If you are unable to see this message, click here to view it in a web browser.

Justia Daily Opinion Summaries

US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
October 21, 2020

Table of Contents

Smith v. Toyota Motor Corp.

Civil Procedure

Reeder v. Vannoy

Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Beras v. Johnson

Criminal Law

United States v. Sila

Criminal Law

Associate Justice
Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Mar. 15, 1933 - Sep. 18, 2020

In honor of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Justia has compiled a list of the opinions she authored.

For a list of cases argued before the Court as an advocate, see her page on Oyez.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Click here to remove Verdict from subsequent Justia newsletter(s).

New on Verdict

Legal Analysis and Commentary

He Said/She Said, Save Our Sons, and the Stories that Stick: Part Two of a Two-Part Series of Columns

SHERRY F. COLB

verdict post

In this second in a series of columns on the U.S. Department of Education’s recent push toward a higher burden of proof in determinations of sexual harassment or assault under Title IX, Cornell Law professor Sherry F. Colb suggests that gendered narratives play a role in people’s willingness to regard an acquaintance rape case as “he said/she said.” Colb describes several examples in which people prefer a story that confirms a pre-existing bias over truth based on evidence.

Read More

US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions

Smith v. Toyota Motor Corp.

Docket: 19-60938

Opinion Date: October 20, 2020

Judge: Stephen Andrew Higginson

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction of plaintiff's pro se complaint against Toyota and Diversity, alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and Mississippi state law. In this case, the amended complaint alleged that plaintiff and Diversity are citizens of the same state. Therefore, the district court was correct in holding that there is no diversity jurisdiction and thus no subject matter jurisdiction. The court stated that plaintiff's altering of the jurisdictional facts she alleges on appeal—omitting any mention of Diversity's citizenship in her appellate brief and alleging only that Diversity is "located" in Indiana in her appellate reply brief—does not alter the court's decision. Even assuming the altered jurisdictional facts are true, plaintiff has not met her burden of establishing complete diversity of the parties.

Read Opinion

Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.

Reeder v. Vannoy

Docket: 17-30351

Opinion Date: October 20, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

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

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254. Petitioner argues, under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), that the prosecution unlawfully withheld impeachment evidence concerning an eyewitness's prior federal conviction for lying on a firearms application. The court concluded that the undisclosed evidence of the eyewitness's conviction for lying does not "directly contradict" or undermine his assertions at trial; fairminded jurists could disagree as to whether the eyewitness's testimony was sufficiently corroborated to sustain confidence in the verdict; and the eyewitness's undisclosed conviction was cumulative of other evidence disclosed to the defense—including the assault and battery conviction that was revealed to the jury during the eyewitness's cross-examination. Therefore, the court found that the state court's Brady determination did not involve an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law. The court also rejected petitioner's argument that the state court's decision was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts under section 2254(d)(2).

Read Opinion

Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.

Beras v. Johnson

Docket: 18-30684

Opinion Date: October 20, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

Petitioner, a federal prisoner, sought postconviction review of his conviction for money laundering under 28 U.S.C. 2241, rather than 28 U.S.C. 2255. Petitioner acknowledged that he cannot successfully file a section 2255 motion because he has previously filed and lost several of them. The Fifth Circuit dismissed the petition as an abuse of the writ, holding that there are two circumstances where a section 2241 application should be dismissed as an abuse of the writ: first, a petitioner can abuse the writ by raising a claim in a subsequent petition that he could have raised in his first, regardless of whether the failure to raise it earlier stemmed from a deliberate choice; and second, it is an abuse of the writ for a prisoner to raise the same claim a second time. The court held that both circumstances apply to petitioner's section 2241 application. In this case, petitioner filed a section 2241 application in the Northern District of Ohio in 2012—almost four years after Cuellar v. United States, 553 U.S. 550 (2008)—but did not include a Cuellar claim. Furthermore, he raised his Cuellar claim in his second second 2241 application to the Northern District of Ohio.

Read Opinion

Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.

United States v. Sila

Docket: 17-11212

Opinion Date: October 20, 2020

Judge: Jennifer Walker Elrod

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

Defendant was convicted of two counts of theft of public funds, based on two fraudulent tax refunds (Count I and II), as well as aggravated identity theft (Count III). The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment with respect to Counts I and II and held that the district court did not err in failing to give a unanimity of theory instruction as to the location of the crime. In this case, the Government does not dispute that defendant's conduct in Dallas and his conduct in Kenya could have theoretically constituted two separate violations of 18 U.S.C. 641, but the Government maintains that it sought to convict defendant on Count I based only on his conduct in Dallas. Therefore, the two offenses are based solely on the one Dallas transaction. However, the court held that the evidence was insufficient to support defendant's conviction on Count III because the Government presented no conclusive evidence showing that defendant had ever used the 139 IP address, much less that he used it to file (or help file) the Eipper tax refund. Accordingly, the court vacated as to Count III and remanded for resentencing.

Read Opinion

Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.

About Justia Opinion Summaries

Justia Daily Opinion Summaries is a free service, with 68 different newsletters, covering every federal appellate court and the highest courts of all US states.

Justia also provides weekly practice area newsletters in 63 different practice areas.

All daily and weekly Justia newsletters are free. Subscribe or modify your newsletter subscription preferences at daily.justia.com.

You may freely redistribute this email in whole.

About Justia

Justia is an online platform that provides the community with open access to the law, legal information, and lawyers.

Justia

Contact Us| Privacy Policy

Unsubscribe From This Newsletter

or
unsubscribe from all Justia newsletters immediately here.

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Justia

Justia | 1380 Pear Ave #2B, Mountain View, CA 94043