Eleventh Circuit Two cases yesterday:

US v. Allen is a long and complicated opinion about sentencing, in a big cocaine-and-marijuana-conspiracy case. The Court holds (1) that, where the jury was not asked to give a special verdict as to whether the defendants had conspired re cocaine or re marijuana or re both, the defendants could not be given a sentence that was greater than the max for marijuana (even though the huge sentence would have been permissible for cocaine) -- though the government is given the option to retry the defendants and seek a special verdict if it wants to sock them with larger sentences; and (2) that the sentences on the other counts also had to be vacated based on Apprendi and drug-quantity issues.

US v. Petrie affirms a money-laundering conviction, but reverses a preliminary forfeiture order because of lack of jurisdiction where it was entered well after sentencing. The Court holds that such orders are to occur as part of sentencing, not afterwards. There are also a variety of evidentiary and sentencing issues, all resolved against Petrie.

Eleventh Circuit Just one case from the Circuit yesterday, Georgia v. US Army Corps of Engineers, holding that the District Court erred in denying intervention to the State of Florida, and to a group of power consumers, in a case having to do with a water supply under the control of the Corps of Engineers.

Ala. S.Ct. These cases from last Friday:

Perhaps most important, even though it contains no holding, is the denial of certiorari in Ex parte Canidate, insofar as Justice Johnstone's concurrence in the denial suggests that the Court will deny certiorari even if the decision below conflicts with a prior precedent if the appellate lawyer doesn't explicitly invoke the Rule of Procedure that provides for certiorari review on that ground.

In Campbell v. Naman's Catering, the employee says that the employer deducted money from his paycheck for insurance premiums and a Christmas Club account, but then just kept the money. It doesn't even seem like this is disputed. But, just before being sued, the employer paid back the money it had deducted. The employer is, on this basis, able to wiggle out of some of the claims (for breach of contract, except insofar as it didn't pay him interest, and for conversion) -- but the employer remains potentially liable for fraud, and the summary judgment on that count is reversed because there was evidence that this was an intentional and repeated practice on the employer's part.

Sessions v. Nonnenmann, affirming summary judgment for the defendant in a personal injury suit by subcontractor against general contractor, holds that in the context of premises liability -- as contrasted with some other tort contexts -- openness and obviousness of a danger goes to whether there was a duty at all, not just to defenses such as assumption/contributory negligence. As the Court explains, this makes it easier to base summary judgment on openness/obviousness in this sort of case.

Hornady Truck Line v. Dorman affirms large compensatory awards against in a car-wreck case.

Eleventh Circuit Here's what the Circuit's been doing since the last update:

US v. Bowman, affirming convictions, is full of details about the Outlaws motorcycle club, and is worth reading if only for sociological interest. The main legal issues are whether it was error to keep the jurors' names secret (it wasn't, says the Court) and whether it was error to let the jury know that the Outlaws are an all-white group (it was error but harmless, says the Court).

US v. Duty joins other Circuits in holding that, for sentencing guidelines purposes in determing "career offender" status, two prior convictions are unrelated where the offenses underlying those convictions are separated by arrests.

In US v. Sutton, helped by the government's confession of error, the Court reverses on a sentencing issue. Defendant pleaded guilt to a firearms charge. District Court increased his sentence because some other firearms had been used in a drug transaction -- not the firearms about which he pleaded guilty. This was error; for the increase to apply, those firearms on which he was convicted had to have been used in a drug transaction.

Maris Dist. Co. v. Anheuser-Busch affirms a judgment for A-B in a beer antitrust case, which is worth reading if you're an antitrust lawyer. Also some issues on taxation of costs: (1) district court can tax costs of all depositions of people who were on the other side's witness list, even if those depositions weren't ultimately used at trial; and (2) cost of daily trial transcript could be taxed, within trial court's discretion, where trial court found that daily transcript was necessary due to the length and complexity of the trial.