Every decision we've summarized — searchable, filterable, neutral.

Mar 26 2026
10th Cir. 5:24-CR-00398-R-1) Panel Decision

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MARLON DEWAYNE MARTIN

The Tenth Circuit dismissed Marlon DeWayne Martin's appeal of his child sex trafficking sentence because he signed a plea agreement containing an enforceable waiver of appellate rights. The court found the waiver covered the specific claim raised and that enforcing it would not result in a miscarriage of justice.

Mar 26 2026
Fed. Cir. 26-1354 Panel Decision

Sean W. Crooks v. Department of Homeland Security

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board because the petitioner failed to pay the required docketing fee and file a mandatory discrimination statement. The court ruled that these procedural omissions constituted a failure to prosecute the case in accordance with Federal Circuit Rules.

Mar 26 2026
Fed. Cir. 26-1529 Panel Decision

MICHELLE L. ADAMS v. UNITED STATES 2026-1529

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal in this civil case because the parties mutually agreed to end the litigation. The court issued a standard order under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, directing that each side bear its own costs.

Mar 30 2026
4th Cir. 24-6985 Per Curiam

CLAUDE MORDECIA STEVENS v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Claude Mordecia Stevens' appeal from a district court's denial of his habeas corpus petition. The court found Stevens failed to make a substantial showing that the district court's decision involved debatable constitutional claims, a requirement necessary to obtain a certificate of appealability.

Mar 26 2026
6th Cir. 24-1526 2-1

MACHELLE PEARSON v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS HEIDI E. WASHINGTON

The Sixth Circuit reversed the denial of qualified immunity for high-level prison officials, holding that their reliance on incompetent medical contractors did not constitute a clearly established Eighth Amendment violation. While the court affirmed that the officials were not the proximate cause of the injuries under state law, it remanded the case to allow the plaintiffs to pursue their state-law negligence claims.