(As of about 1:30PM ET 6/13.)
First:
Boston Property Exchange Trans v. Iantosca (Souter) Endorsement of order was not a final judgment; state claims might have been waived when not raised in state action; insufficient causation for tort claims.
United States v. Ortho Biotech Products, LP -- FRCP - discovery appropriately limited
Second:
Carrion v. Agfa Construction, Inc. --- Third-party private action to enforce wage scales is foreclosed by precedent;
Mali v. Federal Insurance Co. -- Court did not have to make specific findings prior to adverse inference instruction on missing photo, as it was circumstantial, not punitive;
Souratgar v. Fair -- Hague Convention
Gaia House Mezz LLC v. State St. Bank & Trust Co. -- Claims on contract
Marshall v. Randall -- Grand jury testimony can be used to impeach the witness in subsequent S1983 suit;
Guzzo v. Cristofano -- Hague Convention
CGS Indus., Inc. v. Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co. -- Duty to defend -- "advertising injury"
Hooks v. Forman, Holt, Eliades & Ravin, LLC -- FDCPA - disputing of debt in written form
Gary Friedrich Enters., LLC v. Marvel Characters, Inc. -- Genuine issues of materialfact as to assignment of IP rights.
United States v. Malki -- Trial court erred in undertaking de novo re-sentencing after remand to correct Guidelines error.
Fourth (6/13 not posted yet):
US v. Abduladhim Al Sabahi -- Alien was here unlawfully; District court did not have to wait for IJ to rule on removability; sufficient evidence on weapons possession charge despite deft's 911 call (excluded as hearsay)
Fifth:
X Technologies, Inc. v. Marvin Test Systems, Inc. -- Breach of contract claim
USA v. Calvin Windless -- Court cannot rely on bare arrest record when imposing sentence conditions.
Sixth:
Joseph Sadie v. City of Cleveland -- Age discrimination claim - mandatory police/fire retirement age
USA v. Akeem Stafford -- Crim -- sufficient evidence, gunshot residue evidence properly admitted
Christopher Hrivnak v. NCO Portfolio Management Inc. -- Class claim not moot after offer of only partial relief to putative representative
Seventh:
USA v. Funds in the amount of $574,84
Jennifer Hitchcock v. Angel Corps Incorporated
USA v. Rodney Johnson
USA v. John Natale
Atkinson Candy Company v. Kenray Associates, Incorporate
Tiberius Mays v. Jerome Springborn
USA v. Ladmarald Cates
Deborah Kenseth v. Dean Health Plan, Incorporated (
concurrence)
Eighth (From site):
121605P.pdf 06/13/2013 Iowa Right To Life Committee v. Megan Tooker
U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 12-1605
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines
[PUBLISHED] [Benton, Author, with Smith and Melloy, Circuit Judges]
Civil case - Campaign Financing. Please see the opinion text for further
details of the court's ruling in this challenge to the constitutionality of
several Iowa campaign-finance laws, an administrative rule and two related
forms. Plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the definitions under Iowa
Code subsections 96A.102(18) and 68A.402(9); certain provisions of statutory
sections, an Iowa Code Administrative rule and Form Ind-Exp-O are
constitutional as applied to plaintiff and groups whose major purpose is not
nominating or electing candidates, while other sentences of the statute,
rule and Form DR-3 are unconstitutional as applied to plaintiff and such
groups; Iowa Code section 68A.503 is constitutional under the First and
Fourteenth Amendments; plaintiff has standing to challenge under the First
Amendment Iowa Code subsections 68A.404(2)(a-b) and 68.404(5)(g); plaintiff
has standing to challenge under the Fourteenth Amendment whether those
sections impose content-based restrictions that violate its right to equal
protection; Subsections 68A.404(2)(a-b) are constitutional under the Equal
Protection Clause insofar as they do not differentiate between similarly
situated speakers; the clause "of the corporation" in Iowa Code subsections
68A.404(5)(g) and the clause "if the organization making the expenditure is
a corporation" in Form Ind-Exp-O are unconstitutional under the Fourteenth
Amendment. On remand, the district court should consider severability. Judge
Melloy, concurring.
122215P.pdf 06/13/2013 Doe Run Resources Corporation v. Lexington Insurance Company
U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 12-2215
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
[PUBLISHED] [Loken, Author, with Murphy and Colloton, Circuit Judges]
Civil case - Insurance. In a declaratory judgment action brought to
determine whether defendant had an obligation to defend Doe Run on claims
that its mining and mill operations had caused environmental damage on
neighboring property, the district court did not err in determining the
insurer had no duty to defend because the policies' absolute pollution
exclusions unambiguously barred coverage of all claims asserted in the suit
brought against Doe Run.
122321P.pdf 06/13/2013 United States v. Lawrence Johnson
U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 12-2321
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, Waterloo
[PUBLISHED] [Wollman, Author, with Gruender and Shepherd, Circuit Judges]
Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. Evidence was sufficient to
support defendant's conviction for conspiracy to distribute heroin; because
the identity of defendant's coconspirators was not an essential element of
the conspiracy, the district court's failure to include their names in the
jury instruction was not a constructive amendment of the indictment;
presentation of evidence that defendant conspired with indicted and
unindicted coconspirators was not a constructive amendment of the indictment
or a variance; claim that the government charged a single conspiracy and
proved multiple conspiracies rejected; rejection of defendant's requests for
instructions on single v. multiple conspiracy and buyer-seller relationship
was not error; an instruction requiring proof that a detectable (as opposed
to measurable) amount of a controlled substance was knowingly and
intentionally distributed is sufficient to sustain a conviction under 21
U.S.C. Sec. 841(a); while the oral pronouncement of sentence is controlling,
when the oral pronouncement does not resolve whether sentences are
concurrent or consecutive, the clearly expressed intent of the sentencing
judge as set out in the written judgment and commitment may properly serve
to resolve the issue.
122757P.pdf 06/13/2013 Ranna Muor v. U.S. Bank National Association
U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 12-2757
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis
[PUBLISHED] [Wollman, Author, with Colloton, Circuit Judge, and P.K.
Holmes, District Judge]
Civil case - Employment Discrimination. Assuming
that a written warning issued plaintiff was an adverse employment action and
that she could otherwise establish a prima facie case of race and national
origin discrimination, the employer articulated a legitimate,
non-discriminatory basis for issuing the warning, and plaintiff failed to
show the stated reason was pretextual; on the claim defendant retaliated
against plaintiff for complaining internally about discrimination and for
filing a discrimination charge, plaintiff failed to establish a causal
connection between her complaints of discrimination and the adverse
employment action.
123498P.pdf 06/13/2013 The Doe Run Resources Corp. v. Lexington Insurance Company
U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 12-3498
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
[PUBLISHED] [Loken, Author, with Gruender, Circuit Judge, and Wimes,
District Judge]
Civil case - Insurance. In a declaratory judgment action
to determine whether the insurer had a duty to defend Doe Run in two
lawsuits seeking damages from operation of Doe Run's waste pile known as the
"Leadwood Pile," the district court correctly determined that the insurance
policy's pollution exclusions unambiguously applied to claims that Doe Run
tortiously released pollutants into the environment and thereby barred a
duty to defend in one of the suits; however, the second suit included
allegations not found in the other action - that Doe Run distributed the
chat and tailings into the community for use on roads and in buildings and
children's sandboxes - and these allegations are not based on the
inadvertent release of pollutants; this claim, that plaintiffs were injured
by distribution of toxic materials, potentially fell within the policies'
coverage and created a duty to defend; additionally, the complaint in this
action also included claims that Doe Run created an attractive nuisance by
leaving the Leadwood Pile open and available to the general public, an
allegation which was not unambiguously barred by the pollution exclusions.
123006P.pdf 06/12/2013 United States v. Ardelle Dunlap, Jr.
U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 12-3006
U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha
[PUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Shepherd, Beam and Melloy,
Circuit Judges]
Criminal case - Criminal law. Where defendant had served the
sentence imposed upon revocation of his supervised release and faced no
further supervision, his appeal must be dismissed as moot; neither the
possibility that the supervised release violation involved in the case might
increase his sentence for a future conviction nor social stigma associated
with conviction established a sufficient basis to maintain the appeal; case
did not fall within the "capable of repetition yet evading review"
exception to mootness.
122748P.pdf 06/11/2013 United States v. Lee Adams
U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 12-2748
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock
[PUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Bye, Melloy and Smith, Circuit Judges]
Criminal case - Sentencing. Under California law, defendant's two
convictions were felonies for sentencing purposes because, although each
of the assault cases may "wobble" between a felony and a misdemeanor,
neither conviction resulted in a judgment and neither sentencing court
declared the convictions to be misdemeanors; the case contained no
grievous ambiguity or uncertainty, and the rule of lenity did not apply;
based on this analysis, the district court did not err in classifying
defendant as an armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924(e).
131196P.pdf 06/11/2013 United States v. Dennis Capps
U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 13-1196
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau
[PUBLISHED] [Gruender, Author, with Riley, Chief Judge, and
Benton, Circuit Judge]
Criminal case - Criminal law and Sentencing. Failure to give Miranda
warning prior to asking defendant to consent to a search did not nullify
defendant's otherwise voluntary consent; search of defendant's vehicle
did not exceed the scope of defendant's consent; mandatory life sentence
pursuant to 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(b)(1)(A)(viii) does not violate the Eighth
Amendment; Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012) does not disturb
existing circuit precedent foreclosing defendant's argument that his
sentence is grossly disproportionate.
Ninth:
CONSERVATION CONGRESS V. USFS
DOUG C. V. STATE OF HAWAII, DEPARTMENT OF
FOURTH INVESTMENT LP V. US
USA V. UBALDO GONZALEZ-AGUILAR
Eleventh:
Ronald Palmer Heath v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections
USA v. Scott W. Rothstein
Jose Alberto Perez-Guerrero v. U.S. Attorney General
DC:
Kevin West v. John Potter
Catholic Health Initiatives v. Kathleen Sebelius
USA v. Ali Ali
Chlorine Institute, Inc. v. Federal Railroad Admin.
USPS v. PRC
John Saad v. SEC
Federal Circuit:
DARRELL CRAWFORD v. ARMY
REGINA PIRKL v. SHINSEKI
RACK ROOM SHOES v. US
No posts tomorrow. Back next week -- with fuller summaries.
-MB
