Somehow I got left off the ping list so it took me a while to find the new thread. Finally caught up, good to see I didn’t miss anything. *cough*
One thing to note about Ginsburg. Pnemonia is a hell of a thing. I lost my mother in law and my dad to it. Rand Paul got it when he got the broken ribs in the attack on him. Another Twitter user got it too when she broke a rib, she told me when I posted about this there.
With three broken ribs you can guarantee RBG will get pnemonia. At 85 she is not likely to survive it, but you never know.
Either way she’s done. Next sessions starts 11/26. Here’s the cases.
Apple v. Pepper
HIGHLIGHTS
The case: Robert Pepper and other plaintiffs filed an antitrust lawsuit against Apple Inc., alleging that Apple was monopolizing the market for iPhone apps. Apple controls which apps can be sold through its App Store and keeps 30 percent of sales from apps developed by third party developers that are sold in the App Store. The district court dismissed the case, ruling that consumers of iPhone apps are purchasing directly from app developers, not Apple, and therefore could not sue for antitrust violations according to precedent from a 1977 U.S. Supreme Court ruling. The Ninth Circuit Court reversed the dismissal, ruling that consumers are purchasing from Apple, not the app developers.
The issue: Whether consumers may sue for antitrust damages anyone who delivers goods to them, even where they seek damages based on prices set by third parties who would be the immediate victims of the alleged offense.
Nieves v. Bartlett
HIGHLIGHTS
The case: Russell Bartlett was arrested by Alaska state troopers Luis Nieves and Bryce Weight. Bartlett sued Nieves and Weight for false arrest, excessive force, malicious prosecution, and retaliatory arrest. The Ninth Circuit Court agreed with the district court that Nieves and Weight had had probable cause to arrest Bartlett for harassment, disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, or assault. The district court granted summary judgement to Nieves and Weight on all counts. The Ninth Circuit Court affirmed the district court’s ruling on the false arrest, excessive force, and malicious prosecution charges, but reversed the ruling on the retaliatory arrest charge.
The issue: In Hartman v. Moore, 54 7 U.S. 250 (2006), this Court held that probable cause defeats a First Amendment retaliatory-prosecution claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as a matter of law. Does probable cause likewise defeat a First Amendment retaliatory-arrest claim under § 1983?
Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert
HIGHLIGHTS
The case: Troy Lambert filed a class action against Nutraceutical Corp. for making false claims about a dietary supplement that was supposed to increase sexual performance. After a district court declined to let the class action move forward, Lambert filed an appeal, but he did not do so within 14 days, as required by the court.
The issue: Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred when it held that equitable exceptions apply to mandatory claim-processing rules—such as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), which establishes a 14-day deadline to file a petition for permission to appeal an order granting or denying class-action certification—and can excuse a party’s failure to file timely within the deadline specified by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), in conflict with the decisions of the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 7th, 10th and 11th Circuits.
Carpenter v. Murphy - no information.
Timbs v. Indiana
HIGHLIGHTS
The case: When Tyson Timbs pleaded guilty to a drug charge, he was ordered as part of his sentence to forfeit his Land Rover, on the grounds that he had transported drugs in the vehicle. A state appeals court ruled in favor of Timbs, who argued that the forfeiture was unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment’s clause prohibiting excessive fines. The Indiana Supreme Court reversed the decision, stating that the U.S. Supreme Court had never ruled that the excessive fines clause applied to state governments.
The issue: Whether the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause is incorporated against the States under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Lorenzo v. Securities and Exchange Commission
HIGHLIGHTS
The case: Francis Lorenzo, the director of investment banking at Charles Vista, LLC, sent emails containing false statements to potential investors and was charged by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) with violating three securities-fraud laws. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit agreed with the SEC that Lorenzo had violated two of the laws, but it reversed in regards to the third provision, finding that Lorenzo’s boss had ultimate authority over the statements and therefore Lorenzo did not truly make the statements.
The issue: Whether a misstatement claim that does not meet the elements set forth in Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First Derivative Traders can be repackaged and pursued as a fraudulent scheme claim.[2]
Dawson v. Steager
HIGHLIGHTS
The case: James Dawson retired from the US Marshal Service in 2008. West Virginia allows some state and local retired law enforcement officers to exempt their retirement benefits from the state income tax. Dawson, receiving benefits from the Federal Employee Retirement System, sought to exempt his retirement income from the state income tax. The tax commissioner denied the exemption. The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals reversed a lower court’s decision, ruling that the state’s tax on Dawson’s retirement income was not in conflict with U.S. law.
The issue: Whether this Court’s precedent and the doctrine of intergovernmental tax immunity bar states from exempting groups of state retirees from state income tax while discriminating against similarly situated federal retirees based on the source of their retirement income.[2]
Biestek v. Berryhill
HIGHLIGHTS
The case: Michael Biestek stopped working in 2005 due to degenerative disc disease, Hepatitis C, and depression. His application for Supplemental Security Income and Disability Insurance Benefits in 2010 was denied by the Social Security Administration (SSA). An administrative law judge found that Biestek was disabled after May 4, 2013, but not before. Biestek appealed, arguing that the judge should have complied with his request to require the vocational expert to provide the data that formed the basis of her opinion regarding other work available to Biestek. The Sixth Circuit Court affirmed the lower court’s decision, ruling that the administrative law judge had not erred in not requiring the vocational expert to produce the data.
The issue: Whether a vocational expert’s testimony can constitute substantial evidence of “other work,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v), available to an applicant for social security benefits on the basis of a disability, when the expert fails upon the applicant’s request to provide the underlying data on which that testimony is premised.[2]
Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc.
The case: Helsinn Healthcare S.A. was the owner of four patents related to the use of palonosetron to treat chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Prior to the critical date for the on-sale bar, Helsinn signed a supply and purchase contract with MGI Pharma, which was made public but was partly redacted. Helsinn sued Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. for allegedly infringing on the patents. Teva claimed that the patents were invalid under the on-sale bar provision of 35 U.S.C. § 102. Helsinn argued that the patents were valid because the actual invention was kept secret although the sale agreement was public.
The issue: Whether, under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, an inventor’s sale of an invention to a third party that is obligated to keep the invention confidential qualifies as prior art for purposes of determining the patentability of the invention.
Gamble v. U.S. - no information
-SB