Every decision we've summarized — searchable, filterable, neutral.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the Tax Court's decision sustaining a tax deficiency and penalty. The appellate court found no error in the lower court's ruling regarding the substantial understatement penalty.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court order granting a special motion to strike under California's anti-SLAPP statute. The panel held that the defendant's conduct was protected speech and that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim of unlawful action.
The First Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a qui tam action under the False Claims Act, holding that the relators failed to plead fraud with the particularity required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure nine point B.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed a district court dismissal of a pro se wrongful death suit against the United States Postal Service and a labor union. The court modified the judgment to clarify that the dismissal was without prejudice to the plaintiff's ability to pursue the claims in a pending earlier-filed suit.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to revoke supervised release and impose sentences in two consolidated cases. The court rejected the defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and substantive unreasonableness.
The Tenth Circuit affirmed a 168-month prison sentence for methamphetamine distribution, holding that the district court properly applied a two-level sentencing enhancement for maintaining a premises for drug distribution.
The Sixth Circuit affirmed a district court's revocation sentences for supervised release violations. The court held that the district judge did not plainly err by considering retributive purposes when sentencing the defendant.
The Eighth Circuit denied an application for authorization to file a second or successive habeas motion. The court held that the petitioner's claim regarding his career-offender sentence was not successive because it arose from a recent expungement of prior convictions.
The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the district court's denial of a motion to dismiss, holding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue prospective relief under Section nineteen eighty-three because they failed to allege a concrete and imminent injury.
The Sixth Circuit vacated a restitution order because the district court calculated losses based on a time period broader than the charged conduct. The court held that mandatory restitution must be confined to losses caused within the specific period identified in the charging document.
