Latest 2 Cases: Whaley v. Esebag (Civil Procedure), United States v. Parsons (Criminal Law)

Is John Roberts a Closeted Never-Trumper? Reading Between the Lines of the Chief Justice’s Year-End Report

MICHAEL C. DORF

Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf offers one interpretation of Chief Justice John Roberts’s annual year-end report on the federal judiciary—that the Chief Justice intends to serve as a modest counterbalance to President Trump. Dorf supports his interpretation with text and context of the year-end report but offers his cautious praise to the Chief Justice with a few important caveats as well.

Read More

Whaley v. Esebag

Docket: 18-3236

Opinion Date: January 7, 2020

Judge: Erickson

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure

The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal, based on lack of personal jurisdiction, of plaintiffs' action against defendants over a dispute involving an investment agreement. The court held that defendants had sufficient contacts with Arkansas to establish personal jurisdiction in light of the nature and quality of contacts with the forum state, the quality of contacts, the relation of the cause of action to the contacts, the interest of forum state, and the convenience of the parties. In this case, the court held that the first and third factors weigh in favor of personal jurisdiction, while the second, third, and fourth factors were more neutral. The court found that personal jurisdiction applies to the claims asserted against both Defendants Esebag and ULG, and thus Esebag's actions were sufficient to bind the company and assert personal jurisdiction over ULG without violating the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

United States v. Parsons

Docket: 18-3669

Opinion Date: January 7, 2020

Judge: Erickson

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that the district court did not err by denying defendant's Rule 29 motion for judgment of acquittal, because the evidence was sufficient to sustain his conviction. In this case, there was sufficient evidence to establish a nexus between defendant and the firearm found on his plane. The court held that defendant knowingly possessed the gun where recorded jail calls showed that he referenced items that needed to be removed from the plane and where he admitted at trial that the gun looked like the firearm he had previously purchased. Furthermore, defendant had dominion over the plane, the gun was found near personal items that belonged to defendant, and defendant had recently absconded from Tennessee while awaiting trial on a state charge for being a felon in possession of a firearm.