Justia U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff owned a home on Grassy Pond Road in Hopkinton, Rhode Island. The Hopkinton Planning Board granted a developer's application to develop a residential subdivision on a tract adjacent to Plaintiff's land on the condition that Grassy Pond Road be reconfigured and reconstructed. The reconstruction required a permit from the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (DEM), which was issued. Plaintiff attempted to appeal the issuance of the permit. In the meantime, the developer sold its land, and the DEM permit expired. The subdivision proposal was subsequently abandoned, and Plaintiff's state-court appeal was dismissed as moot. Plaintiff, however, filed suit in federal district court against the State of Rhode Island, the DEM, the town of Hopkinton, the Board, the developer, and others, alleging various constitutional and pendent state-law claims, including a takings claim. The district court granted Defendants' motions to dismiss, holding, among other things, that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain Plaintiff's takings claim because Plaintiff failed to pursue available state procedures in an endeavor to secure just compensation. The First Circuit Court of affirmed for substantially the reasons limned in the district court's opinion. View "Marek v. State of Rhode Island" on Justia Law

This appeal involved litigation between Coverall North America, Inc. and its franchisees. Proceeding under federal diversity jurisdiction, the franchisees asserted a variety of state-law claims against Coverall. Which of the various plaintiffs were subject to the arbitration provisions of the Franchise Agreement was at issue in this appeal. Appellees were a subgroup of Plaintiffs who became Coverall franchisees by signing consent to transfer agreements, which by reference incorporated under franchise agreements that contained arbitration clauses. The district court determined that Appellees did not have to arbitrate their claims against Coverall because they did not have adequate notice of the arbitration clauses contained in the franchise agreements. The First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the district court erred because (1) Massachusetts law, which governed this dispute, did not impose any such special notice requirement upon these commercial contractual provisions; and (2) in any event, any special notice requirement would be preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act. View "Awuah v. Coverall N.A., Inc. " on Justia Law

Several years ago, Plaintiffs entered into a fifteen-year lease with Defendant's predecessor in interest (Miller). The lease included a purchase option. After Defendant refused to allow Plaintiffs to exercise the purchase option on the ground that they were in default on their obligations under the lease, Plaintiffs instituted this action, demanding specific performance or damages. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and ordered specific performance of the purchase option, determining that Miller had waived a provision which prohibited Plaintiffs from subleasing without prior written permission and that all alleged defaults were inconsequential and immaterial. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that summary judgment for Plaintiffs was proper, where (1) the district court correctly found that Miller waived the requirement that Plaintiffs obtain written permission before subleasing any portion of the premises; and (2) the district court properly found that Defendant had failed to present evidence of how alleged violations the lease provision requiring them to comply with state and municipal laws harmed her or Miller. View "Bachorz v. Miller-Forslund" on Justia Law

Petitioners, a wife and husband, were Chinese nationals. In removal proceedings, Petitioners argued that, if repatriated, they would be subjected to involuntary sterilization. The Immigration Judge (IJ) determined that Petitioners' testimony was not believable and, therefore, Petitioners had failed to establish either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. On appeal, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) (1) affirmed the denial of Petitioners' applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture; and (2) denied Petitioners' motion for reconsideration. Petitioners sought judicial review. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied the petitions for review, holding (1) the BIA did not engage in improper factfinding to sustain the adverse credibility determinations; and (2) the IJ and BIA did not err in rejecting Petitioners' claims for asylum based on a well-founded fear of future persecution. View "Chen v. Holder" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Nancy Shay and the daughter of Defendant Barbara Walters attended boarding school together in the early 1980s. The two of them were suspended in 1983, and Plaintiff was subsequently expelled. In 2008, Walters published a memoir entitled "Audition" that included a reference to a friend of her daughter's named "Nancy" "whom the school kicked out midterm for bad behavior." Plaintiff sued Walters for money damages, alleging Walters tortiously interfered with Plaintiff's contract with the school by inducing the school to expel her, alleging the statements in Audition about her were defamatory, and asserting a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. The district court granted Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings, concluding that the tortious interference claim was time-barred and that the remaining counts failed as a matter of law. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Defendant was entitled to judgment on the pleadings. View "Shay v. Walters" on Justia Law

Defendants Michael Powers and John Mahan, who ran an employment agency supplying temporary workers, were convicted after a jury trial of conspiracy to defraud the United States by impeding the functions of the IRS and mail fraud. Powers was also convicted of subscribing false tax returns and Mahan of procuring false tax returns. The tax fraud amounted to $7.5 million. Powers was sentenced to eighty-four months' imprisonment and Mahan to a term of seventy-six months. Defendants' appealed, alleging that the trial court committed errors requiring a new trial. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Defendants' convictions and sentences, holding (1) there was no prejudice to Defendants in the trial court's failure to give an defense instruction on advice of counsel; (2) various witnesses were not allowed to testify as to the ultimate issues, and thus the role of the jury was not invaded; (3) defense counsel was afforded a reasonable opportunity to impeach adverse witnesses; and (4) the district court did not plainly err in excluding testimony by Defendants' witnesses. View "United States v. Mahan" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of one count of conspiring to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute marijuana. Defendant appealed, claiming (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction, and (2) the district court erred in giving a "willful blindness" instruction. The First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, holding (1) the record did not establish that Defendant was willfully blind to drug-related activity; and (2) the Government, therefore, did not meet its burden of poof with respect to the second element of the charged conspiracy - that Defendant "had knowledge of the conspiracy." Remanded to the district court with instructions to enter a judgment of acquittal. View "United States v. Burgos" on Justia Law

This case involved an insurance coverage dispute arising from charges of sexual harassment brought by a former employee (Employee) against the one-time president (President) of Jasmine Company, Inc. After President filed an action against Jasmine's liability insurance provider (Insurer), seeking defense and indemnification for the harassment charges, Insurer filed a third-party complaint against Jasmine itself, requesting a declaratory judgment that it had not duty to defend or indemnify Jasmine for the harassment claims. The district court granted summary judgment on the third-party claims for Jasmine, holding that Insurer had to defend and indemnify Jasmine. At issue on appeal was whether a finder of fact must conclude that the conduct underlying the sexual harassment charges did or did not begin before Jasmine's insurance policy took effect. The First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the judgment and remanded, holding that neither party was entitled to summary judgment, as the question of when the harassing conduct that gave rise to Employee's claims began was a quintessential question for a factfinder. View "Manganella v. Evanston Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Appellant was charged with five criminal offenses based on the discovery of marijuana plants and pipe bombs in his home. Appellant filed motions to suppress the evidence seized from his home and his statements to law enforcement. The district court denied both motions. Appellant thereafter pled guilty to four counts of the indictment conditioned on his right to appeal the denial of his motions to suppress. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in denying Appellant's suppression motions, as (1) the evidence seized from Appellant's home was discovered pursuant to a warrantless search justified pursuant to the emergency exception to the warrant requirement; and (2) Appellant's statements to investigators were correctly admitted into evidence, as Appellant was not in custody during the interviews, obviating the need for Miranda warnings and for heeding Appellant's invocation of his rights to remain silent and to have counsel present. View "United States v. Infante" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted on one count of possessing five or more grams of cocaine base. After his motion to suppress evidence was denied, Defendant entered a conditional plea of guilty and was sentenced to 180 months' imprisonment. Defendant appealed the denial of his suppression motion as well as the use of certain prior convictions in calculating his sentence guideline range. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the district court, holding (1) the district court correctly denied Defendant's motion to suppress the evidence, as (i) the police had reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle in which Defendant was riding, (ii) the stop did not escalate into a de facto arrest, and (iii) the district court's finding that the drugs on Defendant's person were in plain sight was not clearly erroneous; and (2) the district court properly considered Defendant's 1997 conviction for assault and battery of a police officer and 1997 felony drug conviction in calculating Defendant's sentence guideline range. View "United States v. Jones" on Justia Law