HealthEast Bethesda Hosp. v. United Commercial Travelers of Am., No. 08-3665, was an action for breach of an insurance settlement contract.  The court of appeals affirmed summary judgment for defendant, on the grounds that 1) defendant was not an unsophisticated party because it had significant experience in handling and negotiating claims with healthcare providers; 2) because defendant bore the risk of mistake, the district court properly denied rescission based on unilateral mistake; and 3) the record of inaction by defendant strongly supported the denial of relief under both unilateral and mutual mistake.

Thu v. Holder, No. 09-1655, concerned a petition for review of the BIA’s order dismissing his appeal from a denial of petitioner’s asylum application and related relief.  The court of appeals denied the petition, on the grounds that 1) the Immigration Judge’s credibility finding was supported by specific, cogent reasons for disbelief; and 2) the evidence in the record was not so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.

George’s Inc. v. Allianz Global Risks US Ins. Co., No. 09-2220, was an action against an insurer claiming that defendant failed to indemnify plaintiff for business expenses and personal property losses as required under the terms of its insurance policy.  The court of appeals affirmed partial summary judgment for defendant on the personal property claim, reversed the partial denial of summary judgment on the business expenses claim, because the policy unambiguously excluded coverage for plaintiff’s claimed losses.

Related Resources

• Full Text of HealthEast Bethesda Hosp. v. United Commercial Travelers of Am., No. 08-3665
• Full Text of Thu v. Holder, No. 09-1655
• Full Text of George’s Inc. v. Allianz Global Risks US Ins. Co., No. 09-2220

As stated in the decision: “In William I, we held that the regulation promulgated by the agency, 8 C.F.R. section 1003.2(d), was invalid because it directly contradicted the statutory language in the INA which permitted one motion to reopen with no restriction on the location from which it was filed.”

In affirming the BIA’s decision, the court concluded that, although the regulation no longer works to remove BIA’s jurisdiction, it did not abuse its discretion in denying relief based on the statutory requirement that an alien must be present in the US to be eligible for asylum.  Here, petitioner was removed by the Department of Homeland Security under a valid removal order, and as such, he can no longer pursue an application for asylum.

Related Resource:

• Full text of Sadhvani v. Holder

In reversing the district court’s judgment in its entirety, the court held that the magistrate judge had a substantial basis for determining that probable cause existed to search a home that was apparently the residence of a confirmed drug dealer. 

Although closer probable cause questions were presented by searches of other residences, each search was upheld under the Leon good faith exception. 

Finally, suppression of a defendant’s saliva sample as “fruits of the poisonous tree” is reversed as he failed to prove a primary invasion of his own Fourth Amendment rights.

Related Resource:

• US v. Stearn

As stated in the decision: “In all, the record supports the district court’s finding that activities devoted to religion consumed approximately forty-five minutes of the seven hour school day.” 

Thus, in vacating the trial court’s decision, the court held that the ministerial exception does not bar plaintiff’s employment discrimination and retaliation claims. 

Related Resource:

• Full text of Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n v. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch.

In Richardson v. Stanley Works, Inc., No. 09-1354, the court faced a challenge to the district court’s finding of noninfringement relating to a design patent for a multi-function carpentry tool that combines a hammer with another tool.  In affirming the decision, the court held that the district court correctly construed the claims at issue and correctly determined that the patent was not infringed. 

In Hoopa Valley Tribe v. US., No. 09-5084, the court faced a challenge to the Court of Federal Claims’ entry of judgment in favor of the government on the ground that the plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the distribution of trust funds to the Yurok Tribe, from the Settlement Fund that was established under the Hoopa-Yurok Settlement Act. 

As stated in the decision: “The Hoopa Valley Tribe waived any claim against the government arising from the Act, received its share of the Settlement Fund, and retained no entitlement to the remainder in the Settlement Fund.  As such, at the time DOI distributed the remainder to the Yurok Trine, the Hoopa Valley Tribe was not a beneficiary of, and had no legally protected interest in, the Settlement Fund.

Thus, the court affirmed the decision of the Court of Federal Claims and held that the plaintiff lacked standing because it cannot show an injury in fact.

Related Resources:

• Full text of Richardson v. Stanley Works, Inc.
• Full text of Hoopa Valley Tribe v. US

In Richardson v. Stanley Works, Inc., No. 09-1354, the court faced a challenge to the district court’s finding of noninfringement relating to a design patent for a multi-function carpentry tool that combines a hammer with another tool.  In affirming the decision, the court held that the district court correctly construed the claims at issue and correctly determined that the patent was not infringed. 

In Hoopa Valley Tribe v. US., No. 09-5084, the court faced a challenge to the Court of Federal Claims’ entry of judgment in favor of the government on the ground that the plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the distribution of trust funds to the Yurok Tribe, from the Settlement Fund that was established under the Hoopa-Yurok Settlement Act. 

As stated in the decision: “The Hoopa Valley Tribe waived any claim against the government arising from the Act, received its share of the Settlement Fund, and retained no entitlement to the remainder in the Settlement Fund.  As such, at the time DOI distributed the remainder to the Yurok Trine, the Hoopa Valley Tribe was not a beneficiary of, and had no legally protected interest in, the Settlement Fund.

Thus, the court affirmed the decision of the Court of Federal Claims and held that the plaintiff lacked standing because it cannot show an injury in fact.

Related Resources:

• Full text of Richardson v. Stanley Works, Inc.
• Full text of Hoopa Valley Tribe v. US

As the court wrote:  “On August 1, 2003, defendant-appellant, Frederick Charles Miller (Miller), pleaded guilty to one count of conducting a monetary transaction with criminally-derived funds and one count of evading income tax. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of ninety-six and sixty months’ imprisonment and to a three-year period of supervised release. He was also ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $1,485,074.24. After his direct appeal and several collateral attacks failed, Miller filed a petition for a writ of audita querela with the district court on September 26, 2008, seeking to have the amount of his restitution order reduced. The district court dismissed the petition.”

The Fifth Circuit found that, although 18 U.S.C. section 3663A provided that, when a criminal restitution order was issued, it must be offset by “the value . . . of any part of the property that is returned,” this language should not be read to require district courts to formally modify restitution orders every time a defendant subsequent to the order makes a payment on his obligation.

Furthermore, if it still exists, the writ of audita querela can only be applied to rectify a judgment which, though correct when rendered, has since become infirm. Thus, as all parties to this case agree that the district court’s restitution order was initially correct, and because the statute does not require the order to be modified every time a subsequent payment is made on a restitution obligation, there is no infirmity in defendant’s judgment for a writ of audita querela to rectify. 

Related Resources

• Full Text of US v. Miller, No. 08-11186