Apr 30 2026
Fed. Cir. 26-1381 Panel Decision

KAMDEM-OUAFFO v. LEBLON

The Federal Circuit determined it lacked jurisdiction to hear this appeal because the underlying dispute did not involve patent laws or other statutory grounds under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a). Consequently, the court ordered the transfer of the matter to the Third Circuit rather than dismissing the appeal.

Apr 30 2026
1st Cir. 26-1209 Panel Decision

GORDON-DARBY HOLDINGS, INC v. ROBERT L. QUINN, in the official capacity as Commissioner of the New Hampshire Department of Safety, et al

The First Circuit granted the Commissioners' motion to stay a preliminary injunction that had blocked New Hampshire from repealing its motor vehicle emissions inspection program. The court held that the state likely succeeded on the merits because the Clean Air Act does not authorize citizen suits based on purely prospective violations of State Implementation Plans.

Apr 30 2026
11th Cir. 9:23-cv-81577-RMM Unpublished

QUIN E. BRISCOE v. TRANSAMERICA PREMIER LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY an Iowa Corporation, successor by merger to Peoples Benefit Life Insurance Company an Iowa corporation

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed that Transamerica Premier Life Insurance Company violated Florida contract law by unilaterally annuitizing Quin Briscoe's annuity without her selection of a payment option. The court held that the contract required the owner to elect a specific payout method before payments could begin, making the insurer's default action a breach of the agreement.

Apr 30 2026
9th Cir. 3:23-cv-04910-SI Unpublished

Yu v. ByteDance, Inc., et al.

The Ninth Circuit dismissed an appeal as moot because the plaintiff initiated and extensively participated in arbitration proceedings, eliminating any live controversy. The court declined to vacate the district court's sanctions and default judgment because the party seeking relief caused the mootness.

Apr 30 2026
10th Cir. 22-6086 Panel Decision

Whyte Monkee Productions, LLC v. Netflix, Inc.

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Netflix, ruling that the use of a funeral video clip in the documentary Tiger King constituted fair use. The court also held that the plaintiffs waived their argument regarding the scope of employment for seven other videos, leaving the lower court's work-for-hire determination intact.

Apr 30 2026
5th Cir. 25-60500 Per Curiam

GIS Holdings, L.L.C., (Avondale Operations); The Gray Insurance Company v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor; Walter B. Crews...

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the Benefits Review Board's award of permanent total disability benefits to a longshoreman, finding substantial evidence supported the lower tribunal's conclusion that the worker reached maximum medical improvement and could not return to the workforce. The court rejected the employer's arguments regarding alternative employment and job retraining, noting the employer failed to meet its burden of proof and forfeited the retraining argument.

Apr 30 2026
9th Cir. 25-2868 Unpublished

SI, ET AL. V. BLANCHE

The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review challenging an adverse credibility finding against an asylum seeker from China. The court held that substantial evidence supported the Board of Immigration Appeals' conclusion that the petitioner submitted false information, which alone justified the denial of relief.

Apr 30 2026
5th Cir. 25-20166 Per Curiam

Glen Sumner v. State Farm Lloyds

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of State Farm Lloyds regarding insurance claims stemming from Hurricane Nicholas damage. The panel found no error in the lower court's determination that the insurer properly fulfilled its obligations and dismissed the plaintiff's procedural challenges.

Apr 30 2026
5th Cir. 25-50098 Per Curiam

Otis v. Miller

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of an inmate's Eighth Amendment claim regarding prison conditions, ruling that the complaint failed to allege personal involvement by the named officials. The court held that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient facts to demonstrate that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of serious harm.