Case Summaries
Military
[02/18]
Honeywell Int'l, Inc. v. US
In a patent infringement suit by Honeywell involving a patent related to passive night vision goggles that are compatible with a full color display when both are used in an airplane cockpit, decision of the Court of Federal Claims is reversed and remanded where: 1) the government has not proved by clear and convincing evidence that a claim of the patent-in-suit is invalid; 2) plaintiff has standing to assert a claim for just compensation under the Invention Secrecy Act; and 3) the first sale doctrine does not preclude plaintiff from recovering damages against the government for use of infringing systems in the F-16 aircraft.
[02/17]
Bryant v. Military Dep't of the State of Miss.
In an action alleging retaliation against plaintiff for his reporting misconduct by the Mississippi Air National Guard, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff failed to point to specific facts showing there was a genuine issue whether the individual defendants acted under color of state law; 2) the class-based animus requirement of 42 U.S.C. section 1985(3) applied equally to causes of action under the second clause of section 1985(2); and 3) the continuing tort doctrine did not apply, and thus plaintiff's assault and battery claim was time-barred.
[02/10]
US v. Whetzell
Defendant's firearm possession sentence is affirmed where the elements of defendant's prior offense of housebreaking, a military law offense, constituted a generic burglary crime, which is a crime of violence justifying a sentencing enhancement.
[01/14]
Reynolds v. RehabCare Group E., Inc.
In an action claiming that defendant-employer discriminated against plaintiff based on her military status and failed to rehire her upon her return from active military duty, in violation of the Uniform Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed for the reasons stated by the district court.
[01/08]
Barnick v. US
Judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims upholding the decision of the Air Force Board of Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) denying additional backpay and disability benefits is affirmed where: 1) the Court of Federal Claims did not err in concluding that the AFBCMR's failure to award additional incapacitation pay was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law; 2) the Court of Federal Claims did not err in finding that the AFBCMR's decision not to award claimant constructive active duty pay was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law; and 3) to the extent that claimant disagrees with the Air Force's decision not to reimburse certain expenses, the trial court's decision does not preclude claimant from filing another claim with the court.
[01/05]
Al-Bihani v. Obama
In a habeas petition by a Yemeni Guantanamo Bay detainee, denial of the petition is affirmed where: 1) because petitioner was part of and supported a group, prior to and after September 11, 2001, that was affiliated with Al Qaeda and Taliban forces and engaged in hostilities against a U.S. Coalition partner, petitioner fell squarely within the scope of the President's statutory detention powers; 2) the Geneva Conventions required release and repatriation only at the "cessation of active hostilities," not when a war has officially ended; and 3) Hamdi's plurality opinion indirectly endorsed a preponderance standard such as that applied to petitioner's detention proceeding when it suggested due process requirements may have been satisfied by a military tribunal, the regulations of which adopt a preponderance standard.
[01/04]
Golz v. Shinseki
Decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veteran Court) affirming a decision denying petitioner's claim for service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder is affirmed as the Veterans Court correctly interpreted 38 U.S.C. sections 5103A and 3.159(c) in holding that VA is not required to obtain disability records from SSA if VA determines, without review of the actual records, that there is no reasonable possibility that such records are relevant to the veteran's claim for VA disability compensation.
[12/30]
Wilner v. Nat'l Sec. Agency
In a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) action filed by attorneys for Guantanamo Bay detainees seeking information regarding whether the government intercepted plaintiffs' communications relating to the representation of their detainee clients, an order upholding the National Security Agency's (NSA) and Department of Justice's responses neither confirming nor denying the existence of such records is affirmed where: 1) a Glomar response was available to agencies as a valid response to FOIA requests; 2) an agency may issue a Glomar response to FOIA requests seeking information obtained pursuant to a publicly acknowledged intelligence program, at least when the existence of such information has not already been publicly disclosed; 3) the NSA properly invoked the Glomar doctrine in response to plaintiffs' request for information pursuant to FOIA Exemption 3; 4) the government's affidavits sufficiently alleged the necessity of a Glomar response in this case, making it unnecessary for the court to review or to require the district court to review ex parte and in camera any classified affidavits that the NSA might proffer in support of its Glomar response; and 5) there was no evidence in the record that the NSA invoked Glomar for the purpose of concealing activities that violated the Constitution or were otherwise illegal.
[12/29]
Raytheon Aircraft Co. v. US
In a cost recovery action under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, judgment for plaintiff U.S. is affirmed where: 1) defendant was unable to establish that the Army used the chemical at issue at the contested site; 2) the court reasonably chose not to credit the testimony of veterans who claimed the chemical was used by the Army; and 3) defendant failed to rebut the presumption that the EPA's efforts to list the site on the National Priorities List were consistent with a national contingency plan.
[09/29]
Janowski v. Div. of State Police
In plaintiff's suit claiming that the defendants violated state and federal statutes by termination his employment when he returned from active military duty, trial court's grant of defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is affirmed as, the trial court correctly held that neither 20 Del. C. section 905, nor 29 Del. C. section 5105 explicitly waives sovereign immunity, as the Delaware Constitution and Uniformed Service Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) require.
More...
|
