<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Justia U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries</title>
	<atom:link href="http://us2ndcircuitcourtofappealsopinions.justia.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://us2ndcircuitcourtofappealsopinions.justia.com</link>
	<description>Daily Opinion Summaries for the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals by Justia</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 May 2012 13:00:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
<atom:link rel="hub" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com"/><atom:link rel="hub" href="http://superfeedr.com/hubbub"/>		<item>
		<title>United States v. Rood</title>
		<link>http://us2ndcircuitcourtofappealsopinions.justia.com/2012/05/15/united-states-v-rood/</link>
		<comments>http://us2ndcircuitcourtofappealsopinions.justia.com/2012/05/15/united-states-v-rood/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 May 2012 15:09:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Justia Inc</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Constitutional Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/11-2174/11-2174-2012-05-15.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This appeal arose from defendant's conviction, after a guilty plea, on child pornography charges. Defendant challenged his conviction and sentence. The court held that the district court erred when it imposed a mandatory life sentence pursuant to 18 U.... <a href="http://us2ndcircuitcourtofappealsopinions.justia.com/2012/05/15/united-states-v-rood/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[This appeal arose from defendant's conviction, after a guilty plea, on child pornography charges. Defendant challenged his conviction and sentence. The court held that the district court erred when it imposed a mandatory life sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3559(e) in the apparent absence of judicial record evidence regarding the age of the victim of his prior state offense. Accordingly, the court remanded solely for resentencing.]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://us2ndcircuitcourtofappealsopinions.justia.com/2012/05/15/united-states-v-rood/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>United States v. Wagner-Dano</title>
		<link>http://us2ndcircuitcourtofappealsopinions.justia.com/2012/05/14/united-states-v-wagner-dano/</link>
		<comments>http://us2ndcircuitcourtofappealsopinions.justia.com/2012/05/14/united-states-v-wagner-dano/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 May 2012 15:47:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Justia Inc</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Constitutional Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/10-4593/10-4593-2012-05-14.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Defendant pleaded guilty to wire fraud and subsequently appealed her sentence of principally 78 months' imprisonment. Defendant argued that her sentence was procedurally defective and substantively unreasonable. Defendant argued that the district court... <a href="http://us2ndcircuitcourtofappealsopinions.justia.com/2012/05/14/united-states-v-wagner-dano/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Defendant pleaded guilty to wire fraud and subsequently appealed her sentence of principally 78 months' imprisonment. Defendant argued that her sentence was procedurally defective and substantively unreasonable. Defendant argued that the district court procedurally erred by: (1) inadequately considering the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors; and (2) neglecting to address several of her objections to the Presentence Investigation Report, allegedly in violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(a)(3)(B). The court held that because defendant did not raise either procedural objection before the district court, the court's review was restricted to plain error. The court further concluded that neither alleged procedural defect amounted to plain error. Because the court also concluded that the sentence chosen by the district court was substantively reasonably, the court affirmed the judgment.]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://us2ndcircuitcourtofappealsopinions.justia.com/2012/05/14/united-states-v-wagner-dano/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>National Labor Relations Board v. Starbucks Corp.</title>
		<link>http://us2ndcircuitcourtofappealsopinions.justia.com/2012/05/10/national-labor-relations-board-v-starbucks-corp/</link>
		<comments>http://us2ndcircuitcourtofappealsopinions.justia.com/2012/05/10/national-labor-relations-board-v-starbucks-corp/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 May 2012 16:47:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Justia Inc</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Labor & Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/10-3511/10-3511-2012-05-10.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This petition for enforcement of an order of the Board and an employer's cross-petition for review primarily concerned the validity of an employer's dress code provision limiting employees to displaying only prounion buttons on their work uniforms. Als... <a href="http://us2ndcircuitcourtofappealsopinions.justia.com/2012/05/10/national-labor-relations-board-v-starbucks-corp/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[This petition for enforcement of an order of the Board and an employer's cross-petition for review primarily concerned the validity of an employer's dress code provision limiting employees to displaying only prounion buttons on their work uniforms. Also at issue were the discharges of two employees. These issues arose out of efforts to unionize employees at several Starbucks coffee shops in Manhattan. The court concluded that Starbuck's enforcement of its one button dress code was not an unfair labor practice, nor was one of the two challenged discharges; as to the other discharge, a remand was required. Therefore, the court enforced in part, granted the cross-petition for review in part, and remanded.]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://us2ndcircuitcourtofappealsopinions.justia.com/2012/05/10/national-labor-relations-board-v-starbucks-corp/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Commack Self-Service Kosher v. Hooker</title>
		<link>http://us2ndcircuitcourtofappealsopinions.justia.com/2012/05/10/commack-self-service-kosher-v-hooker/</link>
		<comments>http://us2ndcircuitcourtofappealsopinions.justia.com/2012/05/10/commack-self-service-kosher-v-hooker/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 May 2012 16:41:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Justia Inc</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Agriculture Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitutional Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/11-3517/11-3517-2012-05-10.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Plaintiffs appeal from an order of the district court dismissing their complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Plaintiffs argued that New York's Kosher Law Protection Act of 2004 (Kosher Act), N.Y. Agric. &#38; Mkts. Law ... <a href="http://us2ndcircuitcourtofappealsopinions.justia.com/2012/05/10/commack-self-service-kosher-v-hooker/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Plaintiffs appeal from an order of the district court dismissing their complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Plaintiffs argued that New York's Kosher Law Protection Act of 2004 (Kosher Act), N.Y. Agric. & Mkts. Law 201-a-201-d, violated the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment and was unconstitutionally vague. The court held that the Kosher Act did not violate the Establishment Clause because it neither advanced or impeded religion, had a secular purpose, and did not create an excessive entanglement between state and religion. The court further held that the Kosher Act did not violate the Free Exercise Clause because it was neutral, generally applicable, minimally burdensome, and had a rational basis. Finally, even under the strictest scrutiny, the inspection provision was not void for vagueness. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://us2ndcircuitcourtofappealsopinions.justia.com/2012/05/10/commack-self-service-kosher-v-hooker/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Amerex Group, Inc. v. Lexington Ins. Co.</title>
		<link>http://us2ndcircuitcourtofappealsopinions.justia.com/2012/05/10/amerex-group-inc-v-lexington-ins-co/</link>
		<comments>http://us2ndcircuitcourtofappealsopinions.justia.com/2012/05/10/amerex-group-inc-v-lexington-ins-co/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 May 2012 16:32:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Justia Inc</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Insurance Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/10-4163/10-4163-2012-05-10.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This case arose from a longstanding insurance dispute between plaintiffs and their excess insurers. Plaintiffs appealed an order of appraisal in the district court and that court's subsequent order confirming the appraisal award and granting defendants... <a href="http://us2ndcircuitcourtofappealsopinions.justia.com/2012/05/10/amerex-group-inc-v-lexington-ins-co/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[This case arose from a longstanding insurance dispute between plaintiffs and their excess insurers. Plaintiffs appealed an order of appraisal in the district court and that court's subsequent order confirming the appraisal award and granting defendants' motion for partial summary judgment. Plaintiffs argued that: (1) defendants waived their appraisal rights by failing to invoke them within a reasonable time, (2) the appraisers exceeded their power by deciding legal issues, and (3) the appraisal was improperly conducted in violation of plaintiffs' due process rights. The court found these arguments to be without merit and affirmed the district court's judgment.]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://us2ndcircuitcourtofappealsopinions.justia.com/2012/05/10/amerex-group-inc-v-lexington-ins-co/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>City of Omaha v. CBS Corp.</title>
		<link>http://us2ndcircuitcourtofappealsopinions.justia.com/2012/05/10/city-of-omaha-v-cbs-corp/</link>
		<comments>http://us2ndcircuitcourtofappealsopinions.justia.com/2012/05/10/city-of-omaha-v-cbs-corp/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 May 2012 16:10:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Justia Inc</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Entertainment & Sports Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/11-2575/11-2575-2012-05-10.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Plaintiffs appealed from the dismissal of their amended and second amended complaints for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The two complaints asserted claims for relief against defendants under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Ex... <a href="http://us2ndcircuitcourtofappealsopinions.justia.com/2012/05/10/city-of-omaha-v-cbs-corp/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Plaintiffs appealed from the dismissal of their amended and second amended complaints for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The two complaints asserted claims for relief against defendants under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78j(b), 78t(a), and S.E.C. Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5. Plaintiffs claimed that CBS delayed interim impairment testing of the corporation's intangible assets despite indicia that such a test was necessary at an earlier date. The court affirmed the district court's opinion dismissing the complaints and held that the district court's conclusion was reinforced by Fait v. Regions Fin. Corp.]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://us2ndcircuitcourtofappealsopinions.justia.com/2012/05/10/city-of-omaha-v-cbs-corp/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Townsend v. Benjamin Enterprises, Inc.</title>
		<link>http://us2ndcircuitcourtofappealsopinions.justia.com/2012/05/09/townsend-v-benjamin-enterprises-inc/</link>
		<comments>http://us2ndcircuitcourtofappealsopinions.justia.com/2012/05/09/townsend-v-benjamin-enterprises-inc/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 May 2012 17:23:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Justia Inc</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitutional Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Labor & Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/09-0197/09-0197-2012-05-09.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Plaintiff Townsend alleged that she was sexually harassed by defendant, who was the husband of the President of her company, the sole corporate Vice President, as well as a shareholder of the company. Before Plaintiff Grey-Allen, the Human Resources Di... <a href="http://us2ndcircuitcourtofappealsopinions.justia.com/2012/05/09/townsend-v-benjamin-enterprises-inc/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Plaintiff Townsend alleged that she was sexually harassed by defendant, who was the husband of the President of her company, the sole corporate Vice President, as well as a shareholder of the company. Before Plaintiff Grey-Allen, the Human Resources Director of the company, completed an internal investigation of these allegations, she was fired by defendants. On appeal, the parties challenged the decisions of the district court that granted summary judgment dismissing Grey-Allen's Title VII retaliation claim; denied defendants' post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative for a new trial; and awarded Townsend attorney's fees and costs. The court considered all of the arguments of the parties and affirmed the judgment of the district court.]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://us2ndcircuitcourtofappealsopinions.justia.com/2012/05/09/townsend-v-benjamin-enterprises-inc/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Redd v. NYS Division of Parole</title>
		<link>http://us2ndcircuitcourtofappealsopinions.justia.com/2012/05/04/redd-v-nys-division-of-parole/</link>
		<comments>http://us2ndcircuitcourtofappealsopinions.justia.com/2012/05/04/redd-v-nys-division-of-parole/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 May 2012 18:17:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Justia Inc</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitutional Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Labor & Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/10-1410/10-1410-2012-05-04.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Plaintiff appealed from a judgment of the district court dismissing her complaint alleging disparate treatment on the basis of race and gender, retaliation, and sexual harassment by her employer, the State Parole Division, in violation of Title VII of ... <a href="http://us2ndcircuitcourtofappealsopinions.justia.com/2012/05/04/redd-v-nys-division-of-parole/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Plaintiff appealed from a judgment of the district court dismissing her complaint alleging disparate treatment on the basis of race and gender, retaliation, and sexual harassment by her employer, the State Parole Division, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. On appeal, plaintiff contended that her supervisor's touchings were sufficiently abusive to support her hostile work environment claim and that summary judgment was inappropriate because there were genuine issues of fact to be tried. The court agreed that summary judgment dismissing the hostile work environment claim was inappropriate and vacated so much of the judgment as dismissed that claim, remanding for further proceedings.]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://us2ndcircuitcourtofappealsopinions.justia.com/2012/05/04/redd-v-nys-division-of-parole/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Building Industry Electric Contractors Assoc., et al. v. City of New York et al.</title>
		<link>http://us2ndcircuitcourtofappealsopinions.justia.com/2012/05/04/the-building-industry-electric-contractors-assoc-et-al-v-city-of-new-york-et-al/</link>
		<comments>http://us2ndcircuitcourtofappealsopinions.justia.com/2012/05/04/the-building-industry-electric-contractors-assoc-et-al-v-city-of-new-york-et-al/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 May 2012 18:11:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Justia Inc</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Construction Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Contracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government Contracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Labor & Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/11-3590/11-3590-2012-05-04.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their complaint challenging a number of agreements entered into by the City of New York with respect to labor conditions on certain City construction projects. Plaintiffs argued that the agreements regulated the lab... <a href="http://us2ndcircuitcourtofappealsopinions.justia.com/2012/05/04/the-building-industry-electric-contractors-assoc-et-al-v-city-of-new-york-et-al/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their complaint challenging a number of agreements entered into by the City of New York with respect to labor conditions on certain City construction projects. Plaintiffs argued that the agreements regulated the labor market and were therefore preempted by the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 151-169. The court found the project labor agreements in this case materially indistinguishable from agreements the Supreme Court found permissible under the market participation exception to preemption in Building and Construction Trades Council of Metropolitan District v. Associated Builders and Contractors of Massachusetts/Rhode Island Inc. Because the City acted as a market participant and not a regulator in entering the agreements, its actions fell outside the scope of NLRA preemption. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://us2ndcircuitcourtofappealsopinions.justia.com/2012/05/04/the-building-industry-electric-contractors-assoc-et-al-v-city-of-new-york-et-al/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hop Energy, L.L.C. v. Local 553 Pension Fund</title>
		<link>http://us2ndcircuitcourtofappealsopinions.justia.com/2012/05/03/hop-energy-l-l-c-v-local-553-pension-fund/</link>
		<comments>http://us2ndcircuitcourtofappealsopinions.justia.com/2012/05/03/hop-energy-l-l-c-v-local-553-pension-fund/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 May 2012 16:55:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Justia Inc</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arbitration & Mediation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Contracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Labor & Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/10-3889/10-3889-2012-05-03.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[HOP Energy appealed from the district court's confirmation of an arbitration award in favor of Local 553 Pension Fund. The district court held that HOP Energy was not exempt from withdrawal liability under the Multi-Employer Pension Plan Amendments Act... <a href="http://us2ndcircuitcourtofappealsopinions.justia.com/2012/05/03/hop-energy-l-l-c-v-local-553-pension-fund/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[HOP Energy appealed from the district court's confirmation of an arbitration award in favor of Local 553 Pension Fund. The district court held that HOP Energy was not exempt from withdrawal liability under the Multi-Employer Pension Plan Amendments Act (MPPAA), 29 U.S.C. 1381-1461, because the purchaser of HOP Energy's New York City operating division lacked an obligation to contribute "substantially the same number of contribution base units" to the pension fund post-sale by HOP Energy had contributed pre-sale. The court agreed and held that the "contribution base units" were hours of employee pay. Although the purchaser of HOP Energy's New York City operating division had an obligation to contribute to the pension fund at the same contribution base unit rate, it had no obligation to contribute substantially the same number of hours of employee pay. Therefore, HOP was not exempt from withdrawal liability.]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://us2ndcircuitcourtofappealsopinions.justia.com/2012/05/03/hop-energy-l-l-c-v-local-553-pension-fund/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

