When a veteran seeks disability benefits, federal law provides that ties go to the applicant. But if the Veterans Administration decides it’s not a tie—that is, the preponderance of the evidence comes out against the veteran—then it has no occasion to apply this tiebreaking rule. That leads to a question only an appellate lawyer would ask: What standard of review applies to the VA’s determination
Read More Bufkin v. Collins (No. 23-713)Glossip v. Oklahoma (No. 22-7466)
In Glossip v. Oklahoma (No. 22-7466), the Supreme Court ordered a new trial for Petitioner Richard Glossip, an inmate on Oklahoma’s death row for over twenty years who has steadfastly maintained his innocence. By a vote of 5-3 (with Justice Gorsuch not taking part in the case), the Court concluded that Glossip’s conviction violated Napue v. Illinois (1959) because the prosecution allowed testimony it…
Read More Glossip v. Oklahoma (No. 22-7466)Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Heath (No. 23-1127)
In Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. United States, ex rel. Heath (No. 23-1127), the Supreme Court addressed whether the Government “provide[s]” money to a program that subsidizes telecommunications services for schools and libraries through a surcharge imposed on telecom carriers, meaning that a telecom company’s allegedly inflated claim for these subsidies is potentially subject to liability under the False Claims Act (“FCA”). Writing for a…
Read More Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Heath (No. 23-1127)Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. (No. 23-971)
Posted in OT24, Supreme Court Updates
In Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., (No. 23-971), the Supreme Court finally settled a question lawyers have been debating from time immemorial: Is a plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal of a complaint without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) a “final proceeding” for purposes of a Rule 60(b) motion to reopen the suit? A unanimous Court concluded that it was, eliminating a…
Read More Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. (No. 23-971)Lackey v. Stinnie (No. 23-621)
In Lackey v. Stinnie (No. 23-621), the Supreme Court addressed a question that had divided the circuits: If a plaintiff sues under Section 1983 and obtains a preliminary injunction, but subsequent events moot the suit before the district court can make that temporary relief permanent, is the plaintiff a “prevailing party” entitled to attorney’s fees under Section 1988(b)? Rejecting the approach favored by most…
Read More Lackey v. Stinnie (No. 23-621)