will25u said:

---

Almost out of time for this term. Expect to see higher quantities of rulings per week to clear all 23 cases still pending.

---

Quote:

---

Now Flores is before the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that Barganier's recollection was improperly influenced when she was hypnotized by investigators after providing suspect descriptions that didn't match Flores' appearance.

Barganier testified at trial that she asked police to put her under hypnosis to provide a better description of the men she saw. She was hypnotized by Farmers Branch police officer Alfredo Roen Serna, who had never done so before, according to Flores' petition to the Supreme Court.

Initially, Barganier told police she saw two white men with long hair enter the home. Flores is a Hispanic man who at the time had short hair, the petition said.

During the hypnosis session, Serna twice asked whether one of the suspects had short, trimmed hair, even as Barganier repeated that both men had shoulder-length hair.

Immediately after the hypnosis session, Barganier did not identify Flores out of a photo lineup. It wasn't until Barganier was on the witness stand that she identified Flores as one of the men she had seen outside Black's home, the petition said.

---

fc2112 said:

---

I know I shouldn't, but i take great hope that Trump v. Barbara - a case all the pundits said was a slam dunk - is taking so long.

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Me too. But, our republican house, our republican senate, and our republican president should codify it

---

Quote:

---

Whether the doctrine of judicial estoppel can be invoked to bar a plaintiff who fails to disclose a civil claim in bankruptcy filings from pursuing that claim simply because there is a potential motive for nondisclosure, regardless of whether there is evidence that the plaintiff in fact acted in bad faith.

Keathley reversed an opinion by the Fifth Circuit. The opinion was per curiam and unpublished, but it was applying their existing precedent. Judge Haynes concurred in the judgment only (to criticize that Fifth Circuit precedent). There was a circuit split.

---

Quote:

---

Whether Section 47(b) of the Investment Company Act creates an implied private right of action.

The question in this case was whether private litigants (that is, someone other than the government) can sue investment companies under a provision of the Investment Company Act of 1940 that gives courts the power to invalidate contracts that violate the law. More broadly, the court in recent years has generally not been sympathetic to the idea of recognizing a private right to sue when federal law does not explicitly authorize it. The lower court in this case allowed the lawsuit to go forward.

The court holds that the provision at issue in this case does not create an implied right to sue to invalidate a contract that allegedly violates the Investment Company Act.

---

Quote:

---

Whether venue is proper in a district where no offense conduct took place, so long as the statute's intent element "contemplates" effects that could occur there.

The question before the court in this case is where an alleged violation of a federal law that makes it a crime to knowingly falsify a document with the intent to obstruct a federal investigation should be tried.

The court holds today that the trial should be held in the district where the falsification occurred; it cannot be held where the investigation was located if that was a different district.

---