Amity Rubberized Pen Co. v. Mkt. Quest Grp.
Patent claims fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Circuit, the court of appeals has no authority to decide a patent case on its merits. However, the court of appeals has the authority to transfer a case to the Federal Circuit if that court would have had jurisdiction at the time of filing and the transfer is in the interest of justice.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Asarco v. Celanese Chemical Co.
Settlements between private parties following claims for contribution and cost-recovery under § 113(f)(3)(B) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, fall within the three-year statute of limitations.
Area(s) of Law:- Environmental Law
Kirkpatrick v. County of Washoe
Municipalities must obtain judicial authorization before taking a child into protective custody, unless there is reasonable cause to believe the child is in imminent danger.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights § 1983
United States v. Watson
DNA testing that did not exist at trial and can be used to make an identification from existing evidence and to rebut a presumption of untimeliness for motions to perform DNA testing because it is newly discovered evidence.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
United States v. Ye
A conviction for providing false information in a passport application does not require specific intent; the party need only willfully and knowingly supply an untrue statement.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Olive v. CIR
A trade or business, defined as the activity entered into with the dominant hope and intent of realizing a profit, trafficking in controlled substances prohibited by Federal law is precluded from deducting any amount of ordinary or necessary business expenses under 26 U.S.C. § 280E.
Area(s) of Law:- Tax Law
United States v. Chan
Affirmative misrepresentations by defense counsel regarding immigration consequences can support an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
U.S. v. Roach
Under 42 U.S.C. § 6928(d)(2)(A), a person who “knowingly stores any hazardous waste without a permit” is criminally liable for that offense. Furthermore, under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, “storage” means the containment of hazardous waste not disposed of.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Arce v. Douglas
The Arlington Heights factors should be used by courts to determine whether a defendant has acted with a discriminatory purpose.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
Bldg. Indus. Ass’n V. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce
Under 4(b)(2) of the Endangered Species Act, after the agency considers economic impact, the entire exclusionary process is discretionary and there is no particular methodology that the agency must follow.
Area(s) of Law:- Wildlife Law
Maes v. Chavez
Federal habeas corpus petitions are subject to a one-year statute of limitations, but if a state court appeal is pending, the pendency period may be added to the statute of limitations.
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
U.S. Ex Rel. Hartpence v. Kinetic Concepts
Under the False Claim act, there are only two requirements for a claimant to be considered an “original source”: (1) must have direct and independent knowledge of the information on which their claims are based and (2) that they voluntarily provided that info to the Government before filing suit; playing a role in public disclosure is not required.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
United States v. Zepeda
The Indian Major Crimes Act requires: (1) proof of quantum Indian blood, whether it is from a Federally recognized tribe, and (2) proof or affiliation with a federally recognized tribe. Further, a defendant needs to have been an Indian during the time of the charged conduct, and whether a tribe is Federally recognized is a matter of law.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Williams v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co.
When using the federal common law, policy terms governed by Employee Retirement Income Security Act are interpreted in the ordinary and popular sense as a person of average intelligence and experience.
Area(s) of Law:- ERISA
Meridian Joint Sch. Dist. No. 2 v. D.A.
In a suit to determine the eligibility for a student to receive special needs, 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B)(i) and the discretion of the district court, allows for the prevailing parent to be awarded attorneys’ fees.
Area(s) of Law:- Disability Law
Multi Time Machine v. Amazon.com
A defendant infringes a trademark when they use the mark in commerce in a manner likely to cause confusion as to a product’s source, affiliation, association, or the trademark holder’s approval of the trademark user.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
United States v. Guzman-Ibarez
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibilities Act applies to defendants who were under criminal indictment but had not been sentenced at the time of enactment, but it does not retroactively deprive defendants of relief that was available at the time a plea was entered.
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
United States v. Salman
A breach of a fiduciary duty occurs when an insider makes a gift of confidential information to a trading relative or friend; the personal benefit the individual receives does not have to be pecuniary, but may also include the benefit the person obtains from making the gift of information to the friend or relative.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
United States v. Pocklington
A court only has jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3565(c) to extend an individuals probationary period if the jurisdictional requirements of issuing a warrant or summons before the probation deadline are met.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Bastidas v. Chappell
When a magistrate judge believes to be issuing a nondispositive order, the judge may warn litigants that if they disagree and believe the matter to be dispositive, they have the right to file an objection to the determination with the district judge.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
In Re Transwest Resort Properties
In considering if an appeal from bankruptcy court is equitably moot, the court considers: (1) whether a stay was sought, (2) whether the plan has been substantially consummated, (3) the burden on third parties, and (4) whether relief can be granted without dismantling the plan.
Area(s) of Law:- Bankruptcy Law
Mitchell v. Valenzuela
A magistrate judge does not have the authority to deny a motion in which denial leads to ultimate relief sought; the magistrate judge must submit a report and recommendation to the district court for which will be reviewed de novo.
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
United States v. Garcia-Gonzalez
An alien who has been removed from the United States may not enter, attempt to enter, or be found in the United States without the Attorney General’s consent; a removal order is fundamentally unfair where the deportation proceeding violated due process and the alien was prejudiced as a result.
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
McBride v. Lopez
To make a showing that an administrative remedy is effectively unavailable to an aggrieved inmate due to fear of retaliation for lodging a complaint, and therefore need not exhaust the administrative remedy prior to filing a claim in federal court, the inmate must show that the threat of retaliation deterred him from filing a grievance and that the threat would deter a reasonable inmate from pursuing the grievance procedure.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Pistor v. Garcia
Tribal Defendants are not entitled to sovereign immunity when they are sued in their individual capacity, rather than their official capacities, regardless if they are sued for actions done in the course of their official duties, unless any recovery will run against the tribe.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Vietnam Veterans of America v. CIA
Plain meaning of the Army Regulation 70-25 did not relieve the United States military of its duties to warn former test subjects of relevant information relating to their health as new information became available and provide medical care to those subjects.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law