Odd -- having done this for about 2,500 posts, this is the lightest day in memory.
MB
103137P.pdf 05/01/2013 B & B Hardware v. Hargis Industries U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 10-3137 and No: 11-1247 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock [PUBLISHED] [Shepherd, Author, with Loken and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Trademarks. For the court's prior opinions in the case, see B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc., 569 F.3d 383 (8th Cir. 2009); and B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, 252 F.3d 1010 (8th Cir. 2001). Assuming that Trademark Trial and Appeal Board decisions may be entitled to preclusive effect, such application is not appropriate here because the same likelihood-of-confusion issues were not decided by the Board as were brought in the action before the district court; the court rejects B&B's argument that the Board's factual findings from a trademark registration case are entitled to deference by the district court; district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to admit the Board's decision into evidence as over the course of the seven-day trial the jury was presented with evidence regarding likelihood of confusion as it pertained to the factors under which the jury decided the claim of trademark infringement and the probative value of the Board's ultimate conclusion was minimal; the district court erred in including an award of attorneys' fees to Hargis for B&B's prior appeal as that appeal resulted in a ruling in B&B's favor and was not groundless or unreasonable; on remand, the court should amend its award of fees by deducting the fees for the appeal. Judge Colloton, dissenting.122913P.pdf 05/01/2013 United States v. Nathan Ozmon U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 12-2913 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport [PUBLISHED] [Murphy, Author, with Beam and Bye, Circuit Judge] Criminal case - Sentencing. Government did not breach the cooperation agreement when it used defendant's self incriminating statements from his proffer interview; sentence imposed was not substantively unreasonable.Ninth Circuit:USA V. JEROME MANCUSO -- Crim/Drugs - Multiple challenges to indictment, Question of whether the property was sufficiently used for illicit purposes, sentencing challenges.KEONE LABATAD V. CCA -- S1983 prisoner claim - summary judgment upheld, given lack of indifference by prison staff. (Assault by hostile gang member placed in same cell.)Federal Circuit:ALLERGAN, INC. v. SANDOZ INC. [OPINION]STEPHANIE FIGUEROA v. HHS [OPINION]VERSATA SOFTWARE, INC. v. SAP AMERICA, INC. [OPINION]Long form tomorrow. Still fighting equipment issues. New Macbook Pros can be sent to the author, Poste Restante, Gotham.MB
121918P.pdf 04/30/2013 Columbia Casualty Co. v. Curtis W. McGhee U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 12-1918 and No: 12-1922 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Council Bluffs [PUBLISHED] [Wollman, Author, with Bye and Benton, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Insurance. For a statement of facts in the case, see Genesis Insurance Co. v. City of Council Bluffs, 677 F.3d. 806 (8th Cir. 2012). In a declaratory judgment action to determine coverage under various insurance policies issued to the city, the district court did not err in rejecting the City's request to consider extrinsic evidence regarding the parties' intent or in denying the City's request for additional discovery on extrinsic evidence; in Genesis, the court determined that for purposes of a malicious prosecution action, the arrested persons' injuries occurred when they were prosecuted and were not a continuing injury; as a result, the policies, with one exception, were not in effect when the arrested persons' injuries occurred; with respect to that policy, which was in effect from August, 1977 to August 1978, when the charges were filed in the arrested persons' criminal prosecution, the City was entitled to coverage under the "reasonable expectations" doctrine. Judge Bye, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
123485P.pdf 04/30/2013 United States v. James Tebeau U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 12-3485 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau [PUBLISHED] [Murphy, Author, with Wollman and Beam, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. District court did not err in determining that defendant, the owner of property he used for music festivals, may be indicted under 21 U.S.C. Sec. 856(a)(2) for making a property available for drug distribution without any further illegal purpose ; the statute does not require proof that defendant had the illegal purpose to use, manufacture, sell or distribute a controlled substance, as it is sufficient that he intended to make his property available to others who had that purpose; this interpretation of the statute does not violate the Fifth Amendment due process clause or defendant's First Amendment rights; indictment satisfied the requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(c).Ninth:IN THE MATTER OF: FITNESS HOLDINGS INTERNATIONALHORACE FRIEND V. ERIC HOLDER, JR.USA V. LAWRENCE MICHAEL STANFILL ELTenth:Rawlins v. State of KansasKarki v. HolderDC:NetCoalition v. SECQuantum Entertainment Limited v. Department of the Interior
111380P.pdf 04/29/2013 United States v. Daniel Lee
U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 11-1380
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock
[PUBLISHED] [Murphy, Author, with Smith and Gruender, Circuit Judges]
Prisoner case - habeas. Lee's trial counsel's use of peremptory strikes
based on race in violation of Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42 (1992)
did not deprive him of effective assistance of counsel; Lee's
constitutional challenges to his sentence were rejected in his direct appeal
and cannot be relitigated by way of a petition for postconviction relief
under Section 2255; other challenges to the death sentence were outside
the scope of the certificate of appealability.
103076P.pdf 04/26/2013 Shirley Phelps-Roper v. Chris Koster U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 10-3076 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City [PUBLISHED] [Bye, Author, with Wollman and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Funeral Protests. Plaintiff's speech at funerals, while repugnant to some listeners, is entitled to constitutional protection; since the plaintiff established that she engages in First Amendment expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment, the district court properly placed the burden of proof on the State as the proponent of the funeral protest laws which restricted plaintiff's right to engage in the conduct; given the en banc court's decision in Phelps-Roper v. City of Manchester, Mo., 697 F.3d (8th Cir. 2012), Missouri has shown a significant government interest in protecting the peace and privacy of funeral attendees for a short time and in a limited space; the failure, however, to define the spatial extent of the buffer zone in Missouri Rev. Stat. Sec. 578.501 resulted in the statue burdening substantially more speech than is necessary to serve Missouri's interests and prevents the section from being narrowly tailored; both Sec. 578.501 and 578.502 use the word "processions" in their definition of a funeral, and the use of this word creates a "floating zone," giving both sections impermissibly broad reach; however, severing the word from the statutory sections, results in a three- hundred-foot buffer zone in Section 578.502, and, with the word severed, this statutory section is constitutional since it is narrowly tailored and leaves open ample alternative channels for communication of plaintiff's message; elimination of the word from Section 578.501 does not solve the remaining constitutional problems for that section, and the district court did not err in finding it unconstitutional.121342P.pdf 04/26/2013 United States v. Lowell Baisden U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 12-1342 U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska - Lincoln [PUBLISHED] [Smith, Author, with Beam and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. The record established the district court properly reviewed defendant's request for new counsel and correctly denied it; defendant's attempt to withdraw his guilty plea did not have factual or legal support and was properly denied; the record further showed defendant had received competent, effective assistance of counsel in connection with his plea.121786P.pdf 04/26/2013 Smith Flooring v. Pennsylvania Lumbermens Mutual U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 12-1786 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield [PUBLISHED] [Smith, Author, with Beam and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Insurance. The district court erred in finding there were no issues common to the parties' legal and equitable claim, and plaintiff had a Seventh Amendment right to trial by jury on the common issue of what the terms of the parties' intended contract were; the court also erred in treating the jury's verdict as merely advisory under Fed. R. Civ. P. 39 insofar as this issue was concerned; however the errors doe not necessitate reversal of the court's order granting post-verdict judgment to defendant as the evidence was not sufficient to support the jury's verdict for plaintiff, and the district court did not err in reforming the insurance policy.121806P.pdf 04/26/2013 American Bank of St. Paul v. TD Bank, N.A. U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 12-1806 and No: 12-1862 and No: 12-2399 U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis [PUBLISHED] [Benton, Author, with Smith and Melloy, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Torts. The district court did not err in denying defendant Mercantile's Rule 50 motion for judgment as a matter of law on plaintiff's aiding and abetting and conspiracy claims; excluding defendant's evidence of other banks' reactions to the borrower's fraud was not error; challenges to jury instructions rejected; denial of plaintiff's motion for additur was not an abuse of discretion, as the amount of damages was properly left to the jury.122376P.pdf 04/26/2013 United States v. Matthew Olsson U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 12-2376 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City [PUBLISHED] [Shepherd, Author, with Riley, Chief Judge, and Loken, Circuit Judge] Criminal case - Criminal law and Sentencing. Challenges to cross- examination of the government's witnesses rejected; defendant's prior conviction for second-degree burglary qualified as a crime of violence for purposes of career offender sentencing under Guidelines Sec. 4B1.1.122482P.pdf 04/26/2013 David Longaker v. Boston Scientific Corporation U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 12-2482 U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis [PUBLISHED] [Wollman, Author, with Bye and Benton, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Contracts. The district court did not err in determining plaintiff lacked standing to pursue his breach of contract claim against his former employer as the claim belonged to plaintiff's bankruptcy estate; plaintiff never asked the court for leave to amend his complaint to include a retaliation claim under Minnesota's Human Rights Act, and the court could not err by failing to grant leave under these circumstances. Judge Bye, concurring in part and dissenting in part.123028P.pdf 04/26/2013 United States v. David Nicklas U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 12-3028 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville [PUBLISHED] [Bye, Author, with Riley, Chief Judge, and Benton, Circuit Judge] Criminal case - Criminal law. In a prosecution for transmitting a fax containing a threat to injure in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 875(c), the court did not err in granting the government's motion to strike the word "wilfully" from the indictment as the section creates a general intent crime and the section does not require the government to prove a defendant specifically intended his or her statements to be threatening; instead, the government must prove a reasonable recipient would have interpreted the fax as a serious threat to injure; as a result, the word willful was properly stricken as surplusage; evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction; no error in refusing to give defendant's proposed instruction on reasonable doubt as it was foreclosed by circuit precedent.123211P.pdf 04/26/2013 Shawna Hess v. Carol Abels U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 12-3211 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Pine Bluff [PUBLISHED] [Gruender, Author, with Murphy and Smith, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Employment law. In action brought by an city employee who was terminated after refusing to take a drug test, the district court did not err in granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity as it was not clearly established at the time of the termination that such an action violated an employee's Fourth Amendment rights; plaintiff's Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment claims failed to allege a constitutional violation; the district court properly dismissed the official capacity claims against the individual defendant and the claims against the City; no error in dismissing claims under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act.Ninth Circuit:CLEVO CO. V. HECNY TRANSPORTATION, INC.ROBIN PETERSEN V. BOEING COMPANYGRAND CANYON SKYWALKDEVELOPMENT V. 'SA' NYU WA INCORPORATEDUSA V. MICHAEL RAMIREZTenth Circuit - nothing published today, unknown if any published opinions were posted Friday.DC Circuit:Flagstaff Medical Center, Inc. v. NLRBAmerican Petroleum Institute v. SECAstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP v. FDAFederal Circuit:ROBERT MACLEAN v. DHS [OPINION]BIOSIG INSTRUMENTS, INC. v. NAUTILUS, INC. [OPINION]Incomplete summaries today. Time/equipment limits. Better results in the next at-bat.MB
122898P.pdf 04/24/2013 United States v. Joel Castillo
U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 12-2898
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Ft. Smith
[PUBLISHED] [Murphy, Author, with Smith and Gruender, Circuit Judges]
Criminal Case - conviction and sentence. Viewing the evidence in the
light most favorable to jury verdict, government presented sufficient
evidence for rational jury to find Castillo possessed methamphetamine
knowingly or intentionally, as drugs were found in truck he alone drove,
he appeared nervous at traffic stop, drugs smelled of mustard, he was
unsurprised when drugs discovered, and story was implausible. District
court did not clearly err in denying offense level reduction for mitigating
role and considered the section 3553(a) factors in determining sentence.
District court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Castillo.
122755P.pdf 04/25/2013 Laclede Gas Company v. St. Charles County
U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 12-2755
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
[PUBLISHED] [Kopf, Distric Judge, Author, with Bye and Melloy,
Circuit Judges]
Civil Case - preliminary injunction. In dispute involving right of local
government and rights of public utility in shared easements, the district
court had jurisdiction to grant preliminary injunction and did not abuse its
discretion in doing so. No categorical rule that before addressing
preliminary injunction motion a court must rule on the opposing party's
assertion that the court lacks jurisdiction. Imminent threat of physical
damage to pipeline sufficient to provide district court with jurisdiction
under the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act. District court did not abuse its
discretion in failing to abstain. Judge Bye concurs.
From the court's website:
(With appropriate excisions to keep this site in the good graces of censorious web-indexing robots)
122172P.pdf 04/25/2013 United States v. Freddie Wallace
U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 12-2172
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock
[PUBLISHED] [Gruender, Author, with Murphy and Smith, Circuit Judges]
Criminal Case - conviction. In trial on charges of production of child
p and possession of child p, district court did not
err in admitting signed confession, as the court carefully considered the
totality of the circumstances in finding the confession was made
knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. Admission of videotaped
seized following tip from informant was not error, as informant's
information was independently corroborated and probable cause for
warrant was established. No plain error in admitting cellmate testimony.
Evidence was sufficient to support production of child p
conviction.
From the court's website:
122021P.pdf 04/25/2013 Ser Yang v. Western-Southern Life
U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 12-2021
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis
[PUBLISHED] [Benton, Author, with Wollman and Bye, Circuit Judges]
Civil Case - contract. Grant of summary judgment to insurer for
disallowance of death benefits based on insured's signature on policy
despite errors made by agent is reversed. A reasonable jury could find
insured put agent on notice of prior medical history. Transcript of
conversation was not attached to the policy and could not be used to
contest the policy. Summary judgment is reversed
From the court's website:
113482P.pdf 04/25/2013 United States v. Bryan Behrens
U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 11-3482
U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha
[PUBLISHED] [Gruender, Author, with Chief Judge Riley and
Colloton, Circuit Judges]
Criminal Case - sentence. Sentence of imprisonment for securities fraud
is affirmed. The "no knowledge" defense to imprisonment in 15 U.S.C.
sec. 78ff, is not limited to no knowledge of the existence of the pertinent
SEC rule or regulation but whether they did not know the substance of
the SEC rule or regulation they allegedly violated regardless of whether
they understood its particular application to their conduct. Because
Behrens admitted to knowing the substance of Rule 20b-5, he was
United States v. Joel Castillo
United States v. Armon Thompson
James Carmody v. K. C. Board of Police Comm.
111382P.pdf 04/22/2013 United States v. Chevie Kehoe
U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 11-1382
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock
[PUBLISHED] [Wollman, Author, with Riley, Chief Judge, and
Melloy, Circuit Judge]
Prisoner case - Habeas. In Young v. Bowersox, 161 F.3d 1159 (8th Cir.
1998), this court rejected the argument that an ineffective assistance
counsel claim based on a Batson error should be considered a structural
error entitled to a presumption of prejudice and determined that to
succeed on such a claim, the petitioner must demonstrate a reasonable
probability that the results of the proceeding would have been different;
here, in order to succeed on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel,
Kehoe must demonstrate that he suffered prejudice as a result of his
attorney's actions in striking potential jurors on the basis of their race in
violation of Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42 (1992), and he failed to
do so.
121416P.pdf 04/22/2013 Clarinet v. Essex Insurance Co.
U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 12-1416
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
[PUBLISHED] [Riley, Author, with Wollman and Melloy, Circuit Judges]
Civil case - Insurance. The district court did not err in determining that
coverage was barred under the "owned property exclusion" in the policy.
122613P.pdf 04/22/2013 United States v. David Allen
U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 12-2613
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock
[PUBLISHED] [Murphy, Author, with Smith and Gruender, Circuit Judges]
Criminal case - Criminal law. Probable cause existed to arrest
defendant for possession of counterfeit checks, and the search of his car
was a lawful search incident to arrest as the officers had reason to believe
the vehicle contained evidence of the offense; the luggage stored on the
motel luggage cart could be searched as there was a reasonable
probability that the evidence on the cart would have been discovered after
defendant's arrest during an inventory search.
122796P.pdf 04/22/2013 Rosa Gutierrez v. Eric H. Holder, Jr.
U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 12-2796
Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
[PUBLISHED] [Gruender, Author, with Murphy and Smith, Circuit Judges]
Petition for Review - Immigration. Petitioner failed to establish that it
would have been unreasonable for her to relocate in Columbia as required
under the federal regulations outlining the eligibility requirements for
withholding of removal - 8 C.F.R. Sec. 1208.16(b)(2) - and the IJ and
BIA did not err in finding she was not eligible for withholding of
removal; further, proceeding to the merits of her claim, the record showed
she had not suffered past persecution which would create a presumption
that she has a well-founded fear of future persecution and she had not
shown a clear probability of future persecution on a protected ground; no
error in denying CAT relief.
123634P.pdf 04/22/2013 John Arnzen, III v. Charles Palmer
U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 12-3634
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Sioux City
[PUBLISHED] [Arnold, Author, with Bye and Benton, Circuit Judges]
Civil case - Civil rights. In action by patients at the Iowa Commitment
Unit for Sex Offenders challenging the placement of video cameras in the
facility's restrooms, the district court did not err in granting a preliminary
injunction ordering that cameras in "traditional style" bathrooms (as
opposed to "dormitory style" restrooms) be pointed at the ceiling or
covered with a lens cap, as capturing images of patients in single-user
restrooms violated the patients' reasonable expectations of privacy.
113860P.pdf 04/19/2013 Juan Martinez Carcamo v. Eric H. Holder, Jr.
U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 11-3860
Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
[PUBLISHED] [Riley, Author, with Colloton and Gruender, Circuit Judges]
Petition for Review - Immigration. Assuming petitioners' accounts of
the ICE officers' conduct are true, any Fourth Amendment violations they
suffered were not sufficiently egregious to entitle them to the remedy they
seek - exclusion of decisive evidence in their civil removal proceeding;
while both the IJ and the BIA erred in their treatment of petitioners'
testimony, the errors did not require a remand because they were not
prejudicial since they were relevant only to petitioners' Fourth
Amendment claims and did not go to the factual finding upon which they
were removed - namely, that they are aliens who entered the U.S. without
proper admission; the court had no jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1252
over petitioners' claim that the IJ deprived them of due process by failing
to shift the burden of proof once they made a prima facie case of a Fourth
Amendment violation as they had failed to raise the issue at the
administrative level.
123546P.pdf 04/19/2013 Union Electric Company v. AEGIS Energy Syndicate 1225
U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 12-3546
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
[PUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Bye, Arnold and Benton, Circuit Judges]
Civil case - Insurance. Endorsement in which the parties agreed to
submit to the jurisdiction of the courts of the State of Missouri entirely
supplanted the agreement's mandatory arbitration provision.
Ninth Circuit:
122175P.pdf 04/17/2013 United States v. Rodney Goodwin
U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 12-2175
U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota - Bismarck
[PUBLISHED] [Benton, Author, with Smith and Melloy, Circuit Judges]
Criminal case - Criminal law. Evidence was sufficient to support
defendant's conviction for attempted transportation of a minor with the
intent to engage in sexual activity; challenge to jury instruction rejected
122062P.pdf 04/16/2013 United States v. Michael Seibel
U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 12-2062
U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota - Pierre
[PUBLISHED] [Wollman, Author, with Bye and Benton, Circuit Judges]
Criminal case - Criminal law. District court properly excluded evidence
of prior sexual abuse of the victims under Rule 403; district court's
decision to admit negative test results of the victim's bedding, but
exclude evidence that another individual's semen was found, was neither
arbitrary nor disproportionate to the purpose Rule 412 was designed to
serve, and the ruling was not error; claim that the district court erred
in refusing to admit defendant's evidence that the victims had acquired
sexual knowledge from others was not preserved for review; evidence was
sufficient to support defendant's convictions for two counts of sexually
abusing minors; district court did not err in denying defendant's motion
for new trial based on a recantation by one victim on the grounds the
recantation was not credible and was instigated by defendant and his wife.
Ninth Circuit --
ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS V. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DONALD WIGE V. CITY OF LOS ANGELES
ALEJANDRO RODRIGUEZ V. TIMOTHY ROBBINS
ERIC PETZSCHKE V. CENTURY ALUMINUM COMPANY
MHC FINANCING LP V. CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
TARLA MAKAEFF V. TRUMP UNIVERSITY, LLC
Tenth Circuit --
United States v. Madrid
Eleventh Circuit --
USA v. Derrick Dajuan Hall
Tiara Condominium Association, Inc. v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.