Eleventh Circuit
A bunch of cases since last update (with a few more criminal cases yet to be summarized):
Willingham v. Loughnan (2/18/03) finds that the defendant police officers are entitled to qualified immunity against excessive force claims. The case is back before the Circuit having been remanded by the Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of Hope v. Pelzer, but the Circuit (Edmondson, J.) says (a) Hope v. Pelzer isn't very different from what we'd been saying all along, and doesn't change our law much; and (b) qualified immunity is still monstrously hard to overcome.
De Leon v. Comcar Industries (2/18/03) upholds summary judgment against pltf in an employment case, based on estoppel, since he failed to disclose this claim in his prior bankruptcy proceeding. Prior precedent of the Eleventh Circuit had reached the same result in the Chapter 7 context, and this case applies the same rule in Chapter 13.
Holmes v. Kucynda (2/13/03) mostly – but not entirely – partially affirms, but partially reverses, summary judgment for defendants in a Fourth Amendment case. The County wins because the plaintiff failed to prove a county policy or custom that caused the alleged deprivation, and there was no proof of an unlawful "failure to train"; and the officers win by qualified immunity on the claim that they entered the apartment unlawfully (they win because the evidence suggested that the tenant non-verbally acquiesced to a request for consent to enter). But summary judgment is reversed on the claims based on the officers' behavior once they entered; the facts as set forth in the opinion are pretty scary police-state stuff.
Household Bank v. JFS Group (2/7/03) is about the extent of federal court jurisdiction over declaratory judgment actions. The Court holds that when somebody could file a suit against you under a federal statute, then you can by the same token file a declaratory judgment action against them in federal court – even if the other party says "yes, but I was actually planning on suing you under state law, not federal law." Forum-shopping possibilities are endless.
Farrow v. West (2/7/03) reverses, in part, summary judgment against a prisoner in his suit alleging official indifference to his medical (dental) needs, in dawdling about getting him dentures for over a year despite his serious pain and resulting medical condition.
Nat. Fire Ins. Co. v. Fortune Constr. Co. (2/7/03) begins: "The primary issue presented by this appeal is whether a surety on construction contract performance and payment bonds issued on behalf of a subcontractor has superior rights to retained contract balances in the possession of the general contractor when the general contractor completed the performance and has unsatisfied claims against the defaulting subcontractor." Whatever.
Thompson v. Secretary (2/6/03), a habeas case, is about "mixed" petitions and procedural issues.
Harden v. Pataki (2/10/03) holds that a prisoner can bring suit under 42 USC § 1983 to challenge the procedures by which he was extradited from one state to another.
Admiral Ins. v. Feit Mgmt. (2/19/03) interprets the word "from" in the pollution exclusion of an insurance contract. Lots of ink spilled to interpret that one little common word.
Gonzalez-Oropeza v. Att'y Gen'l (2/19/03) holds that the Court had no jurisdiction to review a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals, denying relief from a removal order; and that the appellant's due process rights were not violated by the BIA's issuance of a no-opinion affirmance of the immigration judge's decision.
Hill v. White upholds the dismissal of a discrimination case filed by a civilian employee of the Army, because the Court sees the case as really being a challenge to the denial of security clearance and therefore not judicially reviewable.
Bui v. Haley (2/19/03) GRANTS habeas corpus in a capital case, based on Batson.
John F. Goodman Ltd. Partnership v. THF Constr. (2/14/03), a construction dispute, ends up being about Florida law on arbitrability. The Court holds under Florida law that, where there is a dispute about the enforceability of the contract (because one subcontractor was unlicensed, which may lead to unenforceability under Fla. law), the arbitration clause is "separable" from this issue about enforceability, and therefore the issue of enforceability must be argued to the arbitrator in the first instance.
Downing v. Bd. of Trustees (2/13/03) rejects the contention that the Congress exceeded its Fourteenth Amendment power in subjecting States to suit for sexual harassment and for retaliation under Title VII.
Fla. Pub. Tel. Ass'n v. City of Miami (2/13/03) contains much more than you probably want to know about the extent to which Florida municipalities, as opposed to the Florida Public Service Commission, can regulate pay phones.
Ballard v. IRS (2/13/03) upholds the Tax Court's conclusion that the taxpayers committed fraud. Holds that the procedure utilized – in which the Tax Court reviewed factual findings by a Special Trial Judge without letting the taxpayer see those findings – did not violate the taxpayer's due process rights.
Monahan v. IRS (2/13/03) rules against the taxpayer, holding that the "Piggyback Agreement" (by which the taxpayer agreed that its case would be governed by the result in another case being litigated at the same time) was enforceable and that it meant that the taxpayer lost because the taxpayer in the piggybacked case lost.
Ramirez v. Progress Preferred Ins. Co. (2/13/03) "concerns the obligations of a motor carrier and its insurer, specifically the extent of an insurer's liability when it fails to cancel a certificate of insurance filed with the State after a policy lapses" – and certifies questions about this to the Georgia Supreme Court.
A bunch of cases since last update (with a few more criminal cases yet to be summarized):
Willingham v. Loughnan (2/18/03) finds that the defendant police officers are entitled to qualified immunity against excessive force claims. The case is back before the Circuit having been remanded by the Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of Hope v. Pelzer, but the Circuit (Edmondson, J.) says (a) Hope v. Pelzer isn't very different from what we'd been saying all along, and doesn't change our law much; and (b) qualified immunity is still monstrously hard to overcome.
De Leon v. Comcar Industries (2/18/03) upholds summary judgment against pltf in an employment case, based on estoppel, since he failed to disclose this claim in his prior bankruptcy proceeding. Prior precedent of the Eleventh Circuit had reached the same result in the Chapter 7 context, and this case applies the same rule in Chapter 13.
Holmes v. Kucynda (2/13/03) mostly – but not entirely – partially affirms, but partially reverses, summary judgment for defendants in a Fourth Amendment case. The County wins because the plaintiff failed to prove a county policy or custom that caused the alleged deprivation, and there was no proof of an unlawful "failure to train"; and the officers win by qualified immunity on the claim that they entered the apartment unlawfully (they win because the evidence suggested that the tenant non-verbally acquiesced to a request for consent to enter). But summary judgment is reversed on the claims based on the officers' behavior once they entered; the facts as set forth in the opinion are pretty scary police-state stuff.
Household Bank v. JFS Group (2/7/03) is about the extent of federal court jurisdiction over declaratory judgment actions. The Court holds that when somebody could file a suit against you under a federal statute, then you can by the same token file a declaratory judgment action against them in federal court – even if the other party says "yes, but I was actually planning on suing you under state law, not federal law." Forum-shopping possibilities are endless.
Farrow v. West (2/7/03) reverses, in part, summary judgment against a prisoner in his suit alleging official indifference to his medical (dental) needs, in dawdling about getting him dentures for over a year despite his serious pain and resulting medical condition.
Nat. Fire Ins. Co. v. Fortune Constr. Co. (2/7/03) begins: "The primary issue presented by this appeal is whether a surety on construction contract performance and payment bonds issued on behalf of a subcontractor has superior rights to retained contract balances in the possession of the general contractor when the general contractor completed the performance and has unsatisfied claims against the defaulting subcontractor." Whatever.
Thompson v. Secretary (2/6/03), a habeas case, is about "mixed" petitions and procedural issues.
Harden v. Pataki (2/10/03) holds that a prisoner can bring suit under 42 USC § 1983 to challenge the procedures by which he was extradited from one state to another.
Admiral Ins. v. Feit Mgmt. (2/19/03) interprets the word "from" in the pollution exclusion of an insurance contract. Lots of ink spilled to interpret that one little common word.
Gonzalez-Oropeza v. Att'y Gen'l (2/19/03) holds that the Court had no jurisdiction to review a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals, denying relief from a removal order; and that the appellant's due process rights were not violated by the BIA's issuance of a no-opinion affirmance of the immigration judge's decision.
Hill v. White upholds the dismissal of a discrimination case filed by a civilian employee of the Army, because the Court sees the case as really being a challenge to the denial of security clearance and therefore not judicially reviewable.
Bui v. Haley (2/19/03) GRANTS habeas corpus in a capital case, based on Batson.
John F. Goodman Ltd. Partnership v. THF Constr. (2/14/03), a construction dispute, ends up being about Florida law on arbitrability. The Court holds under Florida law that, where there is a dispute about the enforceability of the contract (because one subcontractor was unlicensed, which may lead to unenforceability under Fla. law), the arbitration clause is "separable" from this issue about enforceability, and therefore the issue of enforceability must be argued to the arbitrator in the first instance.
Downing v. Bd. of Trustees (2/13/03) rejects the contention that the Congress exceeded its Fourteenth Amendment power in subjecting States to suit for sexual harassment and for retaliation under Title VII.
Fla. Pub. Tel. Ass'n v. City of Miami (2/13/03) contains much more than you probably want to know about the extent to which Florida municipalities, as opposed to the Florida Public Service Commission, can regulate pay phones.
Ballard v. IRS (2/13/03) upholds the Tax Court's conclusion that the taxpayers committed fraud. Holds that the procedure utilized – in which the Tax Court reviewed factual findings by a Special Trial Judge without letting the taxpayer see those findings – did not violate the taxpayer's due process rights.
Monahan v. IRS (2/13/03) rules against the taxpayer, holding that the "Piggyback Agreement" (by which the taxpayer agreed that its case would be governed by the result in another case being litigated at the same time) was enforceable and that it meant that the taxpayer lost because the taxpayer in the piggybacked case lost.
Ramirez v. Progress Preferred Ins. Co. (2/13/03) "concerns the obligations of a motor carrier and its insurer, specifically the extent of an insurer's liability when it fails to cancel a certificate of insurance filed with the State after a policy lapses" – and certifies questions about this to the Georgia Supreme Court.
posted by sam at
11:14 AM
