Significant DecisionsFrom the United States

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Office of the Maine Attorney GeneralContinuing Legal Education Program

July 15, 2010

Court CompositionChief JudgeSandra L. Lynch (Mass.) (Clinton)

Circuit JudgesJuan R. Torruella (P.R.) (Reagan)Michael Boudin (Mass.) (George H.W. Bush)Kermit V. Lipez (Maine) (Clinton)Jeffrey R. Howard (N.H.) (George W. Bush)Ojetta Rogeriee Thompson (R.I.) (Obama)

The Newest Member

Ojetta Rogeriee Thompson

Confirmed March 17, 2010

Formerly served on the Rhode Island Superior Court(1997 – 2010)

Court Composition

Senior Circuit JudgesLevin H. Campbell (Mass.) (Nixon)Bruce M. Selya (R.I.) (Reagan)Norman H. Stahl (Mass.) (George H.W. Bush)

Recurring Guest Star

Justice David A. Souter•Retired from Supreme

Court in June 2009• Sitting by designation on

First Circuit panels• Has been on the panel in

22 reported decisions (Feb. 2010 – June 2010)

Case Load

• 1,740 appeals last year• 325 oral arguments• Issued 440 written opinions• 3 en banc decisions

Cases By District of Origin

Types of Cases

Published vs. Unpublished

Average Timelines

• Notice of Appeal => Final Brief = 7.2 months

• Final Brief => Hearing = 2.1 months

• Hearing => Final Decision = 2.8 months

• Notice of Appeal => Final Decision = 12.2 months

United States v. Textron Inc.577 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2009)

• Work Product Doctrine

– To be protected, a document must have been prepared for use in possible litigation

Vaqueria Tres Monjitas, Inc. v. Irizarry587 F.3d 464 (1st Cir. 2009)

• Eleventh Amendment

– Prohibition against retrospective relief did not prevent court from ordering state to raise revenue to pay damages to plaintiff for lost profits

Family Winemakers of California v. Jenkins

592 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2010)

• Commerce Clause

– State law allowing small wineries to sell directly to consumers violated the Commerce Clause because it purposefully discriminated against large out-of-state wineries

J.R. v. Gloria593 F.3d 73 (1st Cir. 2010)

• Substantive Due Process

– Child protective case workers who allegedly violated state law in placing children in home without performing background check on resident who later abused children did not engage in conduct that “shocks the conscience”

Simmons v. Galvin575 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 2009)

• Election Law

– State violated neither the federal Voting Rights Act nor the Ex Post Facto Clause when it prohibited incarcerated felons from voting in elections

McCullen v. Coakley571 F.3d 167 (1st Cir. 2009)

• First Amendment

– State law prohibiting persons from coming within 35 feet of reproductive health care facilities was a valid content-neutral “time-place-manner” restriction on speech

Franklin Memorial Hospital v. Harvey 575 F.3d 121 (1st Cir. 2009)

• Takings Clause

– State law requiring hospitals to provide free care to indigent patients did not violate the Takings Clause

Miller v. Nichols586 F.3d 53 (1st Cir. 2009)

• Rooker-Feldman and Issue Preclusion

– Parents could not challenge final state court order terminating parental rights by arguing that DHHS violated federal laws by failing to accommodate mother’s mental illness during reunification process

Foley v. Town of Randolph598 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2010)

• Retaliation for Exercising First Amendment Rights

– Public employee’s speech was not protected because he was speaking in his official capacity and not as a citizen

Esposito v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. 590 F.3d 72 (1st Cir. 2009)

• Civil Procedure

– Trial court abused its discretion when it refused to extend plaintiff’s expert witness disclosure deadline as a sanction for plaintiff having previously missed the deadline