Topic
Every decision we've filed under Civil.
The Ninth Circuit denied Omar Tellez-Ramirez's petition for review, holding that his Idaho drug conviction qualifies as a removable aggravated felony. The court applied the modified categorical approach to confirm the conviction involved methamphetamine and matched federal mental state requirements.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of a petition for review, holding that Miranda warnings and the exclusionary rule do not apply in civil immigration removal proceedings. The court rejected the petitioner's argument that an administrative arrest warrant transformed the civil nature of the proceeding into a criminal one.
The Second Circuit reversed a district court dismissal, clarifying that a state suing in parens patriae need not prove a discriminatory policy or practice to establish standing. The court held that New York sufficiently alleged that a school district's failure to address repeated sexual assaults and harassment affected a substantial segment of the student population.
The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review, holding that the stop-time rule for cancellation of removal is triggered by the date a criminal offense is committed, not the date of conviction. This ruling confirms that a lawful permanent resident is ineligible for relief if the offense occurred within seven years of admission, even if the conviction finalizes after that period.
The Ninth Circuit held that the Board of Immigration Appeals erred by relying on outdated precedent to classify Washington's current reckless driving statute as a crime involving moral turpitude. The court found that the statute's 'reckless manner' element reflects a lower mental state than the 'wanton or willful disregard' standard required by prior BIA rulings.
The Ninth Circuit reversed the Board of Immigration Appeals, holding that an immigration judge violated due process by rigidly enforcing a filing deadline without allowing a window filing. The court found the proceedings fundamentally unfair because the deadline was ambiguous and the judge refused to accept the application while still on the bench.
The Second Circuit affirmed a district court judgment holding that Conagen was not liable for breach of contract after negotiations for an exclusivity arrangement failed. The court ruled that the executed Term Sheet created a binding duty to negotiate in good faith but did not bind the parties to the specific exclusivity terms sought by Givaudan.
The Second Circuit held that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires a whistleblower to prove an employer acted with retaliatory intent to discriminate against them. Because the district court failed to instruct the jury on this essential element, the verdict is vacated and the case is remanded for a new trial.
The Second Circuit held that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires a whistleblower to prove an employer acted with specific retaliatory intent to establish an adverse employment action claim. Because the district court failed to instruct the jury on this essential element, the court vacated the verdict and remanded for a new trial.
The Second Circuit held that AmTrust Financial Services' public statements regarding its accounting for extended warranty revenue and employee bonuses were actionable statements of opinion under the Securities Act. The court vacated the dismissal of these specific claims and remanded the case for trial, while affirming the dismissal of all other securities fraud allegations.