Wednesday, December 05, 2012
Federal Circuit -- CUMMINS, INC. V. TAS DISTRIBUTING CO., INC.
As the novel patent claim would have been a complete defense in an earlier litigation, the claim is barred by res judicata.
CUMMINS, INC. V. TAS DISTRIBUTING CO., INC.
Federal Circuit -- KING V. DEPT. OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Veterans Cout did not err in upholding Board's holding that certain witnesses lacked sufficient medical training and credentials despite statute permitting the use of lay testimony to assess a claim of disability.
The Board's disapproval was less than categorical.
KING V. DEPT. OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Ninth Circuit -- USA V. SALVADOR HERNANDEZ-ESTRADA
Where several localities supplement their jury lists to ensure a fair cross-section, this does not per se require an adjacent locality to do so.
Disparity of 7.7% is allowable.
Those who declined to identify their race are not a significant enough number to reach the threshold, so they need not be considered.
Clerk's Office violation of statute in not sending in reporting forms and disqualifying venirepersons who expressed doubt about their ability to understand English, while errors, aren't significant enough to merit reversal.
Deft bears burden of proof of establishing that violations of JSSA are substantial enough to frustrate purposes of the Act.
Court's violation of the statute in not forcing jurors to identify ethnicity wasn't reversible error.
Chief K, Concurring -- 7.7% threshold is bad statistics, given the small percentages of certain ethnic groups.
USA V. SALVADOR HERNANDEZ-ESTRADA
Ninth Circuit -- HARRY COLES V. JOSHUA EAGLE
When police officers break the car window and drag the plaintiff through it, excessive force is at least a disputed issue of material fact, and certainly not ruled out as a matter of law.
HARRY COLES V. JOSHUA EAGLE
Ninth Circuit -- AL-HARAMAIN ISLAMIC FOUNDATION V. BARACK OBAMA
FISA civil liability provisions are not a waiver of sovereign liability. Statute allows suit against a person, not the gov't specifically. Ambiguity in favor of the sovereign.
SJ dismissing personal liability claim against FBI Director correct.
AL-HARAMAIN ISLAMIC FOUNDATION V. BARACK OBAMA
Ninth Circuit -- USA V. BENJAMIN HARRIS
Airplane safety statute proscription of dangerous weapons not unconstitutionally vague as applied to case of 2.5" pocketknife.
USA V. BENJAMIN HARRIS
Eighth Circuit -- Douglas Milhauser v. Minco Products, Inc.
Veteran employment - termination of employee did not offend statute requiring employment as if the employee had not left to serve, as, given the employee's record prior to departure, the employee would have been terminated if he hadn't left.
Concurrence - should have been review for plain error, without reaching the statute.
Concurrence - should have been review for plain error, without reaching the statute.
Douglas Milhauser v. Minco Products, Inc.
Eighth Circuit -- United States v. Diana Gamboa
Safety-valve sentencing adjustment properly denied, as court properly found deft to be a supervisor.
Deft's withdrawal of motion to withdraw guilty plea just prior to said sentencing was knowing and voluntary.
Deft's withdrawal of motion to withdraw guilty plea just prior to said sentencing was knowing and voluntary.
United States v. Diana Gamboa
Seventh Circuit -- USA v. Gregory Wolfe
Prosecutor praising intelligence of witness was borderline vouching, but not enough to imperil Fair Trial right.
Prosc's saying that a witness had nothing to lose was borderline, as it implied that the witness had been cleared by the govt investigation, but no serious error.
Prosc remark in closing that witness had eye for detail was substantiated by facts mentioned contemporaneous with remark.
Prosc claiming that all witnesses identified deft in video despite one witness' inability to make ID not prejudicial, as deft's attorney conceded ID in closing.
Sufficient evidence for proof of losses for sentencing bump.
Restitution is a civil penalty, not criminal, and therefore Apprendi doesn't apply. Circuit split flagged.
USA v. Gregory Wolfe
Prosc's saying that a witness had nothing to lose was borderline, as it implied that the witness had been cleared by the govt investigation, but no serious error.
Prosc remark in closing that witness had eye for detail was substantiated by facts mentioned contemporaneous with remark.
Prosc claiming that all witnesses identified deft in video despite one witness' inability to make ID not prejudicial, as deft's attorney conceded ID in closing.
Sufficient evidence for proof of losses for sentencing bump.
Restitution is a civil penalty, not criminal, and therefore Apprendi doesn't apply. Circuit split flagged.
USA v. Gregory Wolfe
Sixth Circuit -- Bhd. of Locomotive Eng'rs v. United Transp. Union
Where unions have a 'recognized interpretation' of a term of a CBA, an arbitrator ruling on a claim is not bound to observe it unless so instructed by the authorities seeking arbitration.
When the seniority terms of two CBA's conflict, absent contrary restrictions, a mediating board can reinterpret one o the other to find the rule of the common shop.
Bhd. of Locomotive Eng'rs v. United Transp. Union
Second Circuit -- United States v. Torres
Federal civil forfeiture correctly imposed where deft gained city subsidized housing by making misrepresentations to state agency which was using federal funds.
Forfeiture to the feds and restitution to the state agency can be imposed concurrently. Deft can then petition that the feds repay the state agency to reduce the restitution.
United States v. Torres
Forfeiture to the feds and restitution to the state agency can be imposed concurrently. Deft can then petition that the feds repay the state agency to reduce the restitution.
United States v. Torres
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Topics (DO NOT RELY ON THIS)
Sentencing
(334)
FRCP
(298)
Administrative Law
(230)
Crim
(219)
FRE
(141)
Immigration
(141)
Fourth Amendment
(129)
S1983
(128)
Discrimination
(117)
Contract Interpretation
(113)
Habeas
(113)
Labor/Employment
(91)
Intellectual Property
(89)
Bankruptcy
(86)
Prisoner Litigation
(80)
Ineffective Assistance
(67)
Free Speech
(62)
Jury Instructions
(60)
AEDPA
(59)
Class Actions
(53)
Legal Ethics
(52)
Standing
(51)
Errata
(49)
Sufficient Evidence
(49)
ERISA
(46)
Tax
(46)
Torts - General
(45)
Securities
(43)
FRCrimP
(41)
Arbitration
(39)
Circuit Split
(39)
Conflict of laws
(38)
Statute of Limitations
(35)
Fees
(34)
Poz
(32)
Due Process claims
(31)
Conspiracy
(30)
Miranda
(28)
Announcements
(27)
Preemption
(27)
International Law
(26)
Sovereign Immunity
(26)
Religion
(24)
Communications /Computers
(21)
Jury Selection
(19)
ACCA
(18)
Environmental
(18)
Equal Protection
(18)
Guns
(18)
Short Form
(18)
Antitrust
(15)
General/Specific Jurisdiction
(15)
Speedy Trial
(15)
Commerce Clause
(14)
Brady
(13)
Souter
(12)
Double Jeopardy
(11)
SSA
(11)
Tribe Law
(11)
Cruel and Unusual Punishment
(10)
Mootness
(10)
Takings
(10)
White Collar
(10)
Election Law
(9)
Collateral Estoppel
(7)
ADA
(5)
Abstention
(5)
IDEA
(5)
Koz
(5)
Military
(4)
RICO
(4)
FCRA
(3)
Res Judicata
(3)
Board Law
(2)
Excessive Force
(2)
Obstruction
(2)
Patent
(2)
The Fifth
(2)
UCC
(2)
Abortion
(1)
Bail
(1)
Cert
(1)
DNA
(1)
FDCPA
(1)
Public Trial
(1)
Compiled by D.E. Frydrychowski, who is, not incidentally, not giving you legal advice.
Category tags above are sporadically maintained Do not rely. Do not rely. Do not rely.
Author's SSRN page here.