Block on Trump's Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Plus Criminal, Immigration and Tort Matters
Gaston v. Teamsters Local 600, No. 09-3491, concerned an action by union employees alleging that defendant breached its collective bargaining agreement (CBA), that their union breached its duty of fair representation under the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), and that the union's business agent breached his fiduciary duty under the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA). The court of appeals affirmed summary judgment for defendants on the ground that nothing in the LMRDA or LMRA required a union agent to attempt to amend a CBA to take action that infringes on the rights of an employee group or to engage in futile actions.
Pippin v. Hill-Rom Co., No. 09-1965, involved an action claiming that defendant acted negligently by failing to provide a reasonably safe loading area and by failing to load certain truck beds. The court of appeals affirmed summary judgment for defendants on the grounds that 1) the mere failure to perform under a contract could not support plaintiff's negligence action; and 2) the parking lot's slope was open and obvious as a matter of law, and plaintiff could not recover from defendant on a premises liability theory.
Sanchez v. Holder, No. 09-3011, concerned a petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals holding petitioner statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal. The Eighth Circuit denied the petition on the ground that there was no statutory support for petitioner's argument that the burden of proof rested on the government in this case to prove his conviction of an aggravated felony when petitioner was removable on other grounds.
US v. Tenerelli, No. 09-2948, defendant's convictions for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, and being a felon in possession of a firearm are affirmed on the grounds that 1) even assuming that defendant was correct that the seized videotapes were not within the scope of the warrant, their admission was harmless; 2) it was reasonable for officers to conclude that defendant was likely to possess methamphetamine at his residence when the search warrant was executed; and 3) there was no flagrant disregard of the limits of the warrant.