George Russell Curtis, Sr. Living Trust, et al. v. William F. Perkins -- FRE - Although summares based on reports were hearsay due to the underlying data, they were admnissible under the Business Records exception, which can be established using hearsay testimony.USA v. Bobby Jenkins -- Question certified to Florida: whether a guilty plea under a withheld adjudication counts as a conviction for purposes of being a predicate offense. (State courts had hinted yes, binding Circuit precedent said no.)Federal Circuit:SENJU PHARMACEUTICAL CO. v. LUPIN LIMITED -- Patent: Obviousness. [Which isn't to us.]DC Circuit:USA v. Luis Munoz Miranda -- Crim/Extraterritorial jurisdiction: Unconditional guilty pleas waived all grounds for appeal except subject matter jurisdiction; Extraterritorial application of a statute goes to merits and is therefore subject to waiver of appeal in guilty plea; Whether the Act applies to a specific ship is a question of subject-matter jurisdiction for the courts and not an element to be found by the finder of fact; Vessels were in fact covered by the Act, given deference to intermediate factual findings below.USA v. Mark-Anthony Adams -- Sentencing: Appeals waiver not subject to the miscarriage of justice exception despite bar of proffered medical testimony.