Federal Circuit -- HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE CO. V. U.S.

HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE CO. V. U.S.

If you're standing surety for a company  importing cooked crawdads from China, and some managers of the company get indicted, it's reasonable to let the dust settle for four months or so to see if you need to file for a return of the surety.

Dissent: No it isn't.

Federal Circuit -- ARKO FOODS INTERNATIONAL, INC. V. U.S.

ARKO FOODS INTERNATIONAL, INC. V. U.S.

The question of whether something ins an article of milk under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule is answered by asking if it has the essential character of milk. 

Eleventh Circuit -- State Farm Mutual v. Anna N. Duckworth

State Farm Mutual v. Anna N. Duckworth 

Claimant's notification of insurance company that she had moved to Florida was insufficient notice of permanent change of address to meet Florida's requirement in the public policy exception in insurance choice of law cases that the resident notify the carrier of new permanent residence.  (This so the carrier can know the law under which the policy operates.)  SJ appropriate.

Tenth Circuit -- Tomlinson v. El Paso Corp

Tomlinson v. El Paso Corp

ERISA does not require notification of wear-away periods so long as employees are informed and forewarned of plan changes.

Essentially, when a plan transitions, it takes awhile for monies accrued to catch up to minimum benefits - this period of flat-line benefits can arguably discriminate against older employees.

Ninth Circuit -- BLUE LAKE RANCHERIA V. USA

BLUE LAKE RANCHERIA V. USA

Exemption from employment tax for Indian tribes refers only to common-law employment not statutory ("employer of record") employment.  CCNV factors & Treasury regs used to determine common law employment.

Ninth Circuit -- USA V. AGUILA-MONTES DE OCA

USA V. AGUILA-MONTES DE OCA

Court rejects a bright line "missing element" rule for counting priors for sentencing bumps.  Instead, wherever the prior offense is categorically broader than the generic offense, a modified-categorical analysis should look to the specific facts found in the earlier conviction.  There is no requirement that the prior offense be divisible to invoke the modified-categorical - a broad term in the statute will suffice.

Strongly worded special concurrence - Scotus clear that only divisible (multiple ways of commitin' them) statutes get the modified-categorical treatment.

Another concurrence:  Although the majority opinion overrules Navarro-Lopez’s rule regarding our inability to apply the modified categorical approach when a state statute is missing an element of a generic offense, it effectively re-imposes the same missing element rule in applying the modified categorical approach to the facts of this case. According to the en banc opinion, use of the modified categorical approach is precluded if applicable state law contains nuances that differ from the generic definition of the crime. However, Supreme Court precedent does not mandate or counsel such a restrictive approach.

Eighth Circuit -- United States v. Donavan Michael Slagg

United States v. Donavan Michael Slagg

 No error in district court finding of large conspiracy as opposed to many smaller ones, as interdependence of multiple buyers and sellers indicated a common purpose.

Broke deft posting bail allows jury reasonably to conclude that drug money is being laundered.

No error in not giving instruction that buyer/seller is insufficient for conspiracy, as evidence established that more was going on than buying and selling.


When deft objected to introduction of mug shot but subsequently withdrew the objection, the claim is waived for appeal.

Where consent to forfeiture is predicated on conviction, not relevant which offense is convicted (deft was acquitted of the most seemingly relevant one).

Eighth Circuit -- United States v. Tamara Lynn Heid

United States v. Tamara Lynn Heid

 Error in barring withdrawal of guilty plea, as there was no factual basis in the record for money-laundering charge.

Eighth Circuit -- Railroad Salvage & Restoration v. STB

Railroad Salvage & Restoration v. STB

 When a court refers an issue to the Surface Transportation Board, the court holds jurisdiction over not just the narrow issue presented, but also, more broadly, from any issues which arise from the issue under consideration.

Potential circuit split with the Great and Powerful (with respect to administrative law) DC Circuit flagged.

Eighth Circuit -- Relenthis Blakley v. Schlumberger Technology Corp.

Relenthis Blakley v. Schlumberger Technology Corp.

Award of costs need not be on motion, just a schedule of costs - authorities cited by deft refer to fees, which are different.

12(b) motion granted for not exhausting administrative remedies was not error, as there was sufficient evidence in the public record.

12(b) dismissal as duplicative not erroneous.

Adding a new statutory c/a not kosher after being given leave to amend initial claim.

Summary judgment on Title VII and FMLA was correct.

Eighth Circuit -- Dakota, MN & Eastern R.R. v. Kevin Schieffer

Dakota, MN & Eastern R.R. v. Kevin Schieffer

(W)e conclude that an individual contract providing severance benefits to a single executive employee is not an ERISA employee welfare benefit plan within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 1002(1)

Remanded for consideration of whether payments at time of severance functioned as ERISA payments and therefore give jurisdiction under "relating to" jurisdictional grant of statute.

Eighth Circuit -- Owner-Operator Independent v. Supervalu, Inc

Owner-Operator Independent v. Supervalu, Inc

Where truckers incur special costs in offloading at a certain depot, they have an affirmative duty to prove that no third party (e.g., the shipper)  has reimbursed their costs before invoking a statutory c/a.

Extensive discussion of legislative intent/ statutory construction.

Concurrence: There is no statutory c/a.

Eighth Circuit -- United States v. Vincent Johnson

United States v. Vincent Johnson

No error in upward departure from guidelines because range insufficiently describes criminal history when such history is barred from consideration by guidelines. (remoteness)

Reasonable, sufficiently explained. 

Seventh Circuit -- USA v. Scott Johnson

USA v. Scott Johnson

When you have a CI who says he bought drugs from deft at deft's house four times in the last week, you have enough for a search warrant.

No error in trial court not giving a special credibility instruction, as court is in best place to judge.

Where prosc. in opening says deft had 5kg of cocaine, but then immediately corrects it to 1/2kg, no error in denying mistrial.  (Record established that 5KG had been there the night before.)

Prohibition in Sarbanes-Oxley on destruction of documents & objects can be used against deft who tries to destroy cocaine base before police get to it - it merely has to be relevant to a possible future court proceeding.

Said destruction properly referenced at sentencing to base offense of conspiracy, not possession.

Seventh Circuit -- Paula Jackson v. Indian Prarie School

Paula Jackson v. Indian Prarie School

Where a school places a violent, disabled student in a one-person classroom and the student later TKO's the teacher with a chair, the teacher has no S1983 claim under substantive due process against the school, as the setup was insufficiently conscience-shocking.

Sixth Circuit -- Stumpf v. Houk

Stumpf v. Houk 

Lack of due process challenge in the District Court  record does not mean that court of appeals cannot consider DP, as per Scotus remand instruction, as the issue was raised in passing in the habeus petition.

State earlier waived procedural default argument vs. DP challenge.

Teague bar on retroactivity of new criminal rules is not jurisdictional.

Suggesting in closing that deft was the principal actor in the murder, where state has evidence and belief that a different deft was the central actor is a "constitutional violation"  which prejudices sentencing.

Dissent:  Conviction was by best information available at the time, Teague bars creation of a new substantive right.

 Volokh has more here.


[Thou shalt not kill.  -TMB]

Sixth Circuit -- USA v. Darrell Walker

USA v. Darrell Walker 

Error for sentence for escape, as it was revised upwards from guidelines to promote inmate's rehabilitation.

Fifth Circuit -- Jane Doe, et al v. Covington County Sch Dist, et al

Jane Doe, et al v. Covington County Sch Dist, et al

Errata.

Third Circuit -- William Morgan v. Covington Twp

William Morgan v. Covington Twp

Errata.

First Circuit -- Contour Design Inc. v. Chance Mold Steel Company Ltd

Contour Design Inc. v. Chance Mold Steel Company Ltd 

No error in issuance of preliminary injucntion where then supported in record - court here defers to judgment of lower court, as the action on the merits has completed, and emphasises that the lower court is free to convert the preliminary injunction into permanent relief even while parties seek direct appeals.

First Circuit -- National Organization For Marriage v. Daluz

National Organization For Marriage v. Daluz 

No error in denial of injunction - vagueness and free speech challenges.

Free speech - sufficient government interest to justify the disclosure requirements.

Vagueness - merely requires interpretation.


See Other NOM case filed today for expanded rationale.

First Circuit -- National Organization For Marr v. McKee

 National Organization For Marr v. McKee 

 National organization does not have standing to challenge state regulations of major-purpose PACS, as the major  purpose of the organization is not intervention in that particular state's affairs.

National organization has standing to challenge non-major-purpose PAC laws, given self-censorship in recent campaign.

National organization has standing to challenge out-of-state PAC laws.

Even though plaintiff's actual conduct was clearly within the ambit of the statute, forgone/chilled conduct grants standing to challenge vagueness.

Extensive discussion of issue advocacy versus candidacy support - ultimately held to be irrelevant to overbreadth.

State law defining PAC's and regulating disclosure held to exacting (intermediate - substantial connection to legit end) scrutiny, not strict scrutiny.  No burden in being labeled a PAC.

 State interest in dissemination of information means that the definition of PACs is not overbroad.

$100 trigger for independent expenditure reporting constitutional despite not being indexed to inflation.

Minimal attribution and disclaimer regs kosher after Citizens United.

Terms used in Act not unconstitutionally vague under due process.

Where parties stipulate that certain parts of the record are to be sealed, no error in court ordering opening of entire trial record, absent proof of harm from parties.  Presumption is for openness.

First Circuit -- Precetaj v. Holder, Jr.

Precetaj v. Holder, Jr.

Given that IJ found applicant's story of scattered abuses to be true, infiltration of foreign police and abuse of family members should counsel for grant of asylum - vacated and remanded.

First Circuit -- US v. Shields

US v. Shields 

Federal civil commitment statute generally constitutional - possible interbranch delegation issue described as underbriefed & therefore waived.

De minimis error in date of filing of government petition does not bar commitment.  (Act specifies that inmate must be under control of the BOP, papers were filed the day after end of sentence)

Given priors and 2/3rds of shrinks' verdicts, no error in finding of dangerousness.

Second Circuit -- Williams v. Citigroup

Williams v. Citigroup

No obligation to file a motion to amend the pleadings with initial answer or prior to entry of judgment on a 12(b)6 - a postjudgment motion to that effect should be granted where amendment can cure the defects of the pleading.  

(Reasons - FRCP directive on liberal granting of leave to amend & desire of courts to answer questions on the merits. )

Federal Circuit -- CBT FLINT PARTNERS, LLC. V. RETURN PATH, INC.

CBT FLINT PARTNERS, LLC. V. RETURN PATH, INC.

Patent Law -

Quick parse far outside of TMB's intellectual comfort zone sez:

When repairing an obvious and correctable error in the patent application, the court should take the perspective of someone skilled in the art. 

Testimony of one skilled in the art is not dispositive.

[Really, though, no clue.  TMB]

Federal Circuit -- MHL TEK, LLC. V. NISSAN MOTOR CO.

MHL TEK, LLC. V. NISSAN MOTOR CO.

 Patent law -

Quick parse far outside of TMB's intellectual comfort zone sez:

(1) No standing on some claims, as carve-out protected parent inventions, and while patents reference part of the parent inventions, there was still a distinction.

(2) As the claims of the individual patent are supported by the Parent application, it is within the 'inventions and discoveries' contemplated by the latter.

(3) Where individual patents concern elements of the Parent, they do not necessarily concern the Parent itself.

[Really, though - no clue.  TMB]

Eleventh Circuit -- Barbara Elizabeth Lawson, et al v. Life of the South Insurance Company

Barbara Elizabeth Lawson, et al v. Life of the South Insurance Company 

Under Georgia law, a third party cannot compel arbitraiton based on a claim of third party benefit or indirect (based on a second agreement which would not have been concluded except for the existence of the first) equitable estoppel.

Concurrence, State law governs, equitable estoppel appropriate, but barred by state arbitration law.

Tenth Circuit -- Standifer v. Ledezma

Standifer v. Ledezma

BOP policy of only looking back 12 months to determine eligibility for drug treatment programs is kosher & not a DP violation.

Deliberate indifference to medical needs must be raised in S1983, not in habeus. 

Niinth Circuit -- TODD BRANDT V. AMERICAN BANKERS INSURANCE CO

TODD BRANDT V. AMERICAN BANKERS INSURANCE CO

District court can set aside a default judgment after finding excusable neglect - the multifactor test need not be balanced, and no one consideration is dominant.  

Ninth Circuit --= JOHN MCCOMISH V. KEN BENNETT

JOHN MCCOMISH V. KEN BENNETT

Affirmed as per Scotus.

Ninth Circuit -- DWAYNE WOODS V. STEPHEN SINCLAIR

DWAYNE WOODS V. STEPHEN SINCLAIR

 Where deft, in course of colloquy as to continuances, indicates readiness to proceed pro se, state courts' determination that the statement wasn't a valid attempt to dismiss counsel is not unreasonable.

Violation of confrontation clause was harmless error, as statements were cumulative.

No error in state court denial of evidentiary hearing to develop Brady claim as to lab's practice of discarding draft reports.

Lack of details in prosc's admission that some blood spilled at the lab is not grounds for justifying procedural shortcomings by deft.

Ineffective assistance: 

Attorney overwork not grounds for ineffective assistance claim.

State finding not unreasonable that lack of diminished capacity defense was not prejudicial given that it would have contradicted deft's alibi defense.

No evidence that deft would have agreed to intoxication defense.

No error in counsel not confronting witness on priors and changes in story, given other evidence of untrustworthiness.

No error in introduction of alias, as it was the sobriquet of the fingerprints.

Insufficient DNA critique presented at state level.

No error in illustrative autorads not going to jury room.

Procedural default on insipid cross of witness, as not argued in state habeus.

No reversible error from cumulative deficiencies.

[Thou shalt not kill.  -TMB ]

Ninth Circuit -- VIEWTECH, INC. V. USA

VIEWTECH, INC. V. USA

Where depositor has a controlling interest in the entity where his funds are deposited, no requirement under statute to notification of the depositor upon issuance of a summons for the records.

Ninth Circuit -- ROBERT FAIRBANK V. ROBERT AYERS, JR.

ROBERT FAIRBANK V. ROBERT AYERS, JR.

Errata.

Ninth Circuit -- SORIANO-VINO V. HOLDER

SORIANO-VINO V. HOLDER

The confidentiality provisions of the Special Agricultural Workers' Program were not violated, where in an interview which resulted in a signed affirmation of having committed SAW fraud, information was gained which resulted in denial of residency.  Logic - only the form itself is confidential.

Eighth Circuit -- John S. Lovald v. Gerald Wayne Falzerano

John S. Lovald v. Gerald Wayne Falzerano

No recovery to estate on a claim based in unjust enrichment, as unjust enrichment is an equitable action presupposing a contractual relationship, not a ripe debt as required by the Bankruptcy Code.

Eighth Circuit -- United States v. Jemaine Sidney

United States v. Jemaine Sidney

 The FSA does not apply to those sentenced after effective date of the Act where the crime was before the effective date of the Act.

No violation of ex post facto, cruel & unusual or equal protection , given circuit precedent.

As FSA is not retroactive, it is not a basis for the withdrawal of a plea.

Eighth Circuit -- Sherry Perkins v. Michael J. Astrue

Sherry Perkins v. Michael J. Astrue

No deference to the treating physician, as the notes were conclusory as to the disability & internally inconsistent.

No evidence to show ALJ biased against fibromyalgia claims.

Eighth Circuit -- United States v. Deven J. Poitra

United States v. Deven J. Poitra

 No error in SORNA prosecution jury instruction not defining "reside," as the definition in the Act is similar to the commonly held definition of the term.

Variance in jury instructions in number of days allowed for offender registration was harmless, as not contested at trial.

No plain error in allowing probation officer to choose course of treatment, as court retained ultimate control.


Although unexplained restriction in sentence was plain error, no reversal, given support in record and that remand not necessary to preserve public trust in the judicial process.

Eighth Circuit -- EEOC v. MN Law Enforcement Association

EEOC v. MN Law Enforcement Association

State plan barring new employees over 55 from  early retirement violates ADEA, as the plan doesn't find safe-harbor in consistency with the purposes of the Act.

Eighth Circuit -- United States v. Jimmie Coutentos

United States v. Jimmie Coutentos

 Reversal on ineffective assistance, as counsel did not raise statute of limitations defense where date of offense was unclear, and might have fallen in interval between expiration of original SOL and statutory extension.

No error in introduction of prior (very) bad acts, given similarities to victim in present action.

No error in exclusion of "false memories" expert witness.

No improper vouching where prosecutor say s that witness had not motivation to lie.

Sufficient evidence.

Eighth Circuit -- AMCO Insurance Company v. Inspired Technologies, Inc.

AMCO Insurance Company v. Inspired Technologies, Inc.

Under Minnesota law, duty-to-defend broadly obligates the insurer to defend any single claim that arguably falls within the scope of coverage - absent specific findings on each claim, a "knowledge of falsehood" exception does not broadly remove duty.

Interrogatory statements can be used for this determination - it is not limited to language of the claim and of the the policy.

No intent needed for violations of the Lanham Act.

Eighth Circuit -- Michael Persechini v. L. Callaway

Michael Persechini v. L. Callaway

Prisoner S1983 claim alleging that his transfer from early-parole drug treatment facility as a result of alleged towel theft (he claims he was just 'trading up') violated Due Process.

Held: Inmate did not have a protected liberty interest in the prospect of early parole after completion of the program.

No liberty interest, as only consequence is that inmate has to serve out his initial term.

Seventh Circuit -- John Sullivan v. Cuna Mutual

John Sullivan v. Cuna Mutual

(Easterbrook)

Where employees had the ability to retain unused sick days as credit towards future health care, 120M increase in balance sheet after change in medical scheme for retirees didn't represent appropriation of beneficiaries' assets by plan, just a release of future potential liabilities given the decreased scope of coverage.

Unused sick leave is not a plan asset, and therefore not a non-ERISA asset which is governed by state law.

Employer has prerogative to modify plan.

Dissent: While ERISA preempts state remedies, it does not preclude relief according to promissory estoppel/detrimental reliance. 

Seventh Circuit -- Gregory Weatherbee v. Michael Astrue

Gregory Weatherbee v. Michael Astrue

 In proceedings before an ALJ, the reconciliation of a vocational expert's testimony with the DOT is accomplished by the VE's declaration under oath that he or she will identify any such variances.

VE's statements as to potential jobs to be performed by the claimant refer to general types of tasks, not specific jobs in the DOT.

Seventh Circuit -- Jayne Mathews-Sheets v. Michael Astrue

Jayne Mathews-Sheets v. Michael Astrue

Errata

Sixth Circuit -- USA v. David Denny

USA v. David Denny 

Sentence far above guidelines sentencing range was a variance,  not a departure as "seriousness of offense" is considered under 3553(a), and the court said that it thought the guidelines sentence didn't reflect the seriousness of the offense.  (Distinction is important, as a warning would have to have been given if a departure was contemplated.)

The fact that the court checked "departure" twice in the sealed statement of reasons is not dispositive, as the oral sentencing controls, and there was insufficient ambiguity to look to extrinsic texts.

No procedural error when court describes sentence as "reasonable" instead of "sufficient, but not greater than necessary."

No substantive unreasonableness when court increases sentence based on effect on victim as opposed to applying vulnerable victim enhancement, as the latter considers susceptibility, not harm sustained.

Sixth Circuit -- Jasen Barker v. Andrew Goodrich

Jasen Barker v. Andrew Goodrich 

S1983 prisoner suit alleging violations of 8th Amendment.

District Court grant of immunity to the prison reversed, as immunity is an affirmative defense which must be raised by the claimant.

Monetary S1983 claims against individuals acting in their gov't capacity barred by 11th Amendment, injunctive relief may continue to be sought.

District Court grant of qualified immunity to deft's reversed, as the violations of rights were clear (for no reason, plaintiff spent 12 hours handcuffed to wall)

Sixth Circuit -- Keith Lewis-El v. Barbara Sampson

Keith Lewis-El v. Barbara Sampson 

S1983 action by prisoner alleging ex post facto violation in the change of Michigan's sentence commutation system - previously, there had been a grid which rated factors, now a ten-year rotating review.  Held: No error in District Court dismissal, as commutation is at the discretion of the Executive.

Fitfth Circuit - Stephen Gabarick v. Laurin Maritime (America), Inc

Stephen Gabarick v. Laurin Maritime (America), Inc

Interlocutory appeal as to whether costs of defense should erode indemnification policy limits, consolidated with a subsequent 54(b) order on the issue by the district court.  Held: that the allocation of interpleader funds by the court (the decision whether the liability was decreased or not) is insufficiently final for review.   (Insurer had duty to reimburse defense costs, but no duty to defend.)

Policy clearly states that defense costs come from the kitty.  Plan provision suggesting otherwise (collision provision) is severable, and therefore independent of the rest, intent-wise.


NB - two separate files posted on the court's site - unsure which controls.  Copy 2:
Stephen Gabarick v. Laurin Maritime (America), Inc

Second Circuit -- United States v. Riggi (Abramo)

United States v. Riggi (Abramo)

Waiver of appeals is still good, despite ex post fact  concerns (sentencing guidelines postdated the end of the conspiracy) - earlier decision saying constitutional concerns could abrogate waivers was dictum referring to mandatory sentencing guidelines.


Issue of knowing waiver is reserved for habeus petition based on ineffective assistance of counsel.

Tenth Circuit -- United States v. Washington

United States v. Washington

 Use of terms "conspiring" and "attempt to kill" in indictment sufficiently signalled charge of witness tampering.

Same language in a single count isn't duplicitous, as the elements of conspiracy weren't pleaded.

Where a sequestration order is in play and the deft discovers a useful witness in the courtroom, sequestration does not necessarily bar them.  (Dictum, as held harmless error here).

Tenth Circuit -- Sherer v. United States Forest Service

Sherer v. United States Forest Service

Facial challenge to entry fee at national park TKO'd, as there are scenarios in which fees are legit, and scenarios where they aren't.  Plaintiff claim that as-applied is impossible since Forest Service never prosecutes for violations doesn't ring true, as paying a fee under protest is sufficient for standing.

Tenth Circuit -- United States v. Kitchell

United States v. Kitchell

Two unsignalled lane changes were sufficient for stop.

Totality of factors (nervous dudes in rental car with inconsistent travel plans) justified further investigation.

Large-scale tainting of US currency does not make a canine sniff of car unreasonable basis for further search.

Guns and money in car were sufficient for sentencing bump of use of a firearm in connection with another offense. 

Passenger can have constructive possession of firearms in the trunk.

Tenth Circuit -- United States v. Weeks

United States v. Weeks

No error in trial court's acceptance of guilty plea, despite confusing colloquy in the record, as no plain error is shown.

Remanded for hearing on habeus claims of ineffective assistance and unknowing plea, given modicum of support for claims in record.

Tenth Circuit -- Strope v. Cummings

Strope v. Cummings

Prisoner litigation - seeking leave to proceed IFP.  Given that the court did not enter final judgment in some of the plaintiff's prior suits, they became "strikes" for the purposes of the PLRA  150+30 days after filing.

Tenth Circuit -- Kansas Judicial Watch v. Mike Stout

Kansas Judicial Watch v. Mike Stout

Where a preliminary injunction provides requested relief, and the court indicates likely success on the merits, but the action is subsequently mooted by the acts of a third party, plaintiff's lawyers have sufficiently prevailed to receive S1983 fees.

Tenth Circuit -- Damaso-Mendoza v. Holder, Jr.

Damaso-Mendoza v. Holder, Jr.

BIA holding that the Colorado Menacing statute is a crime of violence for purposes of deportation upheld.  Comparison to ACCA holding on same statute by Circuit.

Ninth Circuit -- GARETH PITTS V. TERRIBLE HERBST, INC.

GARETH PITTS V. TERRIBLE HERBST, INC.

Where, prior to class certification, a putative representative of a  class declines an offer for the settlement of claims in full, the larger class claim is not moot - it relates back to original filing date when the claim is transitoy and may otherwise evade review. 

Where the court rules do not specifically indicate otherwise, no obligation to seek certification at the end of discovery.

A statute which provides a c/a does not necessarily displace an existing common law c/a.

Ninth Circuit -- DISH NETWORK CORPORATION V. FCC

DISH NETWORK CORPORATION V. FCC

Errata.

Eighth Circuit -- United States v. Christopher Scroggins

United States v. Christopher Scroggins

 No error in denying deft's request that jury members be allowed individually to sit in drivers seat of car to demonstrate inaccessability of the compartment where the gun was.

Eighth Circuit -- John Jung v. General Casualty Company

John Jung v. General Casualty Company

Where the jurisdiction determines that a vehicle is under-insured by comparing policy limits on the vehicle with policy limits of the person, an excess policy should be counted if it would provide coverage, even if not specifically tied to the vehicle and not providing no-fault insurance (a requirement for vehicle insurance in the jurisdiction).

Eighth Circuit -- Gary Collins v. Michael J. Astrue

Gary Collins v. Michael J. Astrue

 Even where the Grids would have indicated total disability, reversible error where the ALJ does not consult them (or question a vocational counselor).

Eighth Circuit -- Green Party of Arkansas v. Mark Martin

Green Party of Arkansas v. Mark Martin

State requirement that political parties field candidates for Gubernatorial and Presidential contests does not interfere with speech & action of parties.

Having to petition every two years is not an unconstitutional burden on the party. 

No strict scrutiny, as scheme is facially neutral.

Regulations justified by state's need to prevent voter confusion, frivolous candidacies, and ballot overcrowding.

Eightth Circuit -- William Wolfe v. Fayetteville, AR School Dist

William Wolfe v. Fayetteville, AR School Dist

 No error in jury instruction holding that a Title IX claim alleging anti-gay conduct must be motivated by gender or nonconformity to stereotypical gender characteristics.

No error in refusing to give theory-of-the-case instruction that falsely labelling someone as homosexual is per se discrimination on the basis of sex.

Eighth Circuit -- Macheca Transport Company v. Philadelphia Indemnity Ins.

Macheca Transport Company v. Philadelphia Indemnity Ins.

As the terms of the insurance policy encompassed fixtures as well as buildings, the specific requirement of total, flattening collapse that Missouri courts of appeal have advanced cannot apply.

District court erred in holding that ice damage in policy could not refer to ice accumulating from mechanical processes.  Summary judgment justified.

Vexatious refusal to pay TKO'd, as insurer had a legit claim.

Seventh Circuit -- Duran, Alejandro v. Town Cicero

Duran, Alejandro v. Town of Cicero

Double recovery against police officers and employing municipality reversed, as it is properly joint and several under respondeat superior.

Under Illinois law, police confiscation of video camera immediately before use of pepper spray is not spoliation of evidence, as the tort (yes) refers to a duty to preserve existing evidence.

Even after questioning ("Your wife is Mexican?") and assertions ("I would never do something like that")  past acts indicative of bias barred as prejudicial.

Prior conviction of deft correctly excluded, at least partially because the objection to the exclusion was not renewed at trial.

Seventh Circuit -- USA v. James Green

USA v. James Green

 No Bruton violation in co-deft's reference to a "straw buyer" when deft had been clearly identified as a straw buyer earlier in the trial.  There might have been many, so the reference was insufficiently obvious.

No error in giving the sophisticated scheme sentencing bump where the scheme was sophisticated and the deft possibly less so.

No error in court's holding that there was one big conspiracy as opposed to several smaller ones.

Possible error in admission of evidence under 902(11) (Records in course of business) was harmless.

No error in gov't's repeated citation to an uncharged parallel offense.

No error in ostrich instruction (deliberate avoidance of knowledge)

Public auctions not a reliable means of calculating the damages, as not a reliable indication of true price.

Fifth Circuit -- USA v. Ricardo Soto

USA v. Ricardo Soto

Ducking, hunching and slouching of passenger provided reasonable suspicion for the stop.
[Abe Vigoda makes a mental note to avoid Texas roads.]

Dissent: Um, no.

Fifth Circuit -- Stephen Gabarick, et al v. Laurin Maritime

Stephen Gabarick, et al v. Laurin Maritime

 Where an excess insurer files an interpleader action during the pendency of a case to determine the liability of a  primary insurer, the excess insurer is not liable for prejudgment interest for the time prior to filing, as their liability had not yet been triggered.  First legit claim on their dinero was when they sought claimants on the stake.

Fourth Circuit -- US v. James Brown

US v. James Brown

 Where a plea agreement does not specifically reference a guidelines sentencing range, courts cannot subsequently lower the sentence to reflect changes in the guidelines.

The issue here is whether the crack amendments can be used to lower a pleaded sentence - parsing Sotomayor's concurrence in Freeman, the court holds that there are exceptions to the plurality's holding that the answer is generally "yes."

Third Circuit -- USA v. Kenneth Dixon

USA v. Kenneth Dixon

 Fair Sentencing Act applies to any sentences passed after its enactment, regardless of when the crime was committed.  (Circuit split.)

Third Circuit -- Otos Tech Co Ltd v. OGK America Inc

Otos Tech Co Ltd v. OGK America Inc

Where a foreign judgment has been satisfied in the foreign county, but due to fluctuations in the value of the foreign currency, the recovery has been less remunerative than it appeared to be at time of verdict, an overlapping judgment in the US cannot be enforced to "equalize" the recovery.

Second Circuit -- Rivera v. Cuomo

Rivera v. Cuomo

Successful collateral attack on conviction - since the caselaw changed between conviction and the date the conviction became final, habeus granted.

(In the interval, recklessness became a clear element of NY depraved indifference murder.)

Second Circuit -- United States v. FNU LNU

United States v. FNU LNU

 No general exception to Miranda for immigration questioning at the border - the litmus is still whether a reasonable person in the agent's position has probable cause to suspect a crime.  If yes, Miranda is in play.

90 Minute interrogation in a closed room with armed guards outside isn't sufficiently custodial to trigger Miranda, though.  Totality of circumstances.