June 17, 2019

Archives for May 26, 2011

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 5/25/11

On Wednesday, May 25, 2011, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued no published opinions and four unpublished opinions.

Unpublished

United States v. Heath

Gillon v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

United States v. Chon

Wise v. Chester

No case summaries are available for unpublished opinions. However, published opinions are summarized and provided by Legal Connection.

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 5/24/11

On Tuesday, May 24, 2011, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued one published opinion and five unpublished opinions.

Unpublished

Cardenas-Tafoya v. Holder, Jr.

United States v. Temple

United States v. Goodwin, Jr.

United States v. Chavez

United States v. McDaniel

No case summaries are available for unpublished opinions. However, published opinions are summarized and provided by Legal Connection.

Tenth Circuit: General Prohibition Against Interlocutory Appeals of Discovery Orders Enforced for Lack of Jurisdiction

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litigation on Tuesday, May 24, 2011.

The Tenth Circuit dismissed Petitioners’ interlocutory appeal and denied their writ of mandamus. Petitioners include motor fuel retailers and non-party, retail motor fuel trade associations to which the retailers belong; they seek reversal of the district court’s discovery order directing them to disclose information that they claim is privileged under the First Amendment. To achieve this end, Petitioners filed both an interlocutory appeal and a petition for a writ of mandamus, both of which the Court denied.

The Court found that “the First Amendment privilege applies to the district court’s discovery order, which requires trade groups and their members to disclose to a private party their communications regarding strategy for lobbying against the implementation of [automatic temperature compensation] in the United States.” However, the Court next determined that the general prohibition against interlocutory appeals of discovery orders must be enforced in this case, and declined to exercise jurisdiction over the interlocutory appeal pursuant to the collateral order/Cohen doctrine, the Perlman doctrine,or the pragmatic finality doctrine. Lastly, the Court could not determine that “the district court committed any error in refusing to presume that the information at issue is privileged under the First Amendment, let alone that the court committed the egregious error necessary for us to issue a writ of mandamus.”