U.S. First Circuit - The FindLaw 1st Circuit Court of Appeals News and Information Blog

March 2018 Archives

In a federal First Circuit appeal that pulls at the heartstrings while also pushing the boundaries of privacy rights, a disabled, non-verbal primary school student has been denied the right to carry around an audio or video recorder while at school.

Although it was the student's parents that were pushing for this, anyone with the littlest shred of empathy would easily understand their plight. The parents of the student steadfastly maintain that their son should be allowed to carry a working audio recorder while at school so that they can know what is going on. Unfortunately for the parents, the school, and the courts, just didn't see it the same way.

In a case that is almost too difficult to describe without breaking the blogging boundaries of decency, a doctor's criminal convictions for tax evasion, distributing drugs, and fraud have been upheld by the First Circuit.

The case of Dr. Joel Sabaen, convicted back in 2016, is a curious one. The criminal convictions all stem from conduct he engaged in with his adult daughter. The tax evasion related to over $2 million he gave her over a five year period of time. The drug charges stem from the bogus narcotics prescriptions he wrote for her. And while this may not seem so wild, the reasons why he filed an appeal certainly highlight the most degenerate aspects of his case.

Invasion of Privacy Claim Against Howard Stern Thrown Out

Nothing is sacred on Howard Stern's radio show.

Famous for making fun of everyone from politicians to prostitutes, Stern will do most anything for ratings. Except broadcast Judith Barrigas' tax information; that was a mistake.

Or so said his lawyers in Barrigas v. United States of America. Barrigas sued Stern for invasion of privacy, and the judge dismissed it.

When the court disagrees with a movant, sometimes it can constructively reflect on how the litigant could have been mistaken, and sometimes a First Circuit Court of Appeals justice can just let a group of plaintiffs have it.

In the Ellis v. Fidelity case, the appellate court really didn't hold back their criticism of plaintiffs' theories. In short, the plaintiffs claimed Fidelity was liable for acting in its own self interest over its investors' interest by acting too conservatively in managing the most conservative investment fund option available. In ruling, the court actually said:

"Plaintiffs' theory of how Fidelity behaved disloyally suffers from the added disability of making little sense."

Sadly for the plaintiffs, it doesn't get much better from there.