May 7 2026
8th Cir. 25-1566 Panel Decision

Lupe Development Partners, LLC v. Baird

The Eighth Circuit affirmed a district court order denying a judgment creditor's motion to depose its former counsel regarding a third-party defendant's finances. The court held that the proposed discovery violated a prior order prohibiting further inquiry into the third party's finances absent new evidence of fraudulent transactions.

May 7 2026
9th Cir. 25-5435 Published

In re Crain Walnut Shelling, LP

The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to overturn a district court order declining to appoint Crain Walnut Shelling as lead plaintiff in a securities fraud class action. The panel clarified that the standard of proof for rebutting the presumption of adequacy under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act is preponderance of the evidence.

May 7 2026
8th Cir. 24-3491 Panel Decision

Bolin v. Wilkins

The Eighth Circuit reversed the denial of qualified immunity for one deputy while affirming the lower court's ruling on other officers involved in a jail custody incident. The court found that the use of a taser on a resisting detainee was justified, but the use of pepper spray and other force against non-resisting individuals violated clearly established law.

May 7 2026
Fed. Cir. 23-2331 Panel Decision

Oliva v. Department of Veterans Affairs

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Merit Systems Protection Board's decision to uphold the removal of a Department of Veterans Affairs employee. The court found substantial evidence supported the agency's finding that it would have removed the employee regardless of any protected whistleblowing activity.

May 7 2026
9th Cir. 2:22-cv-04450- Published

In re KEVAN HARRY GILMAN Debtor TAMMY R. PHILLIPS; TAMMY R. PHILLIPS, APLC

The Ninth Circuit clarified the scope of immunity available to Chapter seven bankruptcy trustees, reversing a lower court ruling that granted immunity for alleged negligence in managing estate assets. The court held that trustees acting as property managers are not entitled to quasi-judicial immunity and remanded the case for further proceedings.