Adam Mentzer

United States Supreme Court (9 summaries)

Dean v. United States

Sentencing courts may consider the mandatory minimum sentences imposed by § 924(c) when determining the proper sentence for the predicate offense.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC

Laches is not an available defense to patent infringement claims for damages incurred during the statute of limitation period set forth in § 286 of the Patent Act.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents

State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. United States ex rel. Rigsby

Failure to abide by the seal requirement of the False Claims Act does not mandate the dismissal of a complaint filed under the False Claims Act.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Bosse v. Oklahoma

Payne v. Tennessee did not implicitly overrule Booth v. Maryland's holding that the Eighth Amendment prohibits a capital sentencing jury from considering evidence of a victim’s family members’ opinions about the crime, the defendant, and the appropriate sentence.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Wells Fargo & Co., et al., Petitioners v. City of Miami, Florida; Bank of America Corp., et al., Petitioners v. City of Miami, Florida

Whether: (1) the zone of interest requirement for "aggrieved person[s] under the FHA is as broad as the injury-in-fact requirement of Article III standing; 2) the FHA requires more than indirect harm to be pled to establish proximate cause.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Standing

Buck v. Smith

Whether Petitioner's circumstances are extraordinary enough to warrant relief under Rule 60(b)(6), based on an ineffective assistance of counsel argument, from denial of his habeas claim when: his counsel called an expert witness to testify during sentencing and the expert stated that Petitioner's race made him more likely to be dangerous in the future, the prosecution alluded to Petitioner's race in closing as support for Petitioner's future dangerousness, and Petitioner was sentenced to death after it was determined that Petitioner had the potential to commit future violent acts.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Sheriff v. Gillie

Independent Counsels' use of the Ohio Attorney General's letterhead to collect debt was not a misleading or deceptive practice under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, when the attorneys were acting as special counsel on behalf of the Attorney General, for purposes of collecting debts for the state and its instrumentalities.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Consumer Credit

Ocasio v. United States

Defendants may be criminally liable for conspiring to violate the Hobbs Act if the government can prove that the defendant agreed with the property owner to acquire that property under color of official right.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Heffernan v. City of Paterson

Employers may be held liable under the First Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for demoting an employee in an attempt to prevent them from engaging in political activity protected by the First Amendment, even if the employer is factually mistaken about the nature of their employee’s activity.

Area(s) of Law:
  • First Amendment

United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted (12 summaries)

Ayestas v. Davis

Whether a court may deny a movant's request for "reasonably necessary" resources under 18 U.S.C. § 3599(f) to investigate and advance an ineffective assistance of counsel claim that was forfeited by the movant's state habeas counsel, where the movant's "existing evidence does not meet the ultimate burden of proof at the time the § 3599(f) motion is made."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v. Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco, et al.

Whether specific jurisdiction requires a causation connection between a defendant's connections with a forum state and the Plaintiff's suit?

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

District of Columbia, et al. v. Wesby, et al.

Whether Petitioners were entitled to qualified immunity because the applicable law regarding trespass was not clearly established and whether probable cause existed when Petitioners arrested Respondents for trespass after being informed by the homeowner that no one had permission to be on the property and if Petitioners could use that information to discredit the inconsistent explanations provided by Respondents?

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Lee v. United States

Whether it is always irrational for a immigrant, who has resided in the United States for a substantial time and who is charged with a crime, to choose to refuse to take a plea and proceed to trial in spite of overwhelming evidence of guilt, if taking a plea would subject the individual to removal?

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

TC Heartland, LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC

Whether the patent venue statute, 28 USC § 1400(b), is the sole and exclusive venue statute for patent infringement cases, or whether it is supplemented by the venue statute 28 USC § 1391?

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents

Turner et al. v. United States Overton, Russell L. v. United States

Whether Brady v. Maryland requires that the Petitioners' convictions be set aside?

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Water Splash, Inc v. Menon

Whether service of process may be achieved by mail under the Hague Service Convention?

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Advocate Health Care, et al. v. Stapleton, et al., St. Peter's Healthcare, et al. v. Kaplan, Dignity Health, et al. v. Rollins

Whether a church must originally establish a pension plan in order for the church plan exemption of ERISA to apply to church-affiliated organizations that maintain pension plans and are otherwise qualified for the exemption?

Area(s) of Law:
  • ERISA

Los Angeles County, CA, et al. v. Mendez, et al.

Whether the Ninth Circuit's "provocation" rule is invalid for conflicting with Graham v. Connor's test of police officer liability for use of force under 42 USC § 1983 and whether the reasonable use of force constitutes an intervening and superseding event that breaks the causation chain from an entry made in violation of the Fourth Amendment?

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Rights § 1983

Kindred Nursing Centers, et al. v. Clark, et al.

Whether the Federal Arbitration Act preempts a Kentucky contract rule that requires a power of attorney to expressly refer to arbitration agreements, despite containing a broad power to contract, in order to authorize the attorney-in-fact to enter into arbitration agreements on the principal's behalf?

Area(s) of Law:
  • Preemption

Manrique v. United States

Should Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(b)(2) allow for the ripening of premature notices of appeal in criminal matters, filed after sentencing judgments but before entry of deferred restitution judgments, after the final judgment is entered?

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

Bravo-Fernandez v. United States

Whether an acquittal’s preclusive effect pursuant to the Double Jeopardy Clause is divested by a vacated, unconstitutional conviction?

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

9th Circuit Court of Appeals (33 summaries)

Nat’l Fed. of the Blind v. United Airlines

The federal government has broadly preempted the field of accessibility of air transportation.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Preemption

Adobe Systems, Inc. v. Christenson

If a copyright holder challenges a first sale defense on the grounds that the copyrighted material was licensed and not sold, the burden shifts to the copyright holder to prove so, instead of the individual raising the affirmative defense bearing the burden of satisfying the statutory requirements.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Copyright

Americans For Prosperity Foundation v. Harris

Exacting scrutiny applies to compelled disclosure requirements; compelled disclosure of IRS Form 990 Schedule B alone does not constitute First Amendment injury.

Area(s) of Law:
  • First Amendment

Viloria v. Lynch

The U.S. Court of Appeals only has jurisdiction in removal proceedings over final orders of removal.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

United States v. Lloyd

The doctrine of harmless error requires a court to affirm a conviction if there is an overwhelming presence of guilt.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Bringas-Rodriguez v. Lynch

Courts will uphold the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decisions regarding asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protection when substantial evidence for reversal is lacking.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Tohono O’odham Nation v. State of Arizona

Obstacle preemption analysis calls for an examination of the federal statute as a whole and an identification of the purpose and intended effects of the statute to determine if a challenged state statute creates an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the objectives of Congress.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Indian Law

In re ChinaCast Educ. Corp. Sec. Litig.

The securities common law adverse interest rule is generally not applied in cases where an innocent third party relies on an agent’s apparent authority.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Corporations

Stanislaus Food Prods. v. USS-POSCO Indus.

Allegations of conspiracies, based on circumstantial evidence, that violate the Sherman Antitrust Act must show specific evidence of the conspiracy, as well as evidence that tends to exclude the conclusion that the alleged conspirators acted individually.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

DC Comics v. Towle

Authors of underlying works are entitled to sue third parties who make unauthorized copies of their derivative works, provided that the material copied derived from the underlying work.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Copyright

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. USFWS

Agency actions, even those made pursuant to the Environmental Species Act, must be upheld unless the agency’s action is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or inconsistent with the law.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

United States v. Myers

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c)(1) categorically prohibits judicial participation, except where a defendant waives the rule’s application to their case.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Harkonen v. U.S.D.O.J.

The Department of Justice’s and the Office of Management and Budget’s exclusion of press releases from their definition of dissemination under the Information Quality Act is within their discretion.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

United States v. Aubrey

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1168, funds paid to private contractors that are sufficiently maintained by and monitored by a tribal organization continue to be property of a tribal organization.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

ONRC Action v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

When water is transferred from one portion of that body of water to another, and the bodies are not meaningfully distinct from one another, no pollutants are deemed added, and a permit under the Clean Water Act is not required.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Environmental Law

Salazar-Gonzales v. Lynch

In effective assistance of counsel is likely when an attorney advises a client to pursue relief that the client is statutory ineligible for, resulting in a the client’s inability to appeal.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

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. 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. 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

CHMM v. Freeman Marine Equip.

A vessel owner is not barred by the economic loss doctrine from tort claims when a manufacturer of the product was not responsible for the manufacturing or production of the user-added item.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Admiralty

United States v. Esparza

Hearsay violates the Confrontation Clause if the declarant’s statement is testimonial, if the declarant is unavailable, and the defense has had no prior opportunity to cross-examine the declarant.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Coquico v. Lynch

To determine if a crime involves moral turpitude that would support an alien's removal, courts will compare the elements of the crime in question to elements of crimes already found to be crimes involving moral turpitude.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Washington v. Ryan

A Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion will not be granted if a party’s sole purpose for filing the motion is to remedy an untimely notice of appeal and avoid the statutory time limit.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Flores v. Huppenthal

A plaintiff does not have standing to bring a statewide claim for violations of the Equal Education Opportunities Act when they only have evidence of violations occurring in their school district.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Standing

Northbay Wellness v. Beyries

Debts that are incurred when an attorney steals money from a client are non-dischargeable in bankruptcy proceedings, regardless of “unclean hands.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Bankruptcy Law

Sam K. v. State of Hawaii Dep’t of Educ.

A department of education may give implied consent for the placement of a student with disabilities in private education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act by failing to timely develop an alternative when a student is likely to continue attending the same school, ultimately creating a bilateral placement.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Disability Law

LeGras v. AETNA Life Ins. Co.

Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act’s federal common law, the deadline to appeal is extended to the following business day when the deadline falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday.

Area(s) of Law:
  • ERISA

United States v. Martinez

A defendant is not removable based on an aggravated felony if the defendant has been convicted of a child molestation offense that does not satisfy the generic elements of sexual abuse of a minor; nor can a court apply the modified categorical approach when a statute is indivisible and missing elements of the generic definition of sexual abuse of a minor.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

United States v. Cazares

District court rulings in criminal proceedings are likely to be upheld if the district court’s actions do not rise above the level of harmless error.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

El Comité para el Bienestar de Earlimart v. EPA

The Environmental Protection Agency is given broad deference to interpret provisions and to act accordingly, so long as its actions, interpretations, and determinations are not arbitrary or capricious.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Environmental Law

Nativity Scenes Comm. v. City of Santa Monica

A cause of action alleging First Amendment violations by a city is not created under the Establishment Clause or heckler veto doctrine when the city passes a content-neutral time, place, and manner regulation that is supported by secular rationales, and could not reasonably be construed as primarily seeking to communicate disapproval of a religion.

Area(s) of Law:
  • First Amendment

Paulsson v. Dorosz

Foreign laws cannot divest federal district courts of subject matter jurisdiction, unless a foreign law creates rights that can only be enforced by the foreign nation’s courts, then relief for violations of such rights cannot be sought in federal district courts.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Tulalip Tribes v. State of Washington

The “most-favored tribe clause” in the Tulalip Compact does not require the State of Washington to enact an amendment if the amendment does not reflect the same limitations of the terms that the State of Washington has agreed to with another tribe.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Indian Law