Justia U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs brought a nuisance action against CTS because their well water contained solvents that had carcinogenic effects. The district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6), concluding that North Carolina's ten-year limitation on the accrual of real property claims barred the suit. The court reversed and remanded, holding that the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Liability, and Compensation Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675, preempted North Carolina's ten-year limitation. In so holding, the court furthered Congress's intent that victims of toxic waste not be hindered in their attempts to hold accountable those who have strewn such waste in their land. View "Waldburger v. CTS Corp." on Justia Law

Respondent challenged the district court's finding that the government had proven by clear and convincing evidence that he was a sexually dangerous person under the Adam Walsh Act, 18 U.S.C. 4248. The court concluded that the district court did not err when it found by clear and convincing evidence that the government met each of the three elements of sexual dangerousness. The court rejected respondent's remaining arguments challenging his civil commitment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Bolander" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence stemming from a conviction for illegally reentering the United States. The court affirmed the district court's application of the "crime-of-violence" enhancement on the basis of defendant's previous Maryland conviction, concluding that the Maryland offense of resisting arrest constituted a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2. View "United States v. Aparicio-Soria" on Justia Law

These consolidated cases involved claims for survivors' benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act, 30 U.S.C. 901 et seq. Petitioners, the coal mine operators responsible for payment of respondents' benefits, petitioned for review, claiming that principles of res judicata foreclosed respondents - each of whom previously and unsuccessfully sought survivors' benefits under the Act - from relying on a recent amendment to the Act to pursue benefits again through a "subsequent claim." The court affirmed the Board's awards, concluding that res judicata did not bar the subsequent claims because the amendment created a new cause of action that was unavailable to respondents when they brought their initial claims. View "Union Carbide Corp. v. Richard" on Justia Law

SCV filed suit against the City and its officials alleging that Lexington City Code section 420-205(C) (the "Ordinance), which bans any private access to City-owned flag standards, contravenes the SCV's First Amendment rights and breached a consent decree resolving an earlier lawsuit between SCV and the City. The court concluded there was no legal support for requiring the City to relinquish its control over the flag standards because they are not a traditional public forum; inasmuch as the Ordinance was lawfully enacted to close a designated public forum, the court affirmed the dismissal of the SCV's free speech claim; in regards to the civil contempt claim relating to the Consent Decree, the court agreed with the district court's conclusion that, because there was no constitutional violation posed by the Ordinance, there could be no violation of the Decree; and, because the flag standards are no longer given over to private expression, their use is not governed by the Decree. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Sons of Confederate Veterans v. City of Lexington, VA" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the Secretary's determination that he had committed intentional and egregious violations of the Fair Housing Act (FHA), 42 U.S.C. 3601-3619, by discriminating on the basis of disability against Delores and Gregory Walker and ordered petitioner to pay a civil monetary penalty as well as damages for Ms. Walker's emotional distress. The Department alleged that petitioner violated the FHA by requiring Ms. Walker to provide a note from Mr. Walker's doctor, to obtain a renter's insurance policy with $1 million in liability coverage, and to assume responsibility for any damage Mr. Walker, who suffered from autism, might have caused to the property. The court rejected petitioner's contention that his conduct was justified under the circumstances, concluding that substantial evidence supported the Secretary's determination. View "Corey v. HUD" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, by and through her adoptive parents, brought this action challenging South Carolina's reduction of monthly adoption assistance benefits, claiming that the reduction violated the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act, 42 U.S.C. 670 et seq. The court held in this case that section 673(a)(3) did set forth a privately enforceable right under 42 U.S.C. 1983, but that the parents have failed to plead any violation of that right by defendants. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Hensley v. Koller" on Justia Law

Debtor appealed the district court's denial of the confirmation of his proposed Chapter 13 plan on the grounds that it did not accurately reflect his disposable income and that it was unfeasible if debtor's Social Security income was excluded from his "projected disposable income." The court vacated and remanded, holding that the plain language of the Bankruptcy Code excluded Social Security income from the calculation of "projected disposable income," but that such income nevertheless must be considered in the evaluation of a plan's feasibility. View "Ranta v. Gorman" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a complaint against the State Board, alleging that it violated his First Amendment rights by causing him to self-censor certain speech on his website wherein he offered both free and fee-based dietary advice to website visitors. The court reversed the district court's holding that plaintiff did not have standing to bring these claims. The court concluded that the district court erred in not analyzing plaintiff's claims under the First Amendment standing framework where, under that analysis, plaintiff satisfied the injury-in-fact requirement by showing that the State Board's action had an objectively reasonable chilling effect on his speech. The court also concluded that plaintiff's claims were ripe for adjudication. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Cooksey v. Futrell" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of possession of firearms by a felon and was sentenced to 105 months' imprisonment. At issue on appeal was the district court's application of U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(b)(4)(B), which provided for a four-level enhancement if a firearm "had an altered or obliterated serial number." Defendant contended that the serial number at issue was legible even though the district court was unable to read the serial number correctly at the sentencing hearing. Therefore, defendant contended that U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(b)(4)(B) did not apply because no material change was made to the serial number. The court concluded, however, that when a serial number was made less legible, it was altered but not obliterated. Therefore, while the possession of a firearm with a serial number that was no longer legible and conspicuous was covered by 18 U.S.C. 922(k) and U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(b)(4)(B), a serial number that was less legible or less conspicuous, but not legible, was also covered by section 922(k) and U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(b)(4)(B). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Harris" on Justia Law