Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff-Appellant Farrell-Cooper Mining Company and Defendant-Appellant Oklahoma Department of Mines appealed a district court's dismissal of their claims for declaratory and injunctive relief against the Department of Interior; the Secretary of the Interior; the Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement; and the Director of OSMRE. A dispute arose over reclamation requirements contained in surface coal mine permits for Farrell-Cooper's Liberty Mine #5 and Liberty Mine #6. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit dismissed the appeal as unripe. View "Farrell-Cooper Mining Company v. US Department of the Interior, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant David Glen Heard pled guilty to two counts under Oklahoma’s lewd molestation statute. In pleading guilty, defendant admitted that he positioned himself in a Tulsa Wal-Mart store so as to be able to "look under [children's] clothes at [their] bod[ies] and at [their] undergarments." Pursuant to the plea agreement, the prosecutor recommended that defendant receive concurrent twenty-five- year prison terms. Soon after he was sentenced, defendant discovered an unpublished case out of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA), which cast doubt upon whether defendant's conduct fell within the ambit of the statute. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit agreed with defendant that his attorney provided ineffective assistance in failing to advise him of viable defenses to the charges against him, and the record was clear that, but for counsel’s deficient performance, defendant would not have pled guilty to these offenses. The Court reversed the district court’s denial of defendant's habeas petition and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Heard v. Addison" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Bruce Mabry was arrested for a parole violation. During the arrest, officers found a sawed-off shotgun and subsequently charged defendant with its possession. He moved to suppress the evidence of the weapon on the basis that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the search. The district court denied defendant's motion. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the officers had a reasonable suspicion that defendant violated his parole. The Court affirmed the district court’s denial of defendant's motion to suppress on the basis that it was a valid search under the totality of the circumstances. View "United States v. Mabry" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Anthony Brooks was convicted of armed bank robbery. He appealed his conviction, arguing: (1) the evidence at trial was insufficient; (2) the district court erred by admitting DNA evidence linking him to the crime scene; (3) the district court abused its discretion when it refused to strike testimony of the government’s expert witness; (4) the district court abused its discretion by allowing the government to introduce evidence that Brooks possessed large amounts of cash several months following the robbery; and (5) the district court abused its discretion by denying Brooks’s motion for a new trial based on alleged juror misconduct. Finding no error or abuse of discretion, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Brooks" on Justia Law

The government sued Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellant James Holmes to collect taxes owned on his now-defunct business, Colorado Gas Compression, Inc. The district court granted final judgment in favor of the government. Defendant appealed that judgment. The government cross-appealed the district court's decision regarding the date from which prejudgment interest would be awarded. Colorado Gas made a series of distributions to defendant from 1995 to 2002 as part of its winding-down process. The government brought suit in 2008 on state counts of fraudulent conveyances, unlawful distributions and as an owner of the company who received its assets. Defendant argued the government was estopped from bringing suit under the applicable state statute of limitations because the government's suit was based on state law. The government countered by arguing its claims were subject to a ten-year federal statute of limitations. Upon careful consideration, the Tenth Circuit concluded the district court did not err in ruling in favor of the government. The Court further concluded that the government did not properly preserve the issue of prejudgment interest for appeal, and declined to consider it. View "United States v. Holmes" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Ramiro Avila was charged with possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute. After the district court denied Defendant's motion to suppress, he entered an unconditional guilty plea to the charge. Defendant contended that his plea was not knowing and voluntary because it was induced by the district court’s statement that he would "still have a right to an appeal" if the court accepted his plea. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit held that when a court chooses to instruct a defendant that he has a right to appeal following the entry of an unconditional guilty plea, the court materially misinforms the defendant regarding the consequences of his plea when it fails further to advise him that the plea may limit that right. Under such circumstances, if the court tells defendant without qualification that he has a right to appeal, a defendant’s plea is not knowing and voluntary. View "United States v. Avila" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Brian McKye was charged with eight counts of securities fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering. The district court refused to give the jury his tendered instruction that would have permitted the jury to decide whether the investment notes at issue were securities under federal securities law. He was convicted and received a 262-month sentence. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded the district court erred by not giving the tendered instruction, and reversed the convictions. View "United States v. McKye" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Richard and Susan Queen sued Defendant TA Operating, LLC for an injury Mr. Queen sustained when he slipped and fell in a parking lot operated by TA. During the court of the proceedings, the Queens filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, but did not disclose this case in its bankruptcy pleadings. TA learned of the omission and brought it to the attention of the bankruptcy trustee. The Queens amended their bankruptcy petition, providing an estimate of the value of its litigation with TA for the slip and fall. The Queens were ultimately granted a no-asset discharge in bankruptcy. TA then moved the district court to dismiss on the grounds of judicial estoppel because the Queens did not disclose the lawsuit in their bankruptcy proceedings. The district court granted TA summary judgment, and the Queens appealed, arguing the district court erred in applying judicial estoppel. Because the Queens adopted an inconsistent position that was accepted by the bankruptcy court, and because the Queens would receive an unfair advantage if not estopped from pursuing the district court action, the Tenth Circuit concluded it was not an abuse of discretion to grant TA summary judgment. View "Queen, et al v. TA Operating, LLC" on Justia Law

The issue in this appeal was whether Colorado's notice and reporting obligations for retailers who do not collect sales or use taxes violate the Commerce Clause. The Tenth Circuit did not reach that merits question: because the Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. 1341, deprived the district court of jurisdiction to enjoin Colorado's tax collection effort, the Court remanded the case back to the district court to dismiss DMA's Commerce Clause claims. View "Direct Marketing Association v. Brohl" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellee Jennifer Pratt sued Joseph Petelin, M.D. for medical negligence. The district court submitted four factual theories of negligence to the jury, which returned a general verdict against Dr. Petelin. Dr. Petelin appealed, claiming three of the four factual contentions submitted to the jury were unsupported by sufficient evidence. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that Dr. Petelin waived this argument by not objecting to the general verdict form and requesting a special verdict. View "Pratt v. Petelin" on Justia Law