Federal Circuit -- CYBERSOURCE CORP. V. RETAIL DECISIONS, INC.

CYBERSOURCE CORP. V. RETAIL DECISIONS, INC.

Patent denied as a vague mental process as opposed to a machine or transformation, despite the fact that it references the internets.

DC Circuti -- Grant Anderson v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Grant Anderson v. Eric Holder, Jr.

DC implementation of sex offender registration law held to be civil regulation, not criminal & punitive, as a result, plaintiff has no ex post facto claim to bar registration.

DC Circuit -- Forsyth Memorial Hospital, Inc v. Kathleen Sebelius

Forsyth Memorial Hospital, Inc v. Kathleen Sebelius

Denial of rehearing en banc.

Dissent: Retroactive rulemaking can't be legitimated by adoption in post-hoc adjudications.

Tenth Circuit -- Aviva Life & Annuity Company v. FDIC

 Aviva Life & Annuity Company v. FDIC

 FDIC determination (reversing earlier lower-level findings) that accounts are not entitled to annuity protections given lack of designation in bank records as annuities is not arbitrary/capricious.

Ninth Circuit -- BRUCE DOUGHERTY V. CITY OF COVINA

BRUCE DOUGHERTY V. CITY OF COVINA

Charge of child molestation insufficient grounds for a warrant to search computer for pr0n.  Circuit split flagged.  Qualified immunity, though, as matter of first impression in the Circuit.

Eighth Circuit -- United States v. Marcellus Watson

United States v. Marcellus Watson

No Confrontation Clause violation where state does not produce objects that police testify to seeing on deft's person (photo of gun on cell phone, belt holster).

No error in introduction of videotape on which officers inform deft that another person alleges that deft shot at them.

Blanket self-authenticating paragraph suffices to authenticate several official documents.

Possession of firearm while drug-runnin' gets the sentencing bump for prior crimes of violence.

Eighth Circuit -- Iowa Assurance Corporation v. City of Indianola

Iowa Assurance Corporation v. City of Indianola

City land use ordinance requiring all properties with a certain kind of racing car to be fenced in is not a regulatory taking under Loretto as there's no exclusion, or under Nollan as there is no sacrifice of property. 

Eighth Circuit -- Badger Capital, LLC v. Chambers Bank of North AR

Badger Capital, LLC v. Chambers Bank of North AR

No error in dismissal of investors' claim of fraudulent concealment as there was no evidence that the bank saw papers constructively establishing  its escrow agency in a relevant transaction.

Eighth Circuit -- United States v. A. Stover, Jr.

United States v. A. Stover, Jr.

No need for court to precisely track the injunction statute when issuing findings in support of the injunction.

No error in permanent injunction requiring affirmative conduct - notifications to tax clients and the government.

Requiring IRS approval for future tax schemes is not an impermissible interbranch delegaiton.

Free Speech argument waived, foreclosed by precedent as tax preparation is commercial speech.

Eighth Circuit -- Erdman Company v. Phoenix Land & Acquisition

Erdman Company v. Phoenix Land & Acquisition

No error in district court finding that compulsory arbitration on counterclaims would prejudice the pending civil action - further, there is no need to prove prejudice to bar compulsory arbitration where a party attempts to pursue a remedy simultaneously through arbitraiton and litigation.

Eighth Circuit -- Archie Bear v. John Fayram

Archie Bear v. John Fayram

No error in District Court's holding that the text of the AEDPA statute was in the prison library.

The fact that AEDPA is tolled only at the time of filing a state habeus petition derives clearly from the statute - lack of clarifying caselaw in the library did not constitute a denial of access to the courts.

Seventh Circuit -- Linda Florek v. Village of Mundelein

Linda Florek v. Village of Mundelein

No error in dismissal of Fourth Amendment  S1983 claim against police for not getting aspirin to person at scene of warranted search.  Plaintiff had asked for aspirin, and was later taken to hospital after reporting chest pains.

No error in court barring expert testimony on the appropriate length of time between door-knocking and battering-ram-battering.

Seventh Circuit -- Lady Di's Incorporat v. Enhanced Services Billing

Lady Di's Incorporat v. Enhanced Services Billing

When filing a class-action suit against a company for putting unauthorized services on your phone bill, first make sure that you didn't order the services.  In an astonishing display of gumption, plaintiffs press on.

Court holds that the state phone billing regulation isn't fit to borrow for proof of unjust enrichment and/or deception, as the statute applies to phone companies, not the service-provider defts here.  As there's not provable foul, there's insufficient commonality for certification.

Sixth Circuit -- USA v. Steven Green

USA v. Steven Green

Former serviceman tried under statute giving federal criminal jurisdiction  to those not covered by UCMJ but who committed offenses while in the services.

Held: 

Standing - military constructive waiver of jurisdiction did not operate to guarantee the jurisdiction of the district court.

Deft's discharge was valid, despite missing some elements required by Army rules, as there was a valid discharge certificate, final accounting of pay, and "a clearing process."

The Act giving the federal criminal courts jurisdiction does not violate SOP, despite the level of discretion afforded the Executive in deciding whether to join UCMJ defts to civilian defts.

No 14A violation under class-of-one -- as the charging decision happened after discharge, there was no similarly situated comparator - additionally, no ill-will, and insufficient proof of arbitrariness.

No Due Process violation by Army's discharge then prosecution, as the discharge happened before the crimes came to light.

(Prosecution in Iraq impossible, given immunity of soldiers.)


Concurrence - Majority disses the army in dicta & I don't join that line of the opinion.

Sixth Circuit -- Nat'l Air Traffic Controllers v. Sec., Dep't of Transportation

Nat'l Air Traffic Controllers v. Sec., Dep't of Transportation

Suit by air controllers challenging the privatization of a certain classification of air traffic control towers.

Held - a statute which implicitly legitimized the privatization is on-point, as it should be broadly construed.

Standing - as none of the individual plaintiffs can now claim a harm, and the organizational standing was predicted on a question of law that has been resolved, earlier court decisions holding that plaintiffs had Article III and prudential standing do not bind as the law of the case.  Properly moot.

Fifth Circuit -- ASARCO, Incorporated, et al v. ASARCO, L.L.C., et

ASARCO, Incorporated, et al v. ASARCO, L.L.C., et

Bankruptcy court reimbursement order sufficiently final for appellate jurisdiction - circuit split with C2 flagged.

Reimbursement for due diligence to all bidders  in a multi-step auction is properly a business judgment expense, not an administrative cost for the estate.

Fourth Circuit -- National Electrical Manufacturers v. US Department of Energy

National Electrical Manufacturers v. US Department of Energy

Chevron deference to agency ruling on the sizes of electric motors covered by a rulemaking.  Legislative history suggesting otherwise dissed.

Dissent: Whole Act, Legislative History, prior agency holdings otherwise.

Third Circuit -- Brandao v. Atty Gen USA

Brandao v. Atty Gen USA

Where an illegitimate child immigrates with his parent who is subsequently naturalized prior to his 18th birthday, derivative citizenship cannot be granted if the law in their home country does not recognize illegitimacy.

Third Circuit -- Karen V. Cappuccio v. Prime Capital Funding, LLC. et

Karen V. Cappuccio v. Prime Capital Funding, LLC. et

Mortgage/ TILA claim.

As threshold matter, the appeals clock runs not from the time when judgment is entered against all defendants, but from when final liability (more than ministerial functions) is apportioned.

The testimony of the borrower is sufficient to burst the bubble of the presumption of receipt - jury instruction suggesting otherwise is error.

Third Circuit -- USA v. Michael Waller

USA v. Michael Waller

Error in jury instruction on Intent which said that jury should consider anything the deft said or didn't say, as this implicates post-Miranda silence.  Vacate and remand, as gov't must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the error was harmless, and ain't no way that's gonna happen.

Third Circuit -- Secretary of Labor v. ConocoPhillips Bayway Refinery

Secretary of Labor v. ConocoPhillips Bayway Refinery

 Company fined by DOL for asbestos violations, but reversed by OSHA Commission, which held that the Department  must identify the case-specific scenario for asbestos harms. 

The Court here reverses the Commission, holding that where the company has actual or constructive knowledge of the violation, violates standards, and engages in work presumed to pose a danger of asbestos release, no case-specific evidence need be adduced.

First Circuit -- US v. Berk

US v. Berk 

Errata, viz: 

On Page 15, footnote 7, line 7, "it an was error" should read "it was an error."

First Circuit -- Adelson v. Hananel

Adelson v. Hananel 

Errata 

First Circuit -- US v. Dellosantos

US v. Dellosantos 
US v. Szpyt 

Appellants argue insufficiency of the evidence, but Court holds instead that the evidence at trial prejudicially varied from the charges in the indictment .  The indictment charged that the two defts conspired to distribute cocaine and MJ - here, the Court holds that these were two separate conspiracies, and the disparity between the unitary conspiracy alleged and the double conspiracy proven is sufficient to vacate the convictions.

Concur/dissent - defts had sufficient awareness of the multiple plans to make it a single conspiracy.

Second Circuit -- In re: Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Sec. LLC

In re: Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Sec. LLC

The Dickensian-named ponzi windup continues.

Here, customers appealed a bankruptcy court ruling that the amount owed them should be determined by the amount of money they deposited with the scheme, not the amount of money in their statements (inflated by fictitious earnings).  First, the court holds that they are customers for purposes of the statute, as the monies were deposited for the purpose of investing in securities.  Second, the court ratified the 'net investment' method of calculating net equity, but limited its decision to extraordinary cases such as this where the books were so thoroughly and capriciously cooked.