Latest 4 Cases: MPAY Inc. v. Erie Custom Computer Applications, Inc. (Business Law), Grand Juror Doe v. Bell (Civil Rights), United States v. ...

#MeToo and What Men and Women Are Willing to Say and Do

SHERRY F. COLB

Cornell Law professor Sherry F. Colb explores why people have such strong feelings about the #MeToo movement (whether they are advocates or opponents) and suggests that both sides rest their positions on contested empirical assumptions about the behavior of men and women. Colb argues that what we believe to be true of men and women generally contributes to our conclusions about the #MeToo movement and our perceptions about how best to handle the accusations of those who come forward.

Read More

MPAY Inc. v. Erie Custom Computer Applications, Inc.

Docket: 19-2206

Opinion Date: August 14, 2020

Judge: Raymond W. Gruender

Areas of Law: Business Law, Copyright, Intellectual Property

MPAY, a Massachusetts corporation that develops and owns payroll-processing software that it licenses to its customers, appealed the district court's denial of its motion for a preliminary injunction against appellees. MPAY claimed that it was entitled to such relief based on its copyright-infringement and trade-secrets-misappropriation claims. The Eighth Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part, holding that appellees demonstrated that their copying, disclosure, and possession of the source code were authorized by the Software Development and License Agreement that MPAY signed with its business partner. Therefore, MPAY has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its copyright infringement or trade-secrets-misappropriation claims, and the district court did not err in so concluding. The court also held that MPAY's assertion, that the district court erroneously concluded MPAY's harms were compensable with money damages and so were not irreparable, lacked merit. Furthermore, the balance of the equities and the public interest do not favor an injunction. The court remanded for further proceedings on the question of whether the contractors wrongfully sublicensed use of the software.

Grand Juror Doe v. Bell

Docket: 19-1436

Opinion Date: August 14, 2020

Judge: Raymond W. Gruender

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's action seeking both a declaration that the State of Missouri's grand jury secrecy laws are an unconstitutional abridgement of free speech as applied to her and an injunction preventing their enforcement. Plaintiff was a grand juror serving on the grand jury that considered whether to bring criminal charges against a former police officer in the death of Michael Brown. The court explained that it need not settle whether plaintiff's proposed speech is covered by the First Amendment or whether plaintiff waived her speech rights by swearing an oath to keep grand jury matters secret. The court held that, because Missouri's grand jury secrecy laws survive even the most exacting scrutiny, plaintiff failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted. As applied to plaintiff, the court held that section 540.320 of the Missouri Revised Statutes is narrowly tailored to serve Missouri's compelling interest in preserving the functioning of its grand jury system.

United States v. Aquilar Escobar

Docket: 19-3251

Opinion Date: August 14, 2020

Judge: William Duane Benton

Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Immigration Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment charging defendant with illegal reentry in the United States. The court held that an alien may not collaterally attack the underlying deportation order unless: (1) the alien exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to the order; (2) the deportation proceedings improperly deprived the alien of an opportunity for judicial review; and (3) entry of the order was fundamentally unfair. In this case, defendant failed to meet his burden on any of the elements. Furthermore, even if defendant could collaterally attack the deportation order under Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105, 2115 (2018), his attack fails. Therefore, the immigration court had jurisdiction over defendant's deportation proceedings and the district court did not err in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment.

United States v. Marlon Iron Crow

Docket: 19-2304

Opinion Date: August 14, 2020

Judge: Erickson

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for second-degree murder. The court held that the district court did not commit clear error in denying the Batson challenge where the reason proffered for the challenged strike was that the juror appeared disinterested and was very hard to engage; the district court did not err by denying the motion to dismiss the indictment and allowing each side an opportunity to explore the circumstances of the pre-trial investigation; the district court did not err when it denied defendant's claim based on the elicitation of false testimony; even if the prosecutor acted improperly at trial, the court cannot find that these actions—considered separately or together—prejudiced defendant to such an extent as to render his trial fundamentally unfair; the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction; and defendant's 240 month sentence was substantively reasonable and the district court did not abuse its discretion.