AI-measured from their own opinions — each lever cites its cases
Deference to government powerSkepticism of government power
In [9] the court vacated an injunction restricting a defendant's public speech about ongoing litigation, expressly grounding the holding in the First Amendment and Article 40 and emphasizing protection against prior restraint. Keene Corp. v. Abate ↗
Karla Gerner sued Chesterfield County, Virginia, under Title VII, claiming that when the County eliminated her position as Director of Human Resources Management after 25 years of service, it offered her a less favorable severance package (three months’ pay) than the more generous arrangements given to similarly situated male department directors, who were sometimes kept on the payroll for months or transferred with full salary and benefits. The district court dismissed the complaint, holding that the County’s denial of better severance benefits did not qualify as an adverse employment action. The Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded, ruling that Title VII’s ban on sex discrimination in “compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment” extends to former employees and covers discriminatory severance offers made at the time of termination. The court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., which interpreted parallel statutory language to protect former employees, and noted that the County’s offer occurred before Gerner’s employment ended. The panel left for the district court to address on remand whether the complaint sufficiently alleged that severance was “part and parcel” of the employment relationship and adequately identified male comparators.
The case involved Samir Ibisevic’s convictions for bulk cash smuggling, failing to file a required currency report, and making false statements, all stemming from his attempt to board an international flight from Dulles Airport while carrying about $40,000 without declaring it to customs officers. The sole disputed issue at trial was whether Ibisevic acted with the required intent, which he denied on the ground that he did not understand the officers’ questions because of his limited English. The district court excluded testimony from Ibisevic’s mother that would have corroborated his account of the encounter but later ruled the exclusion harmless and denied a new trial. The Fourth Circuit vacated the convictions and remanded, holding that the error could not be deemed harmless because the excluded evidence went to the central contested issue, the government’s case was circumstantial, and the jury’s four-hour deliberation plus request for further instruction showed it viewed the question of guilt as close.
The case concerned whether Ocean Pines Association, a tax-exempt homeowners group organized under IRC §501(c)(4) to promote social welfare for its Maryland subdivision, owed taxes on net income from two member-only parking lots and a beach club it operated eight miles away in Ocean City. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the Tax Court’s ruling that this income was taxable as unrelated business taxable income under §§511-513. The court held that the facilities were not “substantially related” to the association’s exempt purpose because they primarily served private member interests rather than the broader community, given their remote location, seasonal member-only access policies, and operation for paying members amid a much larger public beachgoing population.
The case concerns Jason Landis Linder, who pled guilty to a federal drug conspiracy and received a 22-year sentence under then-mandatory Sentencing Guidelines based on judge-found facts; he had waived direct appeal but not habeas relief. After the Supreme Court's Booker decision rendered the Guidelines advisory and applied to his non-final conviction, Linder filed a timely § 2255 petition seeking resentencing. A Fourth Circuit panel denied the petition on the ground that it would circumvent the direct-appeal waiver, and the full court denied rehearing en banc after a poll in which a majority of active judges voted against it. The core reasoning for denial was that the panel's decision stood and no majority supported further review.
This case involved whether marine construction equipment owned by Imbach qualified for an exemption from Maryland sales and use tax under provisions applicable during 1987-1991 for items used principally in interstate or foreign commerce. The Comptroller assessed additional taxes after an audit finding the exemption inapplicable, the Tax Court upheld the assessment, and the Circuit Court remanded for further evidence. The appellate court held that the Circuit Court erred in remanding the case, concluding that the equipment did not qualify because it was not used principally in the movement of passengers or freight in interstate commerce. The core reasoning rested on statutory interpretation of the exemption language in former Article 81 § 326(gg) and its recodifications, which required principal use in interstate commerce rather than local or intrastate activities.
This case concerned a bank's lawsuit against a borrower partnership and its guarantors to recover on a defaulted construction loan after extension negotiations failed. The trial court granted judgment to the bank on the debt, late charges, and attorneys' fees while striking the borrowers' counterclaims alleging violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and fraud, and denying requests for further continuances and discovery. On appeal, the court affirmed the judgment, reasoning that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in procedural rulings, that the ECOA provided no defense or mitigation, and that the borrowers had failed to establish any valid basis to avoid liability or reduce the amounts owed.