Latest

May 31 2026

Case Explained: August Term 2023 (Submitted: February 23, 2024 Decided: September 11, 2024) Docket No. 23-229 HYUNHUY NAM v. PERMANENT MISSION OF THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA TO THE UNITED NATIONS

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Filed: 2024-09-11 The Second Circuit vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment, holding that a foreign state's mission to the United Nations retains sovereign immunity for employment claims by non-diplomatic chauffeurs unless the plaintiff affirmatively demonstrates the activity falls within the FSIA's commercial activity exception. The court reasoned that the district court improperly shifted the burden of proof regarding the nature of the employment and failed to apply the correct standard for determining whether driving a diplomat constitutes a commercial act rather than a sovereign function. Consequently, the case is remanded for further proceedings where the plaintiff must meet his burden of proving the commercial activity exception applies under the specific facts of this employment relationship. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Read →
May 31 2026

Case Explained: Untitled Opinion

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Filed: 2024-09-11 The Second Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the appellant's untimely notice of appeal was not tolled by merely serving, rather than filing, a motion for reconsideration. Relying on *Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert*, the court held that Appellate Rule 4(a)(4)(A) is a mandatory claim-processing rule subject to waiver but immune from equitable tolling. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without reaching the merits of the underlying civil forfeiture dispute. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Read →
May 31 2026

Case Explained: Untitled Opinion

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Filed: 2024-09-09 The Second Circuit held that an employer violates the FMLA by interfering with an employee's use of leave benefits even if those benefits are ultimately granted, rejecting the District Court's contrary interpretation. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of Kemp's claims because her FMLA action was time-barred and her state law claims failed on the merits or were also time-barred. Consequently, the judgment below is affirmed despite the clarification of the interference standard. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Read →
May 31 2026

Case Explained: ESTATE OF YAEL BOTVIN, BY RUSSELL ELLIS ADMINISTRATOR v. HEIDEMAN, NUDELMAN & KALIK, P.C

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Filed: 2024-09-06 The D.C. Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal, holding that the plaintiffs adequately pleaded proximate cause in their legal-malpractice claim because the delay in obtaining a default judgment against Iran was a foreseeable consequence of the attorneys' negligence under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55. Applying the *Iqbal* plausibility standard to the facts alleged, the court found that missing the subsequent Iranian asset settlement was a direct and reasonably predictable result of the procedural errors, thereby satisfying the foreseeability requirement for proximate cause. Consequently, the case is remanded to allow the malpractice action to proceed on the merits rather than being dismissed at the pleading stage. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Read →
May 31 2026

Case Explained: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. RICKEY JOHNSON

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Filed: 2024-09-06 The Second Circuit affirmed Johnson's convictions for threatening interstate communications and officials, rejecting his claims regarding jury composition, hearsay admission, and witness charges by finding any errors harmless or non-existent. Applying the harmless error standard, the court held that the district court properly proceeded with eleven jurors without stipulation and correctly admitted victim emails through lay testimony to establish the threats' context. Consequently, Johnson's judgment stands, and he remains subject to his criminal sentence as imposed by the district court. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Read →
May 31 2026

Case Explained: August Term, 2023 (Argued: April 15, 2024 Decided: September 6, 2024) Docket No. 23-1213 SUNVESTMENT ENERGY GROUP NY 64 LLC v. NATIONAL GRID USA SERVICES CO., INC., NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Filed: 2024-09-06 The Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, holding that the plaintiffs' claims regarding federal tax liability on interconnection payments were preempted by the Federal Power Act. Because the dispute centered on the interpretation of federal tax obligations inherent to the regulated utility's operations, state-law claims could not proceed in federal court absent an independent basis for jurisdiction. Consequently, the parties must resolve their fee disputes through the appropriate regulatory channels or state forums rather than federal litigation. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Read →
May 31 2026

Case Explained: X CORP v. ROBERT BONTA

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2024-09-04 Docket: 2:23-cv-01939- The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction against California AB 587, holding that its Content Category Report provisions likely violate the First Amendment under strict scrutiny as content-based compelled speech. The court reasoned these mandates are not narrowly tailored to serve the state's transparency goals and thus fail constitutional muster. Consequently, the case is remanded with instructions to issue an injunction and determine whether the unconstitutional provisions are severable from the rest of the statute. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Read →
May 31 2026

Case Explained: Untitled Opinion

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Filed: 2024-09-04 The D.C. Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint for failing to meet Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)'s pleading standard under *Twombly*, as the original filing lacked a short, plain statement providing fair notice of the claim. The court further held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend because the proposed amended complaint would have been futile and failed to cure the original deficiencies. Consequently, the plaintiff's civil rights action against federal marshals and jail officials remains dismissed with no opportunity for further amendment. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Read →
May 31 2026

Case Explained: Untitled Opinion

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Filed: 2024-09-04 The Second Circuit held that proceeding to trial without a competency inquiry was objectively unreasonable given Musaid's cyclical history of incompetence and erratic pre-trial behavior. Applying the Due Process standard for competency, the court reversed the district court's denial of habeas relief and remanded with instructions to issue a conditional writ, allowing New York state courts to develop a record proximate to the trial date to determine if Musaid was competent at the time of his conviction. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Read →
May 31 2026

Case Explained: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JESUS RAMIRO GOMEZ

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2024-09-04 Docket: 8:20-cr-00171- The Ninth Circuit vacated the defendant's sentence because the district court erroneously applied a career offender enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, incorrectly classifying a California Penal Code § 245(a)(1) conviction as a "crime of violence." Relying on *Borden v. United States*, the panel held that because the statute criminalizes reckless conduct, it fails to meet the mens rea requirement for the elements clause or the enumerated offenses clause of the guideline. Consequently, the case is remanded for resentencing without the improper enhancement. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Read →