Opinions

This is an en banc review of a First Circuit Court of Appeals case involving a public employee's First Amendment speech rights. The court has withdrawn a previous panel opinion and is requesting supplemental briefs to examine the court's precedent regarding the weight given to "mocking, derogatory, and disparaging" speech in First Amendment employment cases.

1. Whether the court's precedent of giving less weight to "mocking, derogatory, and disparaging" speech is consistent with Supreme Court First Amendment jurisprudence
2. How to balance a public employee's First Amendment speech rights against an employer's needs
3. The role of speech "manner, time, and place" in the Pickering balancing test
4. Whether the analysis differs for workplace versus non-workplace speech

The court has not yet made a final ruling. Instead, it has:

1. Granted an en banc review
2. Withdrawn the previous panel opinion
3. Requested supplemental briefs addressing specific constitutional questions
4. Scheduled an en banc hearing for April 8, 2026

This is a criminal appeal involving a defendant (McAdam) challenging certain conditions of supervised release after being convicted of traveling with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct. The case involves reviewing the propriety of specific conditions imposed by the district court.

1. Whether discretionary conditions of supervised release were properly imposed
2. Whether the district court conducted an individualized assessment for special conditions
3. Whether conditions improperly delegated judicial authority
4. First Amendment considerations regarding restrictions on accessing pornographic materials

1. Vacated Conditions 14 and 15 because they were imposed without an individualized assessment
2. Amended Special Condition 7 by striking the provision allowing probation to limit the defendant to one device
3. Affirmed Special Condition 9 (pornography ban) because the record showed a connection between pornography and the defendant's offense
4. Remanded the case to the District of Vermont to potentially reimpose conditions after proper individualized assessment

This is an employment discrimination case involving a job applicant with a criminal record who was denied employment after voluntarily disclosing his past robbery conviction. The case centers on the interpretation of Pennsylvania's Criminal History Record Information Act.

1. Whether the Pennsylvania Criminal History Record Information Act applies when an employer learns of a criminal conviction directly from the job applicant, rather than from a state agency's files
2. How to interpret the statutory language regarding "criminal history record information"
3. The scope of limitations on employers' use of criminal history information

The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's dismissal, ruling that:

1. The law applies even when the criminal history information comes directly from the applicant
2. The statutory language is broad enough to cover self-disclosed criminal history
3. The employer (Central Transport) cannot use the applicant's criminal conviction to reject him without following the Act's specific requirements

This is a case involving a substitute teacher, Kimberly Ann Polk, who challenged Montgomery County Public Schools' Guidelines for Student Gender Identity, which required teachers to use students' preferred pronouns and maintain confidentiality about gender identity.

1. Whether the school district's Guidelines violate Polk's First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion
2. Whether the Guidelines violate Polk's First Amendment right to free speech
3. Whether the Guidelines constitute compelled speech

The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Polk's Free Exercise and Free Speech claims. The majority held that:

1. The Guidelines are neutral and generally applicable, and thus pass rational basis review for the Free Exercise claim
2. The pronoun and communication requirements are part of Polk's official duties as a teacher, and therefore not protected speech under Garcetti v. Ceballos
3. Polk cannot be awarded a preliminary injunction because she failed to demonstrate likelihood of success on the merits of her constitutional claims

This is a criminal appeal involving a defendant sentenced for drug distribution resulting in a death. The case centers on the sentencing of Zytrell Horton after he pled guilty to possessing fentanyl with intent to distribute.

1. Whether the district court procedurally erred in explaining the sentence
2. Whether the sentence was substantively unreasonable
3. Whether the defendant was improperly denied the right to allocute

The Court of Appeals AFFIRMED Horton's 240-month sentence, finding:

1. The district court's insufficient explanation of the sentence was not plain error because it did not affect Horton's substantial rights
2. The court did not abuse its discretion in considering L.G.'s death as a factor in sentencing
3. Horton was not prejudiced by the lack of opportunity to allocute, particularly since he had allocuted at a previous sentencing hearing

This is a criminal appeal involving bank fraud and wire fraud convictions for Tonya Robinson and Albert Smith. The defendants filed a petition for panel rehearing to clarify the court's remand instructions.

1. Bank fraud convictions
2. Wire fraud convictions
3. Sentencing enhancements
4. Restitution requirements

The court granted the petition and modified its previous opinion with the following key actions:

1. Reversed bank fraud convictions (Counts 2-7) and directed the district court to enter a judgment of acquittal
2. Affirmed wire fraud convictions (Count 8)
3. Affirmed the abuse-of-trust enhancement for Smith's sentencing
4. Remanded the case to clarify the joint and several nature of Robinson's restitution

This is a federal criminal appeal involving two Housing Authority employees, Tonya Robinson and Albert Smith, who were convicted of wire fraud and bank fraud for a kickback scheme involving fraudulent maintenance invoices.

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support wire fraud convictions
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support bank fraud convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 1344(2)
3. Whether the district court properly applied an abuse of trust enhancement to Smith's sentence

1. The court affirmed the wire fraud convictions, finding sufficient evidence that a September 2017 HUD drawdown furthered the kickback scheme
2. The court reversed the bank fraud convictions because the government failed to show a false statement went directly to a bank, as required by the Supreme Court's ruling in Loughrin v. United States
3. The court affirmed the abuse of trust enhancement for Smith's sentence, finding he had substantial discretionary judgment in his role as Asset Director
4. The court remanded for a limited purpose of clarifying the joint and several nature of restitution

This is a criminal case involving Jose Reyna's challenge to a federal statute criminalizing possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number. The case centers on a Second Amendment constitutional challenge to the statute under the Supreme Court's Bruen and Rahimi decisions.

1. Whether possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number is covered by the Second Amendment's text
2. Whether the statute is consistent with the historical tradition of firearm regulation
3. How to interpret the Supreme Court's Bruen framework for Second Amendment challenges

The court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that 18 U.S.C. § 922(k) is constitutional. The court was uncertain about resolving the case at Bruen's first step (textual coverage) but ultimately concluded that the statute is consistent with the historical principles of firearm regulation. The court found that founding-era laws requiring firearm marking, inventorying, and inspection provide a relevant historical analogue to modern serialization requirements.

This is a class action lawsuit involving wage and hour violations, where the defendant (TEKsystems) attempted to implement a mandatory arbitration agreement during ongoing litigation that would effectively prevent employees from participating in the class action.

1. Whether a district court has authority under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(d) to decline to enforce an arbitration agreement
2. Whether TEKsystems' communications about the arbitration agreement were misleading and threatened the fairness of the class action
3. Whether the arbitration agreement's delegation provision prevented the court from examining its enforceability

The court affirmed the district court's denial of TEKsystems' motion to compel arbitration. The court held that:

1. FRCP 23(d) authorizes district courts to refuse to enforce arbitration agreements that threaten the fairness of class action proceedings
2. TEKsystems' communications were misleading, confusing, and designed to discourage class participation
3. The delegation provision did not prevent the court from examining the agreement's enforceability

This is a criminal appeal involving a conviction for sexual abuse of a minor, where the key issue is whether the government sufficiently proved the defendant's non-Indian status as an essential element of the crime under 18 U.S.C. § 1152.

1. Whether the government met its burden of proving the defendant's non-Indian status beyond a reasonable doubt
2. What evidence is sufficient to establish a defendant's non-Indian status in federal Indian Country criminal prosecutions
3. Whether proving non-Indian status should be an essential element or an affirmative defense

The court vacated Ruiz's conviction and remanded the case, finding that the government failed to produce sufficient evidence to prove Ruiz's non-Indian status beyond a reasonable doubt. The court noted that the witnesses' testimonies were based on thin evidence, including unsubstantiated assumptions about Ruiz's status based on his birthplace and lack of tribal enrollment verification. The court also encouraged reexamination of the current legal standard for proving non-Indian status in federal prosecutions.

This is a civil rights case involving a legally blind plaintiff who was detained in two Georgia county jails and alleged discrimination based on his disability. The plaintiff sued the county sheriffs under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Rehabilitation Act for failing to provide appropriate accommodations during his detention.

1. Whether the sheriffs engaged in intentional discrimination against a visually impaired detainee
2. Whether the plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief were moot after his release from detention
3. What constitutes reasonable accommodations for a disabled prisoner

The court affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of the sheriffs. The court found that:

1. The plaintiff failed to provide evidence of intentional discrimination, as he could not show the sheriffs had actual knowledge of discrimination in their facilities
2. The injunctive relief claims were moot because the plaintiff was no longer in custody and there was no reasonable expectation of future incarceration
3. The jails' efforts to provide some accommodations, even if imperfect, did not constitute intentional discrimination

This is a trade secrets and breach of fiduciary duty case involving the founder of a chemical company (Michael Harvey) and his nephews (Phil and Aaron Harvey), who allegedly misappropriated trade secrets after selling their company to a buyer (Arxada Holdings).

1. Whether the information constituted protectable trade secrets
2. Whether the defendants misappropriated trade secrets
3. Whether personal jurisdiction exists over the California-based defendants
4. Whether the defendants breached their fiduciary duties

The court ruled in favor of the buyer on multiple grounds:

1. The defendants misappropriated trade secrets, including formulas, business information, product labels, and facility photographs
2. Personal jurisdiction existed over the defendants due to their conspiracy and Delaware-related activities
3. The defendants breached their fiduciary duties by downloading confidential information and planning to compete with the company
4. The court awarded:
   • $0.9 million in lost profits
   • $24,224,125.59 in disgorgement
   • $25,124,125.59 in exemplary damages
   • Permanent injunctions against the defendants

This is a legal case involving a partition dispute over a Goldendoodle named Tucker, where two co-owners seek to determine ownership through a court-ordered auction. The court must decide the specific auction procedure to resolve the ownership dispute.

1. Whether a companion animal can be partitioned as personal property
2. What auction procedure best maximizes value for the co-owners
3. How to balance legal and equitable considerations when partitioning a living being

The court adopts a single-submission blind-bid auction procedure. The reasoning includes:

1. A blind-bid auction creates a level playing field and prevents one party from leveraging superior financial resources
2. It incentivizes parties to submit their highest, most honest bid
3. The procedure aligns with the court's goal of maximizing value for the co-owners
4. The court rejected an open outcry auction due to potential inequities in bidding

This is a property dispute case involving a land ownership claim, where the court considered a motion to strike a previously undisclosed 1948 deed that one party attempted to introduce in post-trial briefing after not disclosing it during discovery or trial.

1. Whether the respondents violated discovery rules by failing to disclose the 1948 deed during discovery
2. Whether the respondents violated the Scheduling Order and Pretrial Order by introducing the 1948 deed after trial
3. Whether the 1948 deed could be used for impeachment, rebuttal, or judicial notice purposes

The court granted the motion to strike the 1948 deed, finding that:

1. Respondents violated discovery rules by knowingly concealing the document
2. The deed did not qualify for impeachment, rebuttal, or judicial notice exceptions
3. The appropriate remedy was to exclude the 1948 deed from the evidentiary record
4. Respondents must file an amended post-trial brief without references to the 1948 deed

This is a federal criminal case involving Willie Richard Minor's conviction for knowingly possessing a firearm after being convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. The case addresses both Second Amendment challenges to the firearm possession statute and evidentiary issues related to Minor's understanding of his legal status.

1. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), which prohibits firearm possession by those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, is constitutional under the Second Amendment
2. Whether the district court properly excluded evidence of Minor's belief about his ability to possess a firearm
3. The interpretation of "knowingly" in the context of firearm possession statutes

The Court of Appeals affirmed Minor's conviction, holding that:

1. The firearm possession statute is constitutional under the Second Amendment, based on the Supreme Court's reasoning in United States v. Rahimi, which found such restrictions consistent with historical traditions of firearm regulation
2. The district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence of Minor's belief about his ability to possess a firearm, as the "knowingly" element only requires knowledge of the factual characteristics of the prior conviction, not knowledge of its legal classification
3. Minor failed to show that the evidentiary rulings violated his constitutional right to present a defense

This is a Title VII retaliation case where Jane Doe, a former Boston Police Department (BPD) officer, alleged that BPD retaliated against her by disclosing her disciplinary records to prospective employers and in response to a Washington Post public records request after she reported being raped by a fellow officer.

1. Whether BPD's disclosure of Doe's employment records was motivated by retaliation for her protected conduct
2. Whether Doe could prove that retaliation was the but-for cause of BPD's actions
3. Whether the disclosures constituted an adverse employment action under Title VII

The court affirmed summary judgment for BPD, finding that:

1. Doe did not provide evidence that BPD deviated from its standard procedures in disclosing her employment records
2. Doe could not prove that retaliation was the but-for cause of the record disclosures
3. The individuals who disclosed her records likely did not know about her prior protected conduct
4. BPD was legally obligated to respond to the public records request, and the information disclosed was accurate

This is an appeal of a supervised release revocation after the defendant, Antonio Camillo, was found to have committed vandalism by damaging an apartment door during a domestic disturbance. The First Circuit Court of Appeals reviews the district court's decision to revoke Camillo's supervised release.

1. Whether the district court improperly relied on hearsay evidence in violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(b)(2)(C)
2. Whether there was sufficient evidence to prove the elements of vandalism under Massachusetts law

The court affirmed the district court's decision, finding that:

1. The hearsay evidence from Camillo's wife was sufficiently reliable, as it was corroborated by the responding officer's testimony and consistent across multiple accounts
2. There was sufficient evidence to prove the elements of vandalism, including intentional damage to property owned by another, and that Camillo acted with malice and wantonness
3. The district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Camillo's supervised release

This is a criminal case involving a defendant charged with violating the Defense Production Act by accumulating personal protective equipment (PPE) during the COVID-19 pandemic with the intent to resell at inflated prices.

1. The interpretation of the term "accumulate" in the Defense Production Act
2. Whether the term requires accumulation of materials over a specific period of time
3. Whether the statute's language is unconstitutionally vague

The court affirmed Bulloch's conviction, ruling that:

1. The term "accumulate" in the statute has a plain meaning that does not require accumulation over a prolonged period of time
2. The statutory context supports interpreting "accumulate" according to its ordinary meaning of gathering or collecting
3. The statute is not unconstitutionally vague
4. Bulloch's conviction for conspiring to accumulate and resell PPE at inflated prices during the COVID-19 pandemic was valid

This is a federal criminal appeal involving a defendant convicted of traveling with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct. The appeal challenges four conditions of supervised release imposed as part of the defendant's sentence.

1. Whether the district court properly imposed discretionary conditions of supervised release
2. Whether the court must conduct an individualized assessment for special conditions of supervised release
3. The extent of judicial discretion in imposing supervised release conditions
4. First Amendment considerations for restrictions on accessing pornographic materials

1. The court VACATED Conditions 14 and 15 because they were improperly imposed without an individualized assessment
2. The court AMENDED Special Condition 7 by striking the provision allowing probation to limit the defendant to one device
3. The court AFFIRMED Special Condition 9 (pornography ban) because there was a clear connection between pornography and the defendant's offense
4. The case was REMANDED to the District of Vermont for further proceedings consistent with the opinion

This is an insurance coverage dispute between the Police Jury of Calcasieu Parish and multiple insurance companies regarding claims from Hurricanes Laura and Delta. The case involves complex jurisdictional and arbitration issues.

1. Whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards
2. Whether the insurance policy's Contract Allocation Endorsement creates separate contracts between the insured and each insurer
3. Whether equitable estoppel can be used to compel arbitration

The court remanded the case to the district court, finding no subject-matter jurisdiction. Based on the recent Vinton decision, the court determined that:

1. The insurance policy consists of separate contracts between the insured and each insurer
2. There is no foreign party to the arbitration agreement
3. The Convention does not apply, thus eliminating the basis for federal jurisdiction

This is a criminal appeal involving a challenge to a federal statute prohibiting felons from possessing firearms (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)). The case focuses on whether the statute is unconstitutional as applied to a defendant with a prior conviction for simple possession of methamphetamine.

1. Whether the felon-in-possession statute violates the Second Amendment as applied to an individual with a simple drug possession conviction
2. Whether historical analogues exist to support disarming individuals convicted of drug possession
3. How to interpret the Supreme Court's Bruen decision regarding historical traditions of firearm regulation

The court reversed Hembree's conviction, finding that the government failed to meet its burden of proving that the historical tradition of firearm regulation supports disarming individuals with a simple drug possession conviction. The court determined that the government's proposed historical analogues (such as punishment for contraband possession or disarming dangerous individuals) were insufficient to justify permanently removing Hembree's Second Amendment rights based on his specific predicate conviction.

This is a case involving the State of Ohio's lawsuit against Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) alleging they conspired to drive up prescription drug prices. The PBMs sought to remove the case to federal court under the federal officer removal statute.

1. Whether the PBMs were "acting under" a federal officer when negotiating drug prices for federal health plans
2. Whether the lawsuit challenges conduct "for or relating to" acts under federal office
3. Whether the PBMs have colorable federal defenses that would justify removal to federal court

The court ruled in favor of the PBMs, finding that:

1. The PBMs were acting under federal officers when negotiating drug prices, as they were conducting negotiations for federal health plans like FEHBA and TRICARE under significant government control
2. The lawsuit relates to federal conduct because the PBMs conduct a single, integrated negotiation process for all their clients
3. The PBMs have colorable federal preemption defenses under FEHBA and TRICARE statutes

This case involves a real estate developer (Lifestyle Communities) challenging the City of Worthington's denial of its rezoning application for a property previously owned by the United Methodist Children's Home. The developer sued the city alleging various constitutional violations, including regulatory takings and due process claims.

1. Whether Worthington's denial of the rezoning application constitutes a regulatory taking
2. Whether the city's zoning restrictions violate due process
3. Whether the city's actions were arbitrary or unreasonable

The court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding that:

1. Worthington did not commit a regulatory taking because:
   • The economic impact was not sufficient to prove a taking
   • Lifestyle Communities did not have reasonable investment-backed expectations
   • The city's actions had legitimate public purposes (traffic reduction, environmental concerns)
2. The zoning restrictions were constitutional and did not violate due process
3. The city had discretion to deny the rezoning application

This is a civil rights lawsuit filed by Oneal Johnson against four Chicago police officers, alleging constitutional violations and malicious prosecution arising from his arrest and injury during transport to a police station after an incident at an active crime scene.

1. Whether the officers had probable cause for false arrest
2. Whether the officers created a state-created danger by not securing Johnson's seatbelt
3. Whether the officers used excessive force during transport
4. Whether the officers failed to provide adequate medical care
5. Whether the officers maliciously prosecuted Johnson

The court affirmed summary judgment for the defendants on all claims, primarily based on qualified immunity. The court found that:

1. Officers had arguable probable cause to arrest Johnson for disorderly conduct
2. Johnson did not demonstrate a clearly established right was violated in any of his claims
3. The specific circumstances did not rise to the level of constitutional violations that would overcome qualified immunity

This is an immigration case involving a Salvadoran citizen seeking asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) based on alleged persecution by Salvadoran police. The court denied the petitioner's claims, finding insufficient evidence of persecution on protected grounds.

1. Whether the petitioner established a nexus between persecution and a protected ground (political opinion or particular social group)
2. Whether the petitioner's experiences constituted torture under the CAT
3. Whether the petitioner was denied due process during his immigration hearing

The court denied the petition for review, finding that:

1. The petitioner failed to show that police persecution was motivated by a protected ground, as he consistently testified that police routinely stopped young men in his neighborhood
2. The petitioner's experiences did not rise to the level of torture under the CAT standard
3. The immigration judge adequately developed the record and there was no evidence of prejudicial translation errors that denied the petitioner due process

This is a criminal appeal involving a conviction for sexual abuse of a minor, where the key issue is whether the government sufficiently proved the defendant's non-Indian status as an essential element of the crime under 18 U.S.C. § 1152.

1. Whether the government met its burden of proving the defendant's non-Indian status beyond a reasonable doubt
2. What evidence is sufficient to establish a defendant's non-Indian status in federal prosecution of crimes in Indian country
3. Whether proving non-Indian status should be an essential element or an affirmative defense

The court vacated Ruiz's conviction and remanded the case, finding that the government failed to produce sufficient evidence to prove Ruiz's non-Indian status beyond a reasonable doubt. The court noted that the witnesses' testimonies were insufficient, as they relied on thin evidence like Ruiz's birthplace and database searches, and did not conclusively establish his non-Indian status. The court also acknowledged the practical difficulties of proving a negative and encouraged the court to reconsider its existing precedent on this issue.

This appears to be an incomplete or placeholder court opinion document, as no substantive legal text is provided. Without the actual court opinion text, a comprehensive summary cannot be generated.

Unable to determine key legal issues due to lack of court opinion text.

No ruling can be summarized without the full court opinion text.

This case involves a dispute over the validity of a marriage between Russell L. LaFon, Jr. and Jacqueline Marie Felmlee, which occurred shortly before LaFon's unexpected death. The Decedent's father challenged the marriage's validity due to an alleged lack of two witnesses at the ceremony.

1. Whether the absence of two witnesses at a wedding ceremony invalidates the marriage under Delaware law
2. Whether the father has standing to seek an annulment after the death of his son
3. Interpretation of Delaware's marriage solemnization requirements

The Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that:

1. The minor defect in not having two witnesses present does not automatically void the marriage
2. Solemnization requirements are generally considered "directory" rather than mandatory
3. The Petitioner (father) lacks standing to seek an annulment after the death of the spouse
4. The marriage is valid, and the Petitioner cannot challenge its legitimacy

This is a contract dispute involving an LLC operating agreement where one member (Hassanein) made an initial capital contribution, and the other member (Eliovits) failed to make a corresponding contribution within the specified timeframe. The case centers on the interpretation of the contract's provisions regarding loan repayment and member obligations.

1. Whether Hassanein has standing to sue Eliovits individually
2. Whether there was a breach of contract by NTO or Eliovits
3. Whether Hassanein can claim unjust enrichment against DBI
4. Interpretation of the LLC Operating Agreement's provisions

The court granted the defendants' Motion to Dismiss, finding that:

1. Hassanein lacks standing to sue Eliovits directly, as the agreement only created obligations between members and the LLC
2. There was no breach of contract, as the agreement specifically provided for interest accrual as the sole remedy for non-payment
3. The unjust enrichment claim against DBI fails because the operating agreement governs the relationship and Hassanein was not impoverished
4. The court must enforce the contract as written, even if it appears to be poorly drafted

This is a stockholder litigation case involving a SPAC merger between Forum III and Electric Last Mile Solutions, Inc. The case centers on allegations of misleading disclosures and breaches of fiduciary duty by the company's directors and financial advisors.

1. Whether SF Motors and Jefferies knowingly aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duty by Forum III's directors
2. Whether the defendants can be held liable for misleading proxy statement disclosures
3. The standard for "knowing participation" in aiding and abetting claims
4. Whether the defendants were unjustly enriched by the merger

1. SF Motors' motion to dismiss was GRANTED because the plaintiffs failed to adequately allege SF Motors' knowing participation in the fiduciary breaches
2. Jefferies' motion to dismiss was DENIED because the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged Jefferies' knowing participation through:
   • Creating misleading presentations
   • Failing to disclose conflicting information about the Indiana Plant
   • Drafting presentations with inflated financial projections
3. The unjust enrichment claim against SF Motors was dismissed, while the claim against Jefferies was allowed to proceed

This is a derivative lawsuit filed by former members of a canceled Delaware limited liability company (New Media Investors II, LLC) against its former managers and directors, alleging breach of fiduciary duties and misappropriation of corporate opportunities. The court dismissed the case for lack of standing due to the entity's cancellation prior to filing the lawsuit.

1. Whether the plaintiffs' claims are derivative or direct under the Tooley test
2. Whether the plaintiffs have standing to sue on behalf of a canceled entity
3. Whether a certificate of correction can retroactively revive a canceled entity

The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, finding that:

1. The claims are derivative in nature because they involve harm to the entity itself, not individual members
2. The plaintiffs lack standing to sue because New Media II was canceled in 2017, well before the lawsuit was filed in 2024
3. The plaintiffs' attempts to cure the standing defect (certificate of correction, nullification motion) were ineffective
4. The court lacks subject matter jurisdiction due to the standing issue

This is a Supreme Court case involving a federal habeas corpus petition by Charles Brandon Martin, who was convicted of attempted murder in a Maryland state court. The case centers on whether the state court correctly applied the materiality standard for undisclosed evidence under Brady v. Maryland.

1. Whether the state appellate court correctly applied the Brady materiality standard
2. Whether the undisclosed forensic report about Martin's laptop was material enough to warrant a new trial
3. Whether the federal court properly applied the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) standard of review

The Supreme Court reversed the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, holding that:

1. The state appellate court correctly stated and applied the Brady materiality standard
2. A fairminded jurist could conclude that the undisclosed forensic report would not have changed the trial's outcome, given the strong evidence linking Martin to the crime
3. The federal court improperly second-guessed the state court's decision and failed to apply the deferential AEDPA standard of review

This is a criminal case involving a defendant charged with violating the Defense Production Act by accumulating personal protective equipment (PPE) during the COVID-19 pandemic with the intent to resell at inflated prices.

1. The interpretation of the term "accumulate" in the Defense Production Act
2. Whether the term requires accumulation of materials over a specific period of time
3. Whether the statute's language is unconstitutionally vague

The court affirmed Bulloch's conviction, ruling that:

1. The term "accumulate" in the statute has a plain meaning that does not require accumulation over a prolonged period of time
2. The statutory context supports interpreting "accumulate" according to its ordinary meaning of gathering or collecting
3. The statute is not unconstitutionally vague
4. Bulloch's conviction for conspiring to accumulate and resell PPE at inflated prices during the COVID-19 pandemic was valid

This is a case involving a multiemployer pension plan (International Painters) seeking to collect withdrawal liability from a former contributing employer (Florida Glass) after the employer's bankruptcy. The case centers on whether a contingent proof of claim filed during bankruptcy constituted a formal notice and demand for withdrawal liability.

1. Whether a contingent proof of claim in bankruptcy qualifies as a notice and demand under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act (MPPAA)
2. Whether the statute of limitations for collecting withdrawal liability was triggered by the 2016 proof of claim
3. Whether the defendants waived their statute of limitations argument by failing to initiate timely arbitration

The court affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of the pension plan. The court held that:

1. The 2016 contingent proof of claim was not a clear notice and demand under the MPPAA due to its ambiguity and "contingent" label
2. The statute of limitations did not begin running in 2016, making the 2023 lawsuit timely
3. The pension plan retains flexibility in assessing and collecting withdrawal liability, especially in the building and construction industry

This case involves a challenge to a Kentucky law requiring sex offenders who committed crimes against minors to use their legal names on social media accounts. John Doe, a registered sex offender, sued to have the law declared unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

1. Whether the law's requirement to disclose legal names on social media accounts is a facial violation of the First Amendment
2. Whether the law is unconstitutionally overbroad in its restriction of anonymous speech
3. The scope of First Amendment protections for anonymous speech, particularly for sex offenders

The Court vacated the district court's preliminary injunction and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court found that the district court did not properly analyze the law's potential applications using the two-step approach outlined in NetChoice. The court emphasized that a facial challenge requires a comprehensive examination of the law's scope and potential constitutional and unconstitutional applications, which was not done in this case. The court noted numerous unresolved questions about the law's implementation and potential First Amendment implications that need to be carefully evaluated.

This is a civil rights case involving a state-created danger claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Joshua Steeb sued an animal control officer and the City of Battle Creek after he was severely injured while attempting to rescue a friend from a dangerous dog during an animal control incident.

1. Whether the animal control officer's actions constituted an "affirmative act" that created a danger under the state-created danger doctrine
2. Whether the officer's conduct violated Steeb's substantive due process rights
3. Whether the officer is entitled to qualified immunity

The majority affirmed the district court's dismissal of Steeb's claims, concluding that:

1. Fitzgerald voluntarily assumed the risk when she agreed to retrieve the dog, which broke the causal chain between the officer's actions and Steeb's injuries
2. The officer did not take an "affirmative act" sufficient to support a state-created danger claim
3. Because no constitutional violation was found, the municipal liability claim was also properly dismissed

This is a case involving an online contract formation dispute where the plaintiff, Michael Dahdah, sued Rocket Mortgage for unwanted phone calls after using the LowerMyBills.com referral website. The key issue was whether Dahdah formed a binding arbitration agreement by clicking buttons on the website.

1. Whether LowerMyBills made a sufficiently conspicuous online contract offer
2. Whether Dahdah's actions constituted a valid acceptance of the contract terms
3. Whether the arbitration agreement covers the specific dispute about phone calls

The court ruled in favor of Rocket Mortgage, finding that:

1. LowerMyBills made a reasonably conspicuous offer through its website design and placement of terms
2. Dahdah's clicking of buttons constituted a valid acceptance of the terms, even if he did not subjectively intend to agree
3. The arbitration agreement was valid and covered the dispute, with any threshold arbitrability questions to be determined by an arbitrator

This is an appeal of a class action lawsuit involving royalty owners suing an energy company for underpaying royalties on oil and gas wells in Oklahoma. The case centers on the reasonableness of attorneys' fees awarded to class counsel after a settlement.

1. Whether the district court's attorneys' fees award complied with Oklahoma's legal standards for reasonableness
2. Whether the court properly applied the statutory factors in determining the fee award
3. Whether the lodestar cross-check methodology was correctly implemented
4. Whether the percentage-of-fund fee award exceeded appropriate limits

The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's attorneys' fees award. The court found that:

1. The district court properly applied Oklahoma law by conducting a thorough analysis of the statutory factors
2. The 33.33% fee award (slightly above the typical 20-30% range) was reasonable given the case's specific circumstances
3. The 2.15 lodestar multiplier was supported by evidence and did not constitute an abuse of discretion
4. The court carefully considered and appropriately discounted potential double-counting of factors in its analysis

This is an appeal of a federal employee life insurance claim denial by MetLife after Selina Anderson died following complications from a leg injury and surgery. The case centers on whether her pre-existing lung disease disqualified her daughter from receiving full accidental death benefits.

1. Whether MetLife's denial of accidental death benefits was arbitrary and capricious
2. Interpretation of the policy's physical illness exclusion clause
3. What constitutes an "accidental" death under the insurance policy

The court affirmed MetLife's denial of full accidental death benefits. The court found that MetLife's decision was reasonable because Anderson's pre-existing lung disease meaningfully "contributed to" her death. The court applied an "arbitrary and capricious" standard of review, which is highly deferential to the insurance company's interpretation of the policy. The court noted that while the exclusion might seem harsh, it must respect the contract's actual language.

This is a case involving a former partner of BDO USA, P.C. who sued the firm and its directors after being reclassified from a Variable Share Partner (VSP) to a Fixed Share Partner (FSP) upon announcing his resignation, which reduced his potential payout.

1. Whether the firm breached the Partnership Agreement by converting the plaintiff's equity units
2. Whether the conversion violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing
3. Whether the directors breached their fiduciary duties to the plaintiff

The court dismissed all three claims, finding that:

1. The Partnership Agreement explicitly allowed the Board to reclassify partners' units at any time and in its sole discretion
2. The implied covenant claim failed because the contract comprehensively addressed the Board's discretionary powers
3. The fiduciary duty claim was duplicative of the contract claims and no individual duty was owed to the plaintiff

This is a Delaware Chancery Court case involving a lawsuit by HoldCo Opportunities Fund V, L.P., a Comerica stockholder, seeking to enjoin Comerica's merger with Fifth Third Bancorp. HoldCo challenged the merger agreement's deal protection provisions and sought a temporary restraining order to prevent the merger's closing.

1. Whether the merger agreement's deal protection provisions are illegal under 8 Del. C. § 141(a) and Omnicare
2. Whether the merger terms are unreasonable under Unocal enhanced scrutiny
3. Whether HoldCo demonstrated imminent irreparable harm warranting a temporary restraining order

The court denied HoldCo's motion for a temporary restraining order. The court found that:

1. The merger agreement's deal protection provisions were not illegal, as they preserved the board's fiduciary duties and were symmetrical
2. The provisions were not unreasonable under Unocal, as they did not preclude alternative bids or coerce stockholders
3. HoldCo failed to demonstrate imminent irreparable harm, as its claims were speculative and no superior alternative bid existed
4. The balance of equities favored allowing the merger to proceed, given the 20% premium and stockholder approval

This is an immigration case involving a lawful permanent resident facing deportation after being convicted twice under Massachusetts' open and gross lewdness statute. The court reviews whether the statute constitutes a "crime involving moral turpitude" (CIMT) that would make the defendant removable.

1. Whether Massachusetts General Law ch. 272, § 16 (open and gross lewdness statute) categorically qualifies as a crime involving moral turpitude
2. Whether the statute requires "lewd intent" as an element of the offense
3. How to apply the categorical approach in determining whether a state criminal statute matches the immigration law definition of a CIMT

The court ruled that the Massachusetts lewdness statute is NOT a categorical crime involving moral turpitude. The court found that the statute does not require lewd intent as an element, and can be violated through intentional exposure that is objectively shocking or alarming, even without sexual motivation. Therefore, Tomar's convictions do not render him deportable. The court reversed the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision and granted Tomar's petition for review.

This is a complex copyright infringement case involving Frederick Allen's lawsuit against North Carolina state officials for using his videos and photographs of the sunken pirate ship Queen Anne's Revenge without permission. The case has a lengthy procedural history involving multiple court rulings on sovereign immunity and attempts to revive the lawsuit.

1. Whether the district court properly used Rule 54(b) and Rule 60(b) to reopen the litigation
2. Whether Allen could use the Georgia theory to abrogate state sovereign immunity
3. Whether extraordinary circumstances existed to justify reopening a previously dismissed lawsuit

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court's 2021 Decision that allowed Allen to reopen the litigation, finding that the district court abused its discretion. The court determined that:

1. Rule 54(b) was improperly applied, as the case had already reached a final judgment
2. Rule 60(b)(6) requires "extraordinary circumstances" which were not present in this case
3. Allen had multiple prior opportunities to raise the Georgia theory and failed to do so

This is an appeal of a district court's denial of a preliminary injunction sought by nonprofit organizations challenging the Department of Homeland Security's freezing and termination of immigration-related grant funding.

1. Whether the district court has subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' claims
2. Whether the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their Administrative Procedure Act (APA), separation of powers, and ultra vires claims
3. Whether the government's actions in freezing and terminating grants were lawful

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of the preliminary injunction. The court concluded that:

1. The plaintiffs' claims were essentially contractual and thus belonged in the Court of Federal Claims, not a district court
2. The Administrative Procedure Act's waiver of sovereign immunity did not extend to the plaintiffs' requested relief
3. The plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on their separation of powers and ultra vires claims because they could not point to specific legal provisions supporting their arguments

This is a civil rights case involving a prisoner who suffered an epileptic seizure after being denied his medication during a brief jail stay. The plaintiff sued the jail's medical provider, Advanced Correctional Healthcare (ACH), for deliberate indifference to his medical needs.

1. Whether the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to prove that jail officers contacted an ACH employee about his medication
2. Whether the plaintiff could establish ACH's liability under the Monell standard for municipal entities
3. Whether witnesses' lack of memory about a phone call constitutes sufficient evidence

The court affirmed the district court's judgment as a matter of law in favor of ACH. The court held that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence that an officer called an ACH employee about his medication. Specifically, the court found that witnesses' testimony of "not remembering" does not create a genuine dispute of fact, and the plaintiff's hearsay statements were inadmissible. The lack of documentary evidence and conflicting testimony meant the plaintiff could not meet his burden of proving that ACH's policy directly caused his constitutional injury.

This is a criminal case involving a traffic stop where a drug-sniffing dog detected methamphetamine in the defendant's vehicle. The defendant challenged the legality of the dog sniff under the Fourth Amendment.

1. Whether the officers' actions in conducting a dog sniff constituted an unlawful search or seizure
2. Whether the dog's brief contact with the vehicle during the sniff violated the Fourth Amendment
3. Whether the drug evidence should be suppressed due to chain of custody concerns

The court ruled against the defendant on all issues:

1. The traffic stop was lawful, and officers could legally order the defendant out of the vehicle
2. The dog's brief contact with the vehicle during the sniff did not constitute a Fourth Amendment search, as it was minimal and did not damage or dispossess the defendant of his property
3. The drug evidence was properly admitted, with chain of custody issues going to the weight of evidence rather than its admissibility

This is a civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 where Louis Alford sued deputies Brandon Deffendoll and Zachary Smith, and Cannon County, Tennessee, for false arrest, malicious prosecution, and failure to supervise after drug-related charges against him were dismissed.

1. Whether the deputies had probable cause to arrest and charge Alford with drug offenses
2. Whether the deputies violated Alford's Fourth Amendment rights
3. Whether Cannon County can be held liable under Monell for the deputies' actions

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the defendants on all claims. The court found:

1. Deputy Deffendoll had probable cause to arrest Alford based on the totality of evidence found in his vehicle, including a syringe, powder, and drug paraphernalia
2. Deputy Smith was not personally involved in the arrest and could not be liable
3. Deffendoll had probable cause to charge Alford with simple possession and drug paraphernalia
4. The Monell claim failed because no underlying constitutional violation was established

This is a procedural order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit addressing a motion to correct a previous court opinion by amending a defendant's name.

1. Correction of a clerical error in a court opinion
2. Amending a defendant's name in a previously issued opinion

The court granted the appellees' motion to amend the opinion, specifically replacing "Brian Burkhart" with "Brad Burkhart" on pages 2 and 8 of the original opinion dated January 22, 2026.

This is a civil rights case brought by Derek Thomas, a federal prisoner, against prison officials at the Federal Correctional Complex in Terre Haute, Indiana. Thomas alleges he was repeatedly attacked and sexually assaulted by his cellmate and that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his medical and psychological needs.

1. Whether Thomas can bring a Bivens claim for failure to protect him from his cellmate
2. Whether the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for claims of deliberate indifference to medical needs
3. Whether Thomas preserved his arguments against qualified immunity by responding to the summary judgment motion

The court affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court held that:

1. Thomas could not bring a Bivens claim for failure to protect, as this would create a new context for Bivens not previously recognized by the Supreme Court
2. Thomas forfeited his arguments against qualified immunity by failing to address the issue in his response to summary judgment
3. The court would not consider Thomas's arguments raised for the first time on appeal, maintaining strict appellate preservation rules to ensure fairness to all litigants

This is a federal habeas corpus case involving Rodney Gene Beeler, who was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death in California. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed and affirmed the district court's denial of Beeler's habeas petition, addressing claims of trial court errors, ineffective assistance of counsel, and jury coercion.

1. Whether Beeler was competent to stand trial
2. Whether his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance during the guilt and penalty phases
3. Whether the trial court coerced the jury's death verdict
4. Whether California's death penalty statute adequately narrows the pool of death-eligible defendants

The court affirmed the district court's denial of Beeler's habeas petition, finding:

1. There was insufficient evidence to show Beeler was incompetent to stand trial
2. Trial counsel was not ineffective, having diligently investigated Beeler's mental health and presented substantial mitigation evidence
3. The trial court did not coerce the jury's death verdict
4. The challenge to California's death penalty statute was foreclosed by prior precedent

This is a federal appellate court case involving a prisoner's attempts to challenge his drug trafficking conviction and sentence through various legal motions, including a Rule 60(b) motion and requests for authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion based on alleged new evidence of prosecutorial misconduct.

1. Whether the prisoner's motion is a true Rule 60(b) motion or a successive § 2255 motion
2. Whether § 2255(h)(1) allows challenges to sentences based on new evidence
3. Whether the new evidence would be sufficient to overturn a conviction

1. The court found the motion was mixed - part true Rule 60(b) motion (regarding alleged fraud in the § 2255 proceedings) and part successive § 2255 motion
2. The court remanded the Rule 60(b) portion to the district court
3. The court denied authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion challenging the sentence, ruling that § 2255(h)(1) only allows challenges to convictions, not sentences
4. The court also denied authorization to challenge a specific conviction, finding the new evidence was insufficient to show no reasonable jury would have found the defendant guilty

This is a federal criminal appeal challenging the sentencing of Christopher Singer, who was convicted of possessing ammunition after a felony conviction. The key issue is whether his prior Oklahoma state convictions for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon qualify as "crimes of violence" for sentencing purposes.

1. Whether Oklahoma's assault and battery with a dangerous weapon statute (§ 645) categorically includes crimes against unborn victims
2. Whether such a statute qualifies as a "crime of violence" under the United States Sentencing Guidelines and the Armed Career Criminal Act

The court reversed the district court's sentencing and remanded the case, ruling that:

1. Based on prior Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals cases, the § 645 statute likely criminalizes assault and battery against unborn victims
2. Because the statute potentially includes crimes against unborn persons, it does not categorically qualify as a "crime of violence" under the Sentencing Guidelines or the Armed Career Criminal Act
3. The district court therefore erred in using these convictions to enhance Singer's sentence

This is a complex civil litigation case involving U.S. service members and civilians who were victims of terrorist attacks by Jaysh al-Mahdi in Iraq. The plaintiffs allege that pharmaceutical and medical equipment companies knowingly provided substantial financial assistance to the terrorist group through corrupt business practices.

1. Whether the defendants can be held liable for aiding and abetting terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA)
2. What constitutes "knowing" and "substantial" assistance to a terrorist organization
3. The required nexus between defendants' actions and terrorist attacks
4. Personal jurisdiction over foreign defendants

The court reversed the district court's dismissal and held that:

1. Plaintiffs adequately alleged secondary liability (aiding and abetting) claims under the ATA
2. The defendants' alleged assistance had a sufficient nexus to the terrorist attacks
3. Plaintiffs demonstrated the defendants likely knew their assistance would support terrorist activities
4. The scale and unusual nature of the defendants' payments supported an inference of culpable assistance
5. The court reaffirmed personal jurisdiction over the foreign defendants

This is a complex administrative law case involving the valuation of Resid (a heavy oil component) in the Trans Alaska Pipeline System's Quality Bank formula. The case centers on challenges by oil companies Petro Star and ConocoPhillips to FERC's determination that the existing method for valuing Resid remains just and reasonable.

1. Whether FERC's method for calculating the value of Resid in the Quality Bank formula is arbitrary and capricious
2. Whether the inflation adjustment and capital recovery factor in the Resid valuation formula are reasonable
3. Whether the Quality Bank administrator violated the tariff by testing Resid properties monthly without updating the formula
4. The court's jurisdiction to review FERC orders related to oil pipelines

The court denied all three petitions. It found that:

1. Petro Star and ConocoPhillips failed to demonstrate that the existing Resid valuation formula was unjust or unreasonable
2. FERC reasonably explained its rejection of arguments challenging the inflation adjustment and capital recovery factor
3. The Quality Bank administrator violated the tariff by not updating the formula with monthly test results
4. The court confirmed its jurisdiction to review FERC oil pipeline orders under the Hobbs Act

This case involves a decades-long legal battle by the Herzog family to recover artwork seized by the Hungarian government and Nazi collaborators during World War II. The family sought to use the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act's (FSIA) expropriation exception to sue for the return of their art collection.

1. Whether wartime takings of property during the Nazi occupation of Hungary violate the international law of expropriation
2. Whether the domestic-takings rule bars jurisdiction when the original owners were de facto stateless
3. Whether specific postwar retakings of artwork fall under the FSIA's expropriation exception

The court ruled that U.S. courts lack jurisdiction over the family's claims because:

1. The plaintiffs failed to establish that wartime takings violate the international law of expropriation
2. The domestic-takings rule prevents jurisdiction over property taken from a state's own nationals
3. Two specific paintings were subject to a pre-existing treaty settling claims or were taken before the owners became U.S. citizens

This is a complex case involving Holocaust-era art restitution, where descendants of the Herzog family sought to recover artwork seized by Hungarian authorities during World War II under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act's (FSIA) expropriation exception.

1. Whether wartime takings of property during the Nazi occupation of Hungary violate the international law of expropriation
2. Whether the domestic-takings rule bars jurisdiction when the original owners were de facto stateless
3. Whether specific artworks were subject to the FSIA's expropriation exception

The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of all claims, holding that:

1. The plaintiffs failed to establish that wartime takings violated the international law of expropriation
2. The domestic-takings bar applied, as the plaintiffs could not demonstrate that de facto statelessness created an exception
3. Two specific paintings were covered by a pre-existing treaty settling claims

This is an order denying a petition for rehearing in a case involving StandWithUs Center for Legal Justice's lawsuit against MIT, which touches on the intersection of First Amendment free speech protections and Title VI antidiscrimination laws in the context of campus protests related to the Israel-Hamas conflict.

1. The tension between First Amendment speech protections and Title VI antidiscrimination requirements
2. Whether speech can be considered antisemitic and potentially actionable under Title VI
3. The standard for evaluating potentially discriminatory speech on college campuses

The court denied both the petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc. Judge Dunlap's concurrence suggests that while the panel's reasoning was potentially problematic, the specific circumstances of the case did not warrant en banc review. The panel had previously concluded that the protesters' speech was protected and did not constitute actionable antisemitism, and that MIT was not deliberately indifferent to potential harassment.

This is a False Claims Act (FCA) retaliation case involving a federal employee who claims he was retaliated against after reporting potential fraudulent overtime claims. The case centers on whether federal sovereign immunity bars the employee's retaliation claim against the Department of Veterans Affairs.

1. Whether the False Claims Act expressly waives federal sovereign immunity for retaliation claims by federal employees
2. Whether a federal employee can sue the government under the FCA's anti-retaliation provision
3. Whether the "any employee" language in the FCA constitutes a waiver of sovereign immunity

The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal, holding that:

1. Congress has not expressly waived sovereign immunity for FCA retaliation claims against federal employers
2. The "any employee" language in the FCA is too generic to constitute an unequivocal waiver of sovereign immunity
3. Federal employees must seek remedies for retaliation through the Whistleblower Protection Act, not the FCA
4. The court cannot imply a waiver of sovereign immunity and must construe any ambiguities in favor of immunity

This is an appeal of a district court's dismissal of a case brought by eleven Rockport, Massachusetts residents challenging the creation of a new zoning district. The district court dismissed the case for lack of standing, and the First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this dismissal.

1. Whether the plaintiffs have Article III standing to bring their claims
2. Whether state law provisions for abutter standing can establish federal court standing
3. Whether the plaintiffs can invoke legislator standing for their vote-threshold claim

The court affirmed the district court's dismissal, finding that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate:

1. A concrete and particularized injury-in-fact
2. Specific harm to each individual plaintiff
3. Sufficiently detailed allegations of property value impacts

This is an ERISA case involving a parent's challenge to an insurance company's denial of coverage for his son's residential mental health treatment. The case focuses on whether the insurance company's decision to stop covering treatment was arbitrary and capricious.

1. Whether Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying continued coverage for residential mental health treatment
2. Whether Anthem violated the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act

1. The court found Anthem's coverage denial was procedurally arbitrary and capricious because:
   • Anthem ignored the opinions of the son's treating clinicians
   • Selectively reviewed medical records
   • Provided insufficient explanation for denying coverage
2. The court vacated the district court's summary judgment on the ERISA claim and remanded the case for a full and fair review
3. The court affirmed the district court's summary judgment on the Parity Act claim because T.E. failed to provide evidence comparing mental health and medical/surgical treatment limitations

This is a case involving a military veteran whose combat photo was used in posters without his consent, and who sued under the Illinois Right of Publicity Act. The key issue was whether his lawsuit was filed within the statute of limitations.

1. Whether the discovery rule applies to the Illinois Right of Publicity Act's statute of limitations
2. When the statute of limitations begins for a right of publicity claim
3. Whether the publication of the photo was "hidden, inherently undiscoverable, or inherently unknowable"

The court affirmed the lower court's dismissal, ruling that:

1. The single-publication rule applies, meaning the statute of limitations begins when the image is first published
2. Giovannelli's claim was time-barred since the photos were published years before his lawsuit
3. The publications were not "hidden" or "undiscoverable" because they were on publicly accessible e-commerce websites

This is a case involving a military veteran whose combat photo was used in posters without his consent. The key issue is whether his lawsuit under the Illinois Right of Publicity Act is time-barred by the statute of limitations.

1. Whether the discovery rule applies to the Illinois Right of Publicity Act's statute of limitations
2. When the statute of limitations begins to run for a right of publicity claim
3. Whether the publication of the photo was "hidden, inherently undiscoverable, or inherently unknowable"

The court affirmed the lower court's dismissal, holding that:

1. The single-publication rule applies, meaning the statute of limitations begins when the image is first published
2. Giovannelli's claim is time-barred because the photos were published years before he filed suit
3. The publications were not "hidden" or "undiscoverable" since they were on publicly accessible e-commerce websites
4. The court followed the Illinois Appellate Court's precedent in Blair v. Nevada Landing Partnership, which rejected applying the discovery rule to right of publicity claims

This is a case involving a military veteran who sued multiple companies for using his military photo on posters without his consent, claiming a violation of the Illinois Right of Publicity Act. The key issue was whether his lawsuit was filed within the statute of limitations.

1. Whether the discovery rule applies to the Illinois Right of Publicity Act's statute of limitations
2. When the statute of limitations begins for a claim under the Act
3. Whether the publication of the photo was "hidden, inherently undiscoverable, or inherently unknowable"

The court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the case, ruling that:

1. The single-publication rule applies, meaning the statute of limitations begins when the image is first published
2. Giovannelli's claim was time-barred, as the photos were published years before he filed suit
3. The publications were not "hidden" or "undiscoverable" because they were on publicly accessible e-commerce websites

This is a case involving a military veteran who sued multiple companies for using his military photo on posters without his consent, claiming a violation of the Illinois Right of Publicity Act. The key issue was whether his lawsuit was filed within the statute of limitations.

1. Whether the discovery rule applies to the Illinois Right of Publicity Act's statute of limitations
2. When the statute of limitations begins for a right of publicity claim
3. Whether the publication of the photo was "hidden, inherently undiscoverable, or inherently unknowable"

The court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the case, ruling that:

1. The single-publication rule applies, meaning the statute of limitations begins when the image is first published
2. Giovannelli's claim was time-barred since the photos were published years before his lawsuit
3. The publications were not "hidden" or "undiscoverable" since they were on public e-commerce websites
4. The discovery rule does not apply in this case, following the precedent set in Blair v. Nevada Landing Partnership

This is a Title VII hostile work environment case where Tonnette Jones, an African American probation officer, sued her employer after being terminated, claiming she experienced racial discrimination and harassment during her employment.

1. Whether Jones experienced a hostile work environment based on race
2. Whether the incidents she cited constituted severe or pervasive harassment
3. Whether there was sufficient evidence of racial animus

The court affirmed summary judgment for the employer, finding that Jones failed to establish a hostile work environment claim. While the court acknowledged the troubling incident of the department director reading the N-word aloud, it determined this single incident (which Jones did not even witness) was not sufficient to prove pervasive racial harassment. The court found the various workplace incidents Jones cited were either not false accusations or did not rise to the level of severe or pervasive harassment required under Title VII.

This is an insurance coverage dispute between Atlanta Gas Light Company (AGL) and its excess insurer, Navigators Insurance Company, arising from a gas line explosion that injured three women. The case centers on whether Navigators was obligated to defend and indemnify AGL as an additional insured under its umbrella policy.

1. Whether AGL qualifies as an "additional insured" under the Navigators umbrella policy
2. When an excess insurer's duties are triggered in relation to a primary insurance policy
3. What constitutes bad faith in an insurance coverage denial
4. The scope of an insurer's fiduciary duty to its insured

The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's rulings, specifically:

1. AGL is an "additional insured" under the Navigators policy because the underlying lawsuit's injuries were proximately caused, at least in part, by USIC's acts or omissions
2. Navigators had no duty to defend or participate in the mediation before the primary policy's limits were exhausted
3. Navigators did not act in bad faith by denying coverage, as it had a non-frivolous (though ultimately incorrect) belief that AGL was not covered
4. No fiduciary duty was breached because Navigators did not act with ill will or dishonest purpose

This case involves an insurance coverage dispute between Atlanta Gas Light Company (AGL) and Navigators Insurance Company over the defense and indemnification of claims arising from a gas line explosion. The key issue was whether AGL qualified as an "additional insured" under Navigators' excess insurance policy.

1. Whether AGL qualifies as an "additional insured" under the excess insurance policy
2. The extent of an excess insurer's duties before exhaustion of primary policy limits
3. Whether Navigators breached its duty of good faith in denying coverage
4. Whether a fiduciary duty existed between AGL and Navigators

The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that:

1. AGL is an "additional insured" under the Navigators policy because the underlying suits involved injuries proximately caused, at least in part, by USIC's acts or omissions
2. Navigators had no duty to defend or participate in the mediation before the primary policy limits were exhausted
3. Navigators did not act in bad faith, as its denial of coverage was based on a non-frivolous (though ultimately incorrect) interpretation of the policy
4. No fiduciary duty existed because Navigators' duties had not yet arisen prior to exhaustion of the primary policy

This is a civil rights case involving a pre-trial detainee who sued jail officials for deliberate indifference to his medical needs after developing a serious post-surgical infection while recovering in jail.

1. Whether jail officials were deliberately indifferent to the plaintiff's medical needs in violation of his due process rights
2. Whether the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity
3. Whether the Sheriff can be held liable under a Monell claim for systemic failures

The court affirmed summary judgment for all defendants, finding that:

1. Sheriff Burkhart was not personally involved in Zemlick's medical care
2. Lieutenant Boots was entitled to qualified immunity by reasonably deferring to medical staff's judgment
3. Corporal Schmidt was entitled to qualified immunity for delaying hospital transport based on medical staff's assessment
4. The Monell claim was waived procedurally and would have failed on the merits

This is a federal criminal appeal involving a former city building inspector, Lester Crowder, who was convicted under the Travel Act for using interstate facilities to facilitate bribery in connection with helping a strip club owner obtain permits. The case centers on Crowder's interactions with a confidential informant who paid him money to expedite a strip club development project.

1. Whether there was sufficient evidence to prove a Travel Act violation
2. Whether the jury instructions were proper
3. Whether the Illinois bribery statute is unconstitutionally vague

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Crowder's convictions, finding:

1. There was sufficient evidence to prove Crowder used interstate facilities (phone) to facilitate bribery
2. Crowder waived his objection to jury instructions by previously agreeing to their form
3. The Illinois bribery statute is not unconstitutionally vague

This is a criminal appeal challenging the denial of a motion to suppress evidence obtained from a house search and cell phone search in a drug distribution case. The defendant, Ryan Douglas, argued that the search warrants lacked probable cause.

1. Whether the search warrants for the residence and iPhone had sufficient probable cause
2. Whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies

The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to suppress, finding that:

1. While the connection between the house and drug dealing was tenuous, the officers acted in good faith by obtaining a warrant
2. The iPhone search warrant, though weak, was not so lacking in probable cause that reliance on it was unreasonable
3. The good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied in both instances, precluding suppression of the evidence

This is a criminal appeal involving drug and firearms charges against Hassan Jones. The case centers on Jones's conviction for five counts related to drug distribution and illegal gun possession, with the court ultimately vacating one count due to prosecutorial misconduct.

1. Whether the government presented sufficient evidence to prove Jones used a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking
2. Whether the prosecutor committed misconduct by referencing an unadmitted exhibit during closing arguments
3. Whether the admission of rap-related evidence was proper
4. Whether comments about Jones's invocation of Miranda rights violated due process

The court:

1. Vacated Jones's conviction on Count 3 (possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking) due to the prosecutor's misconduct in referencing an unadmitted exhibit
2. Found the evidence sufficient to support the other counts
3. Determined that the admission of rap-related evidence was harmless error
4. Concluded that any comments about Miranda rights were harmless
5. Remanded the case for a new trial on Count 3

This is a corporate dispute between two co-founders of a satellite technology company, involving claims of breach of agreement, fraud, and wrongful termination. The case centers on a conflict over equity ownership and management rights in the company.

1. Jurisdiction between Court of Chancery and Superior Court
2. Cross-designation of judges
3. Availability of punitive damages in equity court
4. Interpretation of Founders' Collaboration Agreement and Common Stock Purchase Agreement

The Vice Chancellor declined to endorse the plaintiff's request for cross-designation of judges. The court determined that the Court of Chancery has full jurisdiction to hear both legal and equitable claims in this case. The court viewed the plaintiff's request as an attempt to seek punitive damages, which are not available in the Court of Chancery, and rejected the motion to prevent judge-shopping and duplicative filings across multiple courts.

This is a breach of contract case involving a non-compete agreement between an employee (Timm) and his former employer (Daxco). The court examined the enforceability of a restrictive covenant agreement (RCA) that Timm signed when receiving a profits interest in the company.

1. Whether the non-compete agreement is reasonable in geographic scope and temporal duration
2. Whether the agreement advances a legitimate economic interest of the employer
3. Whether the restrictive covenant is proportionate to the consideration received
4. Whether the court should blue pencil (modify) the non-compete agreement

The court dismissed the complaint and found the non-compete agreement unenforceable because:

1. The geographic scope was overbroad, covering 68 countries and protecting not just Daxco but all of its affiliates
2. The temporal duration of two years was unreasonable
3. The consideration (contingent profits interest) was insufficient to justify such a broad restriction on trade
4. The agreement failed to adequately describe the scope of protected business interests
5. The balance of equities favored the employee over the employer

This is a Delaware Court of Chancery case involving a dispute over a limited liability company's (LLC) books and records inspection rights. The case centers on whether Chuang Wei Pan LLC (CWP) remained a member of Hiwin Holding LLC and had standing to demand inspection of company records.

1. Whether CWP had standing to inspect Hiwin's books and records under 6 Del. C. § 18-305
2. Whether CWP had effectively withdrawn from Hiwin LLC
3. How to determine membership status in an LLC when there are disputed communications about withdrawal

The court ruled that CWP remained a member of Hiwin Holding LLC and had standing to inspect the company's books and records. The court based this decision on:

1. The operating agreement's membership list provides prima facie evidence of CWP's membership
2. The evidence offered to rebut CWP's membership was too attenuated and not clear and convincing
3. Subsequent company actions (like producing documents and K-1 forms) suggested CWP was still considered a member

This case involves a series of lawsuits brought by former employees of the Wheatleigh Hotel against the hotel and its owners for wage and hour violations. The plaintiffs' lawyer negotiated a global settlement for both individual and class claims, which Wheatleigh later attempted to avoid.

1. Whether Arleta Mongue had Article III standing
2. Whether the settlement agreement was enforceable
3. Whether class counsel could adequately represent both individual plaintiffs and the class
4. Whether the attorney fees were reasonable

The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's rulings by:

1. Finding Mongue had sufficient standing based on her alleged monetary damages
2. Holding that the global settlement agreement was enforceable
3. Determining that class counsel adequately represented the class, noting no class members objected and all received payments exceeding their claimed unpaid wages
4. Concluding the attorney fees were reasonable, falling within typical percentage ranges and significantly lower than the lodestar calculation

This is a criminal case involving forced labor charges against Stavros Papantoniadis, the owner of a chain of pizzerias in Massachusetts. A jury convicted him of six counts of forced labor and attempted forced labor involving seven undocumented immigrant employees.

1. Sufficiency of evidence for forced labor and attempted forced labor convictions
2. Proper application of sentencing enhancements
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying a continuance and a motion for a new trial

The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Papantoniadis's convictions and sentence, finding:

1. There was sufficient evidence to support the forced labor convictions, as the jury could reasonably find that Papantoniadis intentionally created a climate of fear and intimidation to coerce undocumented workers
2. The sentencing enhancements were appropriately applied
3. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the continuance or motion for a new trial

This is a procedural order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit regarding a previous sanction imposed on the appellant, David C. Lettieri, which restricts his ability to file future appeals or proceedings without court permission.

1. The scope and application of a leave-to-file sanction
2. Whether the appellant must obtain court permission for filing in existing cases

The court denied the appellant's motion for leave to file and motion to recall the mandate. The court clarified that the sanction order requires Lettieri to obtain court permission for any new filings in all existing cases, not just future appeals, and that his current motions are subject to this restriction.

This is a legal dispute between Sports Enterprises, Inc. (SEI), owner of the Salem-Keizer Volcanoes minor league baseball team, and Marvin Goldklang, a minority MLB team owner, regarding the termination of the team's professional affiliation with the San Francisco Giants in 2020.

1. Whether Goldklang owed fiduciary duties to SEI under Florida's non-profit corporation law
2. Whether an express or implied fiduciary relationship existed between Goldklang and SEI

The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of SEI's complaint, finding that:

1. Florida's non-profit statute does not create a fiduciary relationship between a non-profit director and the organization's members
2. SEI failed to plausibly allege an express or implied fiduciary duty from Goldklang
3. The complaint did not provide sufficient facts to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim

This is a criminal appeal involving multiple defendants (Simpson, Jackson, Shipman, and Evans) who were convicted of various drug trafficking, murder-for-hire, and related offenses stemming from a drug ring's response to an unpaid drug debt.

1. Sufficiency of evidence challenges for various criminal charges
2. Double jeopardy challenges to multiple convictions
3. Motions to suppress evidence (including GPS tracking, wiretaps, and cell phone location data)
4. Evidentiary and jury instruction challenges

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed all of the defendants' convictions, finding:

1. There was sufficient evidence to support all criminal charges
2. The convictions did not violate double jeopardy
3. The evidence suppression motions were without merit
4. The district court did not err in its jury instructions or evidentiary rulings

This is a criminal appeal involving a defendant (James Jacobs) charged with illegal firearm possession under two federal statutes, who challenged the constitutionality of those statutes under the Second Amendment. The case involves complex legal analysis of recent Supreme Court and Circuit Court decisions regarding firearm restrictions.

1. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and § 922(g)(9) are constitutional under the Second Amendment
2. Whether the statutes are facially unconstitutional or unconstitutional as applied to Jacobs
3. How to apply the Supreme Court's Bruen test for Second Amendment challenges

1. The Court reversed the district court's dismissal of the § 922(g)(1) charge, following recent Circuit Court precedent upholding its constitutionality
2. For the § 922(g)(9) charge, the Court vacated the dismissal and remanded for further factfinding and analysis
3. The Court declined to categorically reject all as-applied challenges to § 922(g)(9), but found the current record insufficient to resolve Jacobs' specific challenge

This is a criminal appeal challenging a defendant's sentence after he was convicted of drug distribution charges. The key issue involves whether the district court correctly applied a career offender enhancement to the sentencing guidelines.

1. Whether the defendant's prior Florida drug conviction qualified as a "controlled substances offense" for career offender enhancement
2. Whether a Guidelines calculation error requires reversal of the sentence
3. Whether the 120-month sentence was substantively reasonable

The Court of Appeals affirmed the sentence, finding that:

1. The district court erroneously applied the career offender enhancement
2. However, the error was harmless because the district court explicitly stated it would impose the same 120-month sentence even without the enhancement
3. The sentence was substantively reasonable given the court's careful consideration of the defendant's criminal history, likelihood of recidivism, and personal circumstances

This is a case involving nonprofit organizations and local governments challenging the federal government's suspension and termination of environmental and agricultural grants previously awarded to them. The plaintiffs sued under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), alleging constitutional and statutory violations.

1. Whether the district court had jurisdiction to hear the plaintiffs' APA claims challenging grant terminations
2. Whether the plaintiffs' nonstatutory review claims alleging separation of powers and constitutional violations could proceed
3. The scope of ultra vires review for challenging government actions

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated both the permanent and preliminary injunctions issued by the district court. The court ruled that:

1. The district court lacked jurisdiction over the APA claims because they were essentially contractual in nature and belonged in the Court of Federal Claims
2. The plaintiffs' constitutional claims were actually statutory claims subject to the strict limitations of ultra vires review
3. The plaintiffs failed to identify a specific statutory prohibition that would support their ultra vires claims

This is a trade secret misappropriation case where Trinseo alleged that KBR and former Dow employees misappropriated its polycarbonate (PC) manufacturing technology trade secrets. The jury initially found in Trinseo's favor and awarded damages, but the district court later vacated the damages award and granted judgment as a matter of law for the defendants.

1. Whether the alleged trade secrets met the legal definition of trade secrets
2. Whether the defendants misappropriated the trade secrets
3. Whether damages must be apportioned when only some alleged trade secrets are found to be valid
4. Whether the statute of limitations had run on the trade secret claims
5. Whether alternative claims of misappropriation of confidential information were preempted by the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act (TUTSA)

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that:

1. There was sufficient evidence that some of Trinseo's information qualified as trade secrets
2. The jury could reasonably find that KBR misappropriated certain trade secrets
3. Trinseo failed to apportion damages, which required vacating the damages award
4. The statute of limitations did not bar the claims
5. Trinseo's alternative confidential information claims were preempted by TUTSA
6. The permanent injunction against KBR was properly granted

This is a securities fraud case where Newtyn Partners filed a class action lawsuit against Alliance Data Systems (ADS) and its executives, alleging they misled investors about the health of the LoyaltyOne division during its spinoff, particularly regarding the AIR MILES rewards program's sponsor relationships.

1. Whether defendants made materially false or misleading statements about LoyaltyOne's business prospects
2. Whether the plaintiffs adequately alleged scienter (intent to deceive) required for securities fraud
3. Whether the alleged misrepresentations met the legal standards for securities fraud under Rule 10b-5

The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the lawsuit, finding that:

1. The defendants' statements were mostly non-actionable "puffery" and not materially misleading
2. Newtyn failed to establish a strong inference of scienter, as the evidence suggested the defendants did not knowingly intend to deceive investors
3. The defendants' disclosures about potential risks to the AIR MILES program were sufficiently cautionary
4. The defendants' own investments in Loyalty's stock undermined the claim that they knew the company would fail

This is a federal criminal case involving Aaron Loines, who was charged with drug offenses and faced sentencing enhancements based on his prior drug convictions. The case primarily addresses challenges to statutory sentencing enhancements and the application of career offender guidelines.

1. Whether the constitutional requirements for jury fact-finding apply to statutory sentencing enhancements
2. The scope of prosecutorial discretion in seeking sentencing enhancements
3. The definition of when a prior conviction becomes "final"
4. Whether Loines qualifies as a career offender under sentencing guidelines

The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's sentencing, finding that:

1. Any potential constitutional error in the sentencing enhancement was harmless
2. Prosecutors properly exercised their discretion in seeking the enhancement
3. Loines's prior conviction was "final" when he committed the current offenses
4. Loines qualified as a career offender under existing circuit precedent

This is a product liability case involving a riding lawnmower accident where the plaintiff lost her leg after the mower rolled down a slope. The plaintiffs sued Toro Company, alleging the mower's design was defective due to lacking an independent brake, safety interlock, and rollover protection system.

1. Whether the expert testimony on the mower's design defects meets the admissibility standards under Federal Rule of Evidence 702
2. Whether the lack of an independent brake constitutes a design defect under Illinois products liability law
3. Whether the mower was unreasonably dangerous due to its braking system design

The court partially reversed the district court's summary judgment. While most expert testimony was properly excluded, the court found that Thomas Berry's expert opinion on the independent brake was admissible. The court determined there were genuine disputes of material fact regarding the mower's design that preclude summary judgment, specifically related to the lack of an independent brake. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

This is a civil rights case filed by Solomon Jones against the Kankakee County Sheriff's Department, involving allegations of constitutional rights violations related to his arrest and ticketing for trespassing and disorderly conduct. The case involves procedural issues including Younger abstention and the use of AI in legal filings.

1. Whether the district court's Younger abstention was appropriate
2. Appellate jurisdiction over the case
3. The use of artificial intelligence in preparing legal briefs by pro se litigants

The court vacated the district court's stay order and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court declined to sanction Jones for potentially using AI to prepare his brief, but provided extensive commentary on the responsibilities of pro se litigants when using AI, emphasizing the importance of accuracy and honesty in legal filings. The court noted that Jones's state criminal proceeding had concluded with an acquittal, which eliminated the need for Younger abstention.

This is a federal criminal appeal involving a bank robbery conviction. The defendant, Reiquon Gaines, challenged his sentencing after pleading guilty to bank robbery and receiving a 160-month prison sentence.

1. Whether the district court correctly applied the career offender enhancement
2. Whether the reckless endangerment sentencing enhancement was appropriate
3. Whether recent Sentencing Guidelines amendments warranted resentencing
4. Whether the district court improperly considered prior presentence reports

The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's sentencing, finding that:

1. Bank robbery is categorically a crime of violence for career offender purposes
2. The reckless endangerment enhancement was justified by Gaines's high-speed flight with his child in the car
3. Pending Sentencing Guidelines amendments would not change his sentence
4. The district court properly considered reliable information from prior presentence reports when assessing sentencing factors

This is a civil rights lawsuit filed by the estate of Olin Coones, who was wrongfully convicted of murdering Kathleen and Carl Schroll and spent 12 years in prison before being exonerated. The lawsuit alleges that two detectives violated Coones's constitutional rights by fabricating and suppressing evidence during the investigation.

1. Whether the detectives violated Coones's due process rights by:
   • Fabricating evidence
   • Suppressing exculpatory evidence
   • Failing to preserve evidence
2. Whether the detectives had probable cause to prosecute Coones
3. Whether the detectives acted with malice in prosecuting Coones
4. Whether the detectives are entitled to qualified immunity

The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of qualified immunity to the detectives, finding that:

1. The detectives potentially violated Coones's due process rights by:
   • Withholding evidence of Kathleen's embezzlement
   • Withholding the KBI check-forging report
   • Not preserving the QuikTrip surveillance video
2. The detectives lacked probable cause to arrest and prosecute Coones because:
   • The only evidence against him was an uncorroborated and unreliable hearsay statement
   • They knew Kathleen had a history of lying about Coones
   • The evidence suggested Kathleen might have committed suicide
3. The detectives potentially acted with malice by suppressing exculpatory evidence and fabricating inculpatory evidence

This is a complex commercial litigation case involving corporate espionage in the pest control industry, where Moxie Pest Control sued Aptive Environmental for unauthorized access to confidential sales data and using that information to recruit sales representatives.

1. Whether investigative costs qualify as "losses" under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)
2. Whether Moxie provided sufficient evidence of causation for its trade secret misappropriation claims
3. What remedies are available under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) and Utah Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA) when causation is not definitively proven

1. The court reversed the dismissal of Moxie's CFAA claim, holding that investigative costs can qualify as "losses" under the statute
2. The court affirmed summary judgment on the RICO claim due to lack of causation evidence
3. The court partially reversed the summary judgment on DTSA and UTSA claims, finding that reasonable royalties and injunctive relief do not require the same strict causation proof as unjust enrichment damages
4. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the CFAA, DTSA, and UTSA claims

This is a criminal appeal involving a petition for rehearing en banc regarding sentencing procedures after a probation violation. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has decided to rehear the case and has outlined specific legal questions to be addressed.

1. The proper two-step process for resentencing after a probation violation
2. Interpretation of statutory amendments to sentencing guidelines
3. The appropriate method for calculating sentences under different sentencing guidelines chapters
4. District court discretion in sentencing after probation violation
5. Appellate review standards for sentences involving multiple guideline chapters

The court granted the petition for rehearing en banc, vacated the previous judgment, and stayed the mandate. The court has requested supplemental briefs addressing specific questions about the sentencing procedure, particularly focusing on the two-step resentencing process established in United States v. Moore. The case will be reheard en banc, with oral arguments anticipated in May 2026.

This case involves a discovery dispute under 28 U.S.C. § 1782, where Renco sought to obtain documents from Victor Careaga, a former attorney, in connection with a criminal investigation in Peru related to litigation against Renco for environmental damages.

1. Whether the attorney-client privilege and work product protection claims were properly substantiated
2. The standard for asserting privilege in discovery proceedings
3. Whether the appeal was moot

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Halpern's motion for a protective order. The court found that:

1. Halpern failed to properly support its privilege claims on a document-by-document basis
2. The privilege log was deficient, with blanket assertions, undated entries, and vague descriptions
3. The appeal was not moot because the court could still provide meaningful relief
4. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the protective order

This is a criminal case involving the sexual abuse of children by a former elementary school teacher, Stefan Eberhard Zappey, who was convicted on multiple counts of sexually abusing students when they were between six and nine years old.

1. The admissibility of expert testimony on memory science and child sexual abuse
2. Whether the district court properly limited defense expert testimony about memory reliability
3. The scope of expert testimony in cases involving childhood sexual abuse memories

The Court of Appeals affirmed Zappey's convictions, finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when:

1. It limited Dr. Tillitski's testimony about memory science
2. It completely excluded Dr. Neuschatz's expert testimony as cumulative
3. The court determined that the excluded testimony would not significantly aid the jury's understanding

This is a civil case involving a dispute over the ownership of a home purchased by the defendant in 2014 while he was in a relationship with the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims there was an oral agreement for her to eventually own the home, while the defendant denies such an agreement existed.

1. Whether an enforceable oral agreement existed for the transfer of the home
2. Whether promissory estoppel applies to the home transfer
3. Whether a resulting trust or unjust enrichment claim can be sustained

The court ruled in favor of the defendant, finding that:

1. The plaintiff failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that a valid oral agreement existed in 2014 to transfer the home
2. The plaintiff's promissory estoppel claim failed due to lack of a clear promise
3. The resulting trust and unjust enrichment claims were also denied

This is a case involving neighborhood deed restrictions where the Petitioners sought to enforce restrictions against the Cahills' six-foot closed privacy fence, which violated the development's covenant limiting fences to four feet and requiring an "open" style with neighbor approval.

1. Whether the Cahills' fence violates the neighborhood's deed restrictions
2. Whether the violation constitutes irreparable harm sufficient to warrant an injunction
3. Whether medical issues of the Cahills should be considered in the enforcement of deed restrictions

The court ruled in favor of the Petitioners, finding that:

1. The Cahills' fence clearly violates the deed restrictions
2. The violation constitutes irreparable harm as a breach of the neighborhood's "social contract"
3. The medical issues raised by the Cahills could not be considered because they were not previously presented to the Magistrate
4. The fence must be removed, and the Cahills' exceptions to the Magistrate's report were dismissed

This is a breach of contract case involving a tax distribution dispute between Flex and Nextracker following a corporate spin-off. Flex sought payment of a quarterly tax distribution, which Nextracker refused to pay based on the specific provisions of their tax and separation agreements.

1. Whether the Wrong-Pockets and Retained-Assets Provisions of the Separation Agreement require Nextracker to pay Flex the Q3 2024 tax distribution
2. How to interpret conflicting provisions between the Separation Agreement and the Tax Agreement
3. Whether Flex can claim the tax distribution under alternative legal theories like implied covenant, mistake, or unjust enrichment

The court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss all of Flex's claims. The court found that the specific provisions of the Tax Agreement, which allocated the tax liability to Flex, controlled over the more general provisions of the Separation Agreement. The court determined that Flex failed to state a claim under the Wrong-Pockets Provision, Retained-Assets Provisions, implied covenant, mistake, and unjust enrichment theories.

This is a court opinion addressing a motion for attorneys' fees and costs in a contract dispute between MyCarrier and Project 44, which involves ongoing arbitration and court proceedings related to a Master Services Agreement.

1. Whether MyCarrier is the "prevailing party" entitled to fee-shifting under Section 11 of the Agreement
2. Whether the court should determine fee-shifting before the arbitration panel resolves the underlying dispute
3. Interpretation of the contract's fee-shifting and arbitration provisions

The court stayed consideration of MyCarrier's motion for attorneys' fees and costs until after the arbitration panel rules on the merits. The court found that the proceedings substantially overlap with the arbitration issues, and practical concerns suggest waiting for the arbitration panel's final determination before deciding on fee-shifting.

This is a trade secret misappropriation case between Datto, LLC and Project Orca, Inc., involving a dispute over Datto's proposed amendment to its complaint and related discovery issues.

1. Motion to amend the complaint
2. Discovery stay and deposition scheduling
3. Motion to strike trade secret claims
4. Potential summary judgment

1. Granted expedited briefing on the motion to amend, with Slide to file opposition by January 26 and Datto to reply by January 29
2. Vacated the January 23 discovery deadline and stayed depositions pending resolution of the amendment motion
3. Will resolve the motion to strike trade secrets concurrently with the amendment motion
4. Denied without prejudice Slide's request for summary judgment
5. Adjourned the trial date to May or June 2026 to accommodate pleadings resolution

This is a breach of contract and indemnification lawsuit between Linden J. Fellerman and Collections Acquisition Company (CAC) regarding the sale of Secure Payment Systems (SPS). The dispute centers on CAC's failure to release holdback funds and competing claims of breach of contract and fraud.

1. Whether CAC breached the Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA) by failing to release holdback funds
2. The sufficiency of CAC's indemnification claims
3. Whether CAC's fraud claim is valid
4. The timeliness and reasonableness of indemnification notices

The court denied Mr. Fellerman's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, finding material issues of fact exist regarding:

1. The validity of CAC's Second and Third indemnification claims
2. Whether CAC breached the PSA by not releasing holdback funds
3. The sufficiency of CAC's fraud claim

1. Both the Second and Third Claims appeared to comply with contractual notice requirements
2. The Third Claim was timely due to a fraud exception in the contract
3. CAC's fraud claim was not impermissibly bootstrapped
4. Mr. Fellerman was not entitled to attorney's fees at this stage of the proceedings

This is a procedural order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit regarding a sanction imposed on the appellant, David C. Lettieri, which restricts his ability to file future appeals or proceedings without obtaining court leave.

1. The scope and application of a court-imposed leave-to-file sanction
2. Whether the appellant can file motions in existing cases under the sanction order

The court denied the appellant's motion for leave to file and his motion to recall the mandate. The court clarified that the sanction order requires Lettieri to obtain court permission for any new filings in all existing cases, including those filed before the sanction order was issued.