Judicial data via CourtListener (Free Law Project). Social links via Wikidata.
Decision levers
AI-measured from their own opinions — each lever cites its cases
PurposivismTextualism
In [3], Briscoe resolves the direct-action issue solely by parsing the text of K.S.A. 40-3107(b) without resort to legislative purpose or policy. King v. American Family Insuranc… ↗
Deference to government powerSkepticism of government power
In [8], Briscoe upholds summary judgment for the State by applying the discretionary-function exception under the Kansas Tort Claims Act. Washington v. State ↗
In this case, five defendants convicted in the early 1990s of conspiracy and related charges involving crack cocaine appealed the district court's denial of their motions under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) to reduce their sentences based on Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 706, which lowered base offense levels for crack offenses. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the denials, holding that the amendment did not lower the defendants' applicable guideline ranges and thus provided no basis for relief. The court relied on the Supreme Court's intervening decision in Dillon v. United States, which confirmed that the Sentencing Commission's policy statements in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 are binding in § 3582(c)(2) proceedings and that United States v. Booker does not apply to authorize full resentencings or departures from those statements. The appeals were consolidated and resolved without oral argument.
Hugh B. McKeen held term livestock grazing permits from the U.S. Forest Service for over forty years on the Cedar Breaks Allotment in New Mexico's Gila National Forest. He sued under the Administrative Procedure Act to set aside various Forest Service actions, including a 2002 Decision Notice modifying his permits, related Allotment Management Plans, and Annual Operating Instructions. The district court denied all relief, and McKeen appealed. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the denial of claims tied to the Decision Notice because some arguments were waived, others were not preserved below, and implementation challenges lacked specificity for judicial review. It vacated the ruling on the cancellation of permitted grazing numbers and remanded with instructions to dismiss that claim as moot.
The case involved a criminal prosecution of Criss McGinty for misapplication of over $500,000 in bank funds, to which he pleaded guilty under a plea agreement that included forfeiture of proceeds. The district court ordered forfeiture of McGinty's house and boat-sale proceeds as specific property derived from the offense but declined to enter a money judgment for the full amount of unlawful proceeds. The government appealed, arguing that 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(2) mandates forfeiture of the full proceeds amount via money judgment. The Tenth Circuit reversed, holding that the statute requires forfeiture of all proceeds and permits entry of a money judgment (potentially alongside specific-property forfeiture), and remanded for the district court to determine the proper forfeiture amount after factfinding.
This consolidated bankruptcy appeal involved a trustee who avoided preferential vehicle liens under 11 U.S.C. § 547 that were perfected within 90 days of the debtors' bankruptcy petitions. The trustee sought not only avoidance and preservation of the liens under § 551 but also a monetary judgment for the liens' value under § 550(a). The bankruptcy court and BAP ruled that recovery under § 550 was not required because avoidance and preservation of the lien already restored the estate to its pre-transfer position by placing the trustee in the position of the former lienholder. The Tenth Circuit affirmed, holding that § 550 relief is permissive rather than mandatory and that the facts here presented no compelling reason to award the value of the nonpossessory liens in cash.
This case involved a challenge by plaintiffs who used public domain foreign works to the constitutionality of Section 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, which restored copyright protection to certain foreign works that had entered the public domain in the US. The district court ruled that the law violated the First Amendment, but the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision. The court held that Section 514 is a valid content-neutral regulation of speech because it advances the important government interest of complying with the Berne Convention by securing copyright protections for American works abroad, and it is not substantially broader than necessary to achieve that interest. The court also confirmed that Congress acted within its authority under the Copyright Clause.
This case involves Michael Bunton's appeal from the denial of his federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his Colorado state conviction for first-degree murder and life sentence. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief, concluding that one ineffective assistance of counsel claim was procedurally barred because Bunton failed to include necessary trial exhibits in the state appellate record. The court rejected the remaining claims, including arguments based on cumulative error, as either unexhausted or without merit under applicable standards.
