Search the caselaw database — free.

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of compassionate release relief, holding that a non‑retroactive change in the law does not constitute an extraordinary and compelling reason under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) and that any ACCA enhancement error is harmless.

The Second Circuit held that a reinstatement order is a final order of removal subject to judicial review under 8 U.S.C. §1252(a) and that Santos’s petition challenging the 2017 reinstatement order was untimely and not entitled to equitable tolling, so the petition was denied.

The Eleventh Circuit denied Volodymyr Kvashuk's petition for review of a final removal order based on his aggravated felony convictions, holding that the court lacks jurisdiction to consider any issues beyond constitutional claims or questions of law.

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary‑judgment ruling for the City, holding that Tafoya failed to demonstrate intentional age discrimination. The court also noted that the district court’s strike of a supplemental declaration was unnecessary to resolve the appeal.

The Third Circuit vacated New Jersey's Water Quality Certification for Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line's Northeast Supply Enhancement Project, finding the agency acted arbitrarily and capriciously by approving the certification before finalizing essential monitoring and adaptive management plans and by failing to…

The D.C. Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the plaintiff's common‑law claims and granted summary judgment to Priority Life Care on all Title VII claims, finding the plaintiff failed to meet her burden on the discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment claims, the latter on the ground…

The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed Smith’s conviction, holding that the phrase “place of employment address” in R.C. 2950.05(F)(2) means the physical environment where an offender performs work and that the statute is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to Smith.

The court affirmed the appellate court, holding that the trial judge did not violate the defendant's right to a jury poll because the jury had been discharged before the juror's remark, and that there was no constitutional violation of the right to a unanimous verdict.