Topic
Every decision we've filed under Admiralty / Maritime.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the denial of disability retirement for a former Air Force pilot, holding that his sinusitis did not prevent him from performing his administrative Generalist Pilot duties. The court found substantial evidence supporting the Board's determination that the appellant's role did not require actual flight operations.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. The court granted the defendants' unopposed motion for summary affirmance in this admiralty dispute.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit dismissed this appeal due to a failure to prosecute. The court issued an order stating that the dismissal stands as the mandate of the court.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit dismissed an appeal because the appellant failed to file an opening brief. The court also noted that the appellant did not pay the required filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
The Eleventh Circuit dismissed an appeal from a district court order denying a temporary restraining order because the ruling was not a final decision. The court held that the denial of the TRO did not qualify for immediate appellate review under the collateral order doctrine or the statutory exception for injunctive relief.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit dismissed an appeal due to a lack of prosecution. The court issued an order stating that the appeal was dismissed pursuant to Tenth Circuit Rule 42.1.
The Tenth Circuit denied a petition for a writ of prohibition because federal courts lack the authority to issue such writs against state courts. The court held that state courts are not inferior federal courts within the meaning of the federal writ statutes.
The D.C. Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Nicholas Woodall's complaint against the President, ruling that the filing failed to meet the pleading standards of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). The court held that the document did not constitute a valid case or controversy under Article III because it lacked a short and plain statement of jurisdiction or grounds for relief.
The D.C. Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a complaint filed against the President, ruling that the pleading failed to provide fair notice of the claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). The court further held that the district court properly declined to grant leave to amend sua sponte because the appellant identified no viable amendments that would entitle her to relief.