Latest 4 Cases: OJSC Ukrnafta v. Carpatsky Petroleum Corp. (Arbitration & Mediation), Texas Brine Co., LLC v. American Arbitration Ass'n, Inc. ...

Why People Dislike the Insanity Defense

SHERRY F. COLB

Cornell law professor Sherry F. Colb comments on the insanity defense, considering when and why juries (and others) might perceive a criminal defendant to be not guilty by reason of insanity. Colb proposes that if a criminal defendant’s mental illness looks like an outside force that made him behave in an out-of-character fashion, then the jury is more likely to find him not guilty by reason of insanity.

Read More

OJSC Ukrnafta v. Carpatsky Petroleum Corp.

Docket: 19-20011

Opinion Date: April 6, 2020

Judge: Gregg Costa

Areas of Law: Arbitration & Mediation, International Law

In an international oil and gas dispute, this appeal challenges the order confirming a private tribunal award of $147 million. At issue was whether an allegedly undisclosed change in the place of incorporation of one party from Texas to Delaware means there was never an agreement to arbitrate. After determining that the district court had jurisdiction to resolve the lawsuit, the Fifth Circuit upheld the order confirming the arbitration award and rejected Ukrnafta's defenses under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. The court held that Ukrnafta consented to the arbitration despite Carpatsky's twice identifying itself as a Delaware company, and thus its capacity defense under Article V(1)(a) failed; Ukrnafta's argument, under Article V(1)(b), that American courts cannot enforce the award because it was unable to present its case failed, where Ukrnafta has not identified anything about the arbitration that was fundamentally unfair; Ukrnafta's claims under Article V(1)(c) that the award exceeded the terms of submission were rejected; Ukrnafta's claims under the Article V nonrecognition factors were waived; enforcing the award would further American policy, rather than be contrary to public policy under Article V(2)(b); and Ukrnafta's manifest disregard defense failed. Likewise, the doctrine of claim preclusion would reach the same result with state law claims.

Texas Brine Co., LLC v. American Arbitration Ass'n, Inc.

Docket: 18-31184

Opinion Date: April 7, 2020

Judge: Leslie H. Southwick

Areas of Law: Arbitration & Mediation

Plaintiff filed suit in Louisiana state court seeking substantial damages against one out-of-state defendant and two in-state defendants. The out-of-state defendant was served with process and immediately removed the case to federal court before the in-state defendants were served. The district court denied plaintiff's motion to remand and entered judgment on the pleadings, dismissing plaintiff's claims with prejudice. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that a non-forum defendant may remove an otherwise removable case even when a named defendant who has yet to be "properly joined and served" is a citizen of the forum state. Therefore, the case was properly retained in federal court. The court also held that the relief, purported harm, and alleged wrongdoing here show that plaintiff's claims, at heart, are in fact an unauthorized collateral attack on the arbitration. Accordingly, the district court correctly dismissed the challenge. Finally, the court denied plaintiff's motion to supplement the record, because the evidence would not change that Section 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act was the appropriate means of challenging the arbitrators' acts, and collateral attacks are not allowed.

In re: Gregg Abbott

Docket: 20-50264

Opinion Date: April 7, 2020

Judge: Stuart Kyle Duncan

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Family Law, Government & Administrative Law, Health Law

The Fifth Circuit granted a writ of mandamus directing vacatur of the district court's issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) against executive order GA-09 as applied to abortion procedures. In order to preserve critical medical resources during the escalating COVID-19 pandemic, the Governor of Texas issued GA-09, which postpones non-essential surgeries and procedures until 11:59 p.m. on April 21, 2020. The court held that the drastic and extraordinary remedy of mandamus was warranted in this case because the district court ignored the framework governing emergency public health measures, like GA-09, in Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905); the district court wrongly declared GA-09 an "outright ban" on previability abortions and exempted all abortion procedures from its scope, rather than apply the Jacobson framework to decide whether GA-09 lacks a "real or substantial relation" to the public health crisis or whether it is "beyond all question, a plain, palpable invasion" of the right to abortion; the district court failed to apply the undue-burden analysis in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 857 (1992), and thus failed to balance GA-09's temporary burdens on abortion against its benefits in thwarting a public health crisis; and the district court usurped the state's authority to craft emergency health measures, substituting instead its own view of the efficacy of applying GA-09 to abortion. Therefore, the court found that the requirements for a writ of mandamus are satisfied in light of the extraordinary nature of these errors, the escalating spread of COVID-19, and the state's critical interest in protecting the public health.

Wilson v. Houston Community College System

Docket: 19-20237

Opinion Date: April 7, 2020

Judge: W. Eugene Davis

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Labor & Employment Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. 1983 complaint based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1). Plaintiff alleged that the Board of the HCC violated his First Amendment right to free speech when the Board publicly censured him. The Fifth Circuit held that plaintiff's allegations established standing and a state law claim for relief under section 1983 for a First Amendment violation. In this case, plaintiff alleged that the censure was issued to punish him for exercising his free speech rights and caused him mental anguish. Under the court's precedent, plaintiff's allegation of retaliatory censure is enough to establish an injury in fact. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded the section 1983 claim for damages for further proceedings. However, plaintiff's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief were moot because he is no longer a Board trustee. Therefore, the court granted HCC's motion for partial dismissal of plaintiff's appeal, instructing the district court to dismiss plaintiff's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief after remand.