In United States v. Bartunek, No. 19-1584 (8th Cir. Aug. 12, 2020), the Eighth Circuit holds that it was error for a police investigator to testify about a message left anonymously outside a suspect’s home – a traffic cone with the word “chimo” (for “child molester”) written near the bottom. The conviction stands, though, becauseContinue reading “Testimony About Anonymous Crime Tip Written on a Traffic Cone Outside Suspect’s Home Was Inadmissible Hearsay, But Not Grounds for Reversal, Holds Eighth Circuit”
Category Archives: Uncategorized
Perfunctory Fed. R. Civ. P 54(b) Certification Fails to Confer Appellate Jurisdiction, Holds D.C. Circuit
In a breach-of-privacy action, Attias v. CareFirst, Inc., No. 19-7020 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 11, 2020), the D.C. Circuit holds that the district court’s failure to explain his Rule 54(b) dismissal of some plaintiffs and claims dashes jurisdiction over an appeal. Seven plaintiffs filed a putative class action against a health insurer following a hack ofContinue reading “Perfunctory Fed. R. Civ. P 54(b) Certification Fails to Confer Appellate Jurisdiction, Holds D.C. Circuit”
Removal to the Wrong Federal District Court Is A Procedural, Not Jurisdictional, Defect According to the Fifth Circuit
In Hinkley v. Envoy Air, Inc., No. 19-10848 (5th Cir. Aug. 4, 2020), the panel is presented with a convoluted problem of removal from state court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) that was filed in the wrong federal district. The panel holds that such a defect is only procedural rather than jurisdictional and was thusContinue reading “Removal to the Wrong Federal District Court Is A Procedural, Not Jurisdictional, Defect According to the Fifth Circuit”
Ninth Circuit Holds That Attorney Work-Product Protection Is Waived Only When Documents Are Exposed to Adversaries, Not to Consultants or Other Third Parties
In United States v. Sanmina Corp., No. 18-17036 (9th Cir. Aug. 7, 2020), the Ninth Circuit considers whether two memoranda by a taxpayer’s in-house counsel must be turned over to the IRS. The Ninth Circuit affirms the district court’s finding that any attorney-client privilege was waived, and remands for further review of attorney work-product protectionContinue reading “Ninth Circuit Holds That Attorney Work-Product Protection Is Waived Only When Documents Are Exposed to Adversaries, Not to Consultants or Other Third Parties”
Criminal Confessions of Cooperating Witnesses Not Admissible as Prior Consistent Statements Under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(B), Holds Fifth Circuit
For the second time in the past two weeks, in United States v. Portillo, No. 18-50793 (5th Cir. Aug. 5, 2020), a U.S. Court of Appeals publishes an opinion applying the 2014 amendment to Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(B) that expanded the admissibility of prior consistent statements. The Second Circuit recently upheld the admission of priorContinue reading “Criminal Confessions of Cooperating Witnesses Not Admissible as Prior Consistent Statements Under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(B), Holds Fifth Circuit”
One Day After the Second Circuit Rules, a Split Fourth Circuit Panel Comes Out the Other Way on the Trump Administration’s “Public Charge Rule” and Nationwide Injunctions
Finding “nationwide injunctions” to be a “drastic and extraordinary remedy” restricted “to the most exceptional circumstances,” a divided Fourth Circuit panel holds in Casa De Maryland, Inc. v. Trump, No. 19-2222 (4th Cir. Aug. 5, 2020) that the district court abused its discretion by issuing an injunction that reached beyond the organization and its membersContinue reading “One Day After the Second Circuit Rules, a Split Fourth Circuit Panel Comes Out the Other Way on the Trump Administration’s “Public Charge Rule” and Nationwide Injunctions”
Second Circuit Exercises Discretion to Scale Nationwide Injunction of “Public Charge Rule” Back to Geographic Scope of Circuit
In New York v. United States Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 19-3595 (2d Cir. Aug. 4, 2020), the Second Circuit joins the roiling debate about the authority of federal district courts to enter nationwide injunctions against the federal government. The panel affirms a preliminary injunction entered against the Trump Administration’s 2019 amendments to the “publicContinue reading “Second Circuit Exercises Discretion to Scale Nationwide Injunction of “Public Charge Rule” Back to Geographic Scope of Circuit”
State Department Cables Ruled Inadmissible Under Public-Records Exception, Fed. R. Evid. 803(8), by Eleventh Circuit
Creating a possible circuit split, the Eleventh Circuit holds in Eloy Rojas Mamani v. Gonzalo Daniel Sanchez De Lozada Sanchez Bustamante, No. 18-12728 (11th Cir. Aug. 8, 2020), that State Department cables containing unattributed observations about conditions in a foreign country are inadmissible hearsay, not covered by the public-records exception of Fed. R. Evid. 803(8).Continue reading “State Department Cables Ruled Inadmissible Under Public-Records Exception, Fed. R. Evid. 803(8), by Eleventh Circuit”
Fifth Circuit Holds That Article III Standing Must Be Determined Per Violation in Clean Air Act Case Alleging 16,386 Violations
In Environment Texas Citizen Lobby, Inc. v. ExxonMobil Corp., No. 17-20545 (5th Cir. July 29, 2020), noting that heretofore “no court appears to have found standing for some Clean Air Act violations but not others,” a Fifth Circuit panel becomes apparently the first to hold that there must be Article III “standing for each violationContinue reading “Fifth Circuit Holds That Article III Standing Must Be Determined Per Violation in Clean Air Act Case Alleging 16,386 Violations”
Seventh Circuit Refuses to Seal Opinion That Discloses Sensitive Medical Information
In Mitze v. Saul, No. 19-3212 (7th Cir. July 31, 2020) (per curiam), the Seventh Circuit reminds litigants that only extraordinary circumstances justify the sealing of a judicial opinion, and that preventing the disclosure of personal medical information alone is insufficient. In 2013, the plaintiff filed an action appealing the denial of Social Security benefits;Continue reading “Seventh Circuit Refuses to Seal Opinion That Discloses Sensitive Medical Information”
Paul Mollica's Federal Courts Blog 