Latest 2 Cases: United States v. Vigil (Criminal Law), Playa Vista Conroe v. Insurance Company of the West (Insurance Law)

Why the Supreme Court was Right Last Week to Deny Review of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Decisions Handed Down Prior to the 2020 Election

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR, JASON MAZZONE

Illinois Law dean Vikram David Amar and professor Jason Mazzone argue that the U.S. Supreme Court correctly denied review last week of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decisions handed down before the 2020 election. Dean Amar and Professor Mazzone explain why the majority denied review and point out that the dissenting opinions unwittingly demonstrate the rightness of the majority.

Read More

United States v. Vigil

Docket: 20-50192

Opinion Date: March 5, 2021

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's imposition of a "no alcohol" special condition after defendant pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to transport illegal aliens and one count of transporting an illegal alien. The court concluded that where, as here, the defendant has a history of substance abuse and drug-related arrests such that the court reasonably believes he is an "abuser" of drugs, it is within the district court's discretion to require substance abuse treatment and prohibit the use of intoxicating substances, including alcohol, as special conditions of supervised release—even when there is no evidence in the record of alcohol abuse specifically.

Playa Vista Conroe v. Insurance Company of the West

Docket: 20-20307

Opinion Date: March 5, 2021

Judge: Andrew S. Oldham

Areas of Law: Insurance Law

After a Texas condo association suffered property damage during Hurricane Harvey, it filed a property-damage claim against its insurer. When the insurer refused to pay, the association filed suit for breach of its insurance contracts. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the association, holding the insurer liable. Applying de novo review, the court held that the association established coverage and that the insurer failed to prove that an exclusion applies. In this case, the association met its burden to show that its boat slips are covered in the absence of an applicable exclusion. Furthermore, in the face of an affidavit tending to establish that the boat slips were not destroyed by a "flood," the insurer could not carry its legal burden to prove one of the "flood" exclusions by submitting nothing. The court explained that this is particularly true where the policy exclusions on their face do not apply to the loss of the association's boat slips. Finally, the insurer conceded in the district court that the association's boat slips are covered by the storage provision, and the insurer cannot rely on the governmental-body exclusion.