Posts

In a high school student’s civil rights action against his school, high school basketball coaches, and others alleging that defendants violated his substantive due process rights and Tennessee state law by using excessive corporal punishment against him while he played for the High School basketball team, denial of plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial after a jury verdict in favor of defendants is affirmed where: 1) reasonable juror could conclude that the paddlings administered by the coaches were for disciplinary purposes, and were not excessive in severity, frequency, motivation, or means; 2) district court properly denied motion for a new trial based on section 1983 claims against the coaches as a reasonable juror could have concluded that the paddlings that plaintiff endured by the coaches did not result in a severe injury and did not amount to a brutal and inhumane abuse of official power that shocks the conscience; 3) district court properly denied motion for a new trial based on the outrageous conduct and negligence claims as supported by sufficient evidence; 4) jury was properly instructed on the substantive due process claim; 5) district court acted within its discretion by excluding testimony of the superintendent under F....

In a petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the district court’s order denying petitioner’s motion to remand the action to state court, the petition is denied where: 1) the court of appeals’ prior opinion did not preclude the district court’s conclusion that petitioners failed to file a timely motion for remand, because the purportedly erroneous removal under 28 U.S.C. section 1452(a) did not implicate the district court’s subject matter jurisdiction; and 2) any challenge to the district court’s subject matter jurisdiction was best addressed on direct appeal, rather than by a writ of mandamus....

When we think of free speech in schools, it’s often student speech that comes to mind. However, plenty of free speech disputes arise from school employees’ public disagreements with their administration. Those cases often involve the balancing of a state employee’s interest in participating in public debate against a government employer’s interest in an efficient work force. Last week, the Tenth Circuit ruled that the government’s interest outweighs a principal’s right to speak out against the closing of a school....

New Mex. Youth Organized v. Herrera, No. 09-2212, involved an action by political committees challenging New Mexico’s ability to regulate plaintiffs pursuant to the New Mexico Campaign Reporting Act (“NMCRA”). The court of appeals affirmed summary judgment for plaintiffs, on the ground that the organizations could not be constitutionally said to have a primary purpose of influencing elections–as measured by either a comprehensive examination of their activities or by their satisfaction of the $500 threshold–such that they could be subject to the full range of disclosure and report provisions....

The 2021 Report on the State of the Legal Market, from The Center on Ethics and the Legal Profession at Georgetown University Law Center and the Thomson Reuters Institute, suggests that law firms have reached a “tipping point” in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. As we look back on 2020 and 2021, the authors of the study note, we may discover that these two years led to permanent changes in the legal industry....

U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert E. Bacharach has support from his home state senators and a “unanimously well qualified” rating from the American Bar Association, but he doesn’t have enough Republican support in the Senate to be confirmed for the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals before November, reports The Oklahoman. President Obama nominated Judge Bacharach to fill Judge Robert Henry’s vacancy on the Tenth Circuit in January. At the time, Oklahoma’s senators, Jim Inhofe and Tom Coburn, expressed their support for Bacharach’s nomination....

The Supreme Court’s upcoming term includes several high-profile cases for the conservative-majority court to decide. From abortion to gun rights, to protections for the LGBT community, the decisions made this term will have an impact for years to come. The court’s 2019-2020 term includes review of the following questions: Do the Protections of Title VII Extend to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity? On October 8th, the court will hear oral arguments on a set of three cases: Bostock v....

A previously dismissed sexual harassment suit brought against a Florida-state correctional agency that contracts with the Department of Justice must be reinstated, said the Ninth Circuit. The case centers on the unprofessional and sexually explicit behaviors of male co-workers who were employees of Florida based Geo Group. The Arizona Attorneys Office seemed happy by the Ninth Circuit’s ruling. “This ruling allows our office to seek remedies for 25 women who were forced to accept sexual harassment by their male co-workers and supervisors as a requirement for their work at the Geo Group,” said Mia Garcia, a spokesperson for the AZ Attorney General’s Office....

Could the Supreme Court hear two university affirmative action cases this term? The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in November that Michigan’s affirmative action ban was unconstitutional because it posed an extraordinary burden to opponents who would try to protect affirmative action. That ruling, which would reinstate affirmative action in the state, has been put on hold. Last week Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to review the decision, The Associated Press reports....

In a narrow decision, the U.S. Supreme Court said a state may remove voter registrations for people who don’t confirm their addresses and don’t vote for years. In Husted v. Philip Randolph Institute, the Justices reversed an appeals court decision that found Ohio’s deregistration process violated voters’ rights. The state sent people who failed to vote requests to confirm their address, and if they didn’t respond or vote for four years, officials removed them from the list of registered voters....

In a pair of cases out of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, a three judge panel reversed a seemingly rogue lower federal district court ruling that refused to extend First Amendment protections to two individuals who photographed police in public. While the cases were remanded back to the lower federal court, the circuit court seemed to caution the parties that the defendants were likely to be immune from liability, regardless of the outcome of the appeal....

Defendant’s sentence for illegal reentry into the US is affirmed where: 1) a prior conviction for a violation of California Penal Code section 245(a)(1) qualifies as a “crime of violence” within the meaning of U.S.S.G. section 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii); and 2) because defendant’s objections to the presentence report were legal, not factual, the district court was not required to make any factual determinations, and so committed no error. Read US v. Grajeda, No....

Defendant’s drug possession conviction is reversed where there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction, because the government failed to prove that Defendant participated in the conspiracy to possess marijuana for distribution. Read US v. Tran, No. 07-30270 Appellate Information Argued and Submitted August 6, 2008 Filed June 24, 2009 Judges Opinion by Judge Pregerson Dissent by Judge Noonan Counsel For Appellant: Allen M. Ressler, Browne & Ressler, Seattle, WA...

Conviction of defendant for possession and intent to distribute cocaine and sentenced to 70 months’ imprisonment is affirmed as the incriminating statements defendant gave to the police after his arrest was voluntary because defendant’s choice to reveal the cocaine in his safe was rationally made within the context of the negotiations and not the result of false promises made by the police. Read US v, Villalpando, No. 09-1263 Appellate Information...

Defendant’s drug conviction and sentence are affirmed where: 1) sufficient evidence independent of hearsay statements showed that defendant was a member of the drug conspiracy at issue; and 2) any potential error caused by trying multiple conspiracies under a single indictment did not influence the fairness of the trial. Read US v. Warman, No. 05-4416 Appellate Information Argued: April 23, 2009 Decided and Filed: August 18, 2009 Judges Opinion by Judge Cole...

In an action by an Indian tribe against another tribe seeking equitable apportionment of a shared fishery, the dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where the request for allocation was not permitted by the terms of the tribe’s agreement. Read US v. Washington, No. 07-35062 Appellate Information Argued and Submitted October 21, 2008 Filed July 13, 2009 Judges Opinion by Judge Kleinfeld Counsel For Appellants: Douglas B. L. Endreson, Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Endreson & Perry, LLP, Washington, DC...

A 2018 fatal accident involving a self-driving Uber car and a pedestrian caused the ride-sharing company to quickly pump the brakes on its quest for driverless vehicles. It also certainly did not help ease the public’s concerns about the new technology. Now the “safety driver” behind the wheel of that self-driving Uber is facing charges of negligent homicide, prosecutors in Tempe, Arizona, announced this week. The charges are likely to spook both autonomous vehicle companies and potential employees....

Rule changes are never exciting. (Heck, I fell asleep four times reviewing these.) But rule changes are important. Why? Because if you file a printed addendum instead of an appendix, Chief Judge Mary Beck Briscoe will leave Lawrence, Kansas, get into her car, drive to your office, and kick you in your appendix. Or something like that. The rule changes include Fed-wide changes to bankruptcy appeals, as well as tweaks to the local rules for appendices and other housecleaning....

Oh, why can’t all the circuits be like the Second Circuit? We’re never at a loss for interesting cases coming out of the Second (yeah, we’re looking at you Tenth Circuit). There were just too many interesting things happening in the Second Circuit last week so here’s a roundup of some of our favorites. Starbucks sued defendant for its use of “Mister Charbucks” and “Charbucks Blend” alleging violations of the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006, and seeking injunctive relief....

Federal law may preempt the State of Arizona from enacting most of the key components of its famously-tough immigration law, but it won’t keep the State of Washington from promoting tough state energy standards in new building construction. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Monday that the state’s new building code, which requires a 15 percent reduction in annual net energy consumption for new construction, was not preempted by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), reports Courthouse News Service....