Latest 3 Cases: Feliciano-Munoz v. Rebarber-Ocasio (Civil Procedure), United States v. Cotto-Flores (Civil Rights), United States v. Lara ...

#MeToo and What Men and Women Are Willing to Say and Do

SHERRY F. COLB

Cornell Law professor Sherry F. Colb explores why people have such strong feelings about the #MeToo movement (whether they are advocates or opponents) and suggests that both sides rest their positions on contested empirical assumptions about the behavior of men and women. Colb argues that what we believe to be true of men and women generally contributes to our conclusions about the #MeToo movement and our perceptions about how best to handle the accusations of those who come forward.

Read More

Feliciano-Munoz v. Rebarber-Ocasio

Docket: 18-2075

Opinion Date: August 11, 2020

Judge: Torruella

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Contracts

The First Circuit vacated the decision of the district court dismissing Plaintiff's breach of contract claim, holding that the court erred in concluding that Plaintiff did not assert a breach of contract claim and abused its discretion when it employed the Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) standard in dismissing the breach of contract claim instead of the summary judgment standard. Plaintiff filed a breach of contract action and asserted a secondary theory of liability related to deceit or "dolo." Defendant moved for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendant but dismissed the breach of contract claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim to relief that was "plausible on its fact." Applying the test for deceit in the formation of the contract, the court found that Plaintiff was not entitled to relief. The First Circuit vacated the judgment in part, holding that the district court (1) erred in concluding that Plaintiff did not assert a breach of contract claim and abused its discretion when it evaluated Defendant's motion for summary judgment with respect to the claim as if were a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss; and (2) did not err in granting summary judgment as to Plaintiff's fallback theory of dolo.

United States v. Cotto-Flores

Docket: 18-2013

Opinion Date: August 10, 2020

Judge: Ojetta Rogeriee Thompson

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The First Circuit reversed Defendant's conviction for transporting a minor in interstate or foreign commerce or in any commonwealth, territory or possession of the United States with the intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, holding that the trial judge violated Defendant's Sixth Amendment right to in-person confrontation when he allowed the victim to testify by two-way close-circuit television and without making specific on the record findings. Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) 2423(a)'s ban on transporting a minor to commit a sex crime applies to transportation without Puerto Rico, which is a "commonwealth" of the United States under the statute; (2) there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction; (3) the judge properly instructed the jury on the elements of the Puerto Rico crimes the government alleged Defendant had intended to commit at her destination; but (4) the judge violated Defendant's right to confront the victim in person absent a compelling need for remote testimony, and the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

United States v. Lara

Docket: 17-1957

Opinion Date: August 12, 2020

Judge: David J. Barron

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The First Circuit vacated in part the convictions and sentences that Victor Lara and Kourtney Williams (together, Defendants) each received in connection with a robbery in Maine, holding that Defendants' convictions for violating 18 U.S.C. 924(c), which makes it a crime to use a firearm "during and in relation to" a "crime of violence" could not stand. After a jury trial, Defendants were found guilty of conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery and of violating 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). Defendants both received a total prison sentence of 184 months. The First Circuit held (1) conspiracy to commit Hobbs act robbery does not qualify as a "crime of violence" under section 924(c), and therefore, Defendants' convictions for violating section 924(c) must be reversed; (2) Defendants were not entitled to relief on their claims of instructional error; and (3) Defendants' remaining allegations of error were unavailing.