Articles Posted in Constitutional Law

To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com. All summaries are produced by Findlaw.

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, December 11, 2008 Dutil v. Murphy, No. 06-2292 The text of the Massachusetts SDP statute, as interpreted by state courts, does not on its face violate the due process protections heretofore afforded sexually dangerous persons subject to civil commitment. Appellant’s due process rights are not violated by the statute’s failure to provide an unambiguous timeline for a redetermination of his sexual dangerousness. .

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, December 11, 2008 Broadley v. Hardman, No. 08-1342 Absent any allegation that state officials were used to enforce the process, Defendant was not transformed into a state actor for section 1983 purposes when he issued a subpoena commanding the Plaintiff to appear at a pretrial deposition, even though the subpoena was issued in his capacity as a notary public and in the name of the state of Rhode Island.

To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com. All summaries are produced by Findlaw.

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, November 26, 2008 Estate of Bennett, No. 072169 In a suit against defendant-police officers for the shooting death of decedent following gunfire initiated by decedent, judgment in favor of defendants is affirmed where: 1) the district court properly granted defendant-officer’s motion to dismiss where the estate failed to show a deprivation of a protected interest in life, liberty, or property; 2) the district court did not err in dismissal by judgment on the pleadings because plaintiff-estate did not meet its pleading requirements, plaintiff-estate waived its equal protection claim, and there was no property interest that was allegedly taken to support the takings claim; and 3) grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants was proper.

U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, November 24, 2008 In reTerrorist Bombings of U.S. Embassies in East Africa, No. 011535, 011550, 011553, 011571, 056149, 056704 Judgments of convictions for offenses arising from involvement in an international conspiracy, led by Osama Bin Laden and organized through the al Qaeda terrorist network, to kill American citizens and destroy American facilities across the globe are affirmed and remanded for re-sentencing where: 1) the indictment was sufficient to support a conviction of a capital offense; 2) sufficient evidence supported the convictions; 3) the District Court’s application of the Classified Information Procedures Act did not violate the Constitution; 4) a severance motion was properly denied; 5) statements of co-defendants, co-conspirators, and certain third parties were properly admitted at trial; 6) the government withheld exculpatory evidence; 7) there was no merit in co-defendant’s suggestion that “cumulative error” deprived him of a fair trial; and 8) the application of certain enhancements to co-defendant’s sentencing guidelines calculation was not in error. Insofar as co-defendant’s! sentence resulted from the mandatory application of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, he is entitled to be resentenced pursuant to U.S. v. Fagans, 406 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2005). R

November 10 – 14, 2008.

To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com. All summaries are produced by Findlaw.

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, November 10, 2008 Giragosian v. Ryan, No. 081067 In a claim by plaintiff gun shop owner against chief of police and town for revocation and forfeiture of plaintiff’s licenses to carry and sell firearms, defendants’ motion to dismiss is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff’s section 1983 claims against defendants are barred by the doctrine of res judicata on the basis of claim preclusion; and 2) the district court did not improperly convert plaintiff’s motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment.

To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com. All summaries are produced by Findlaw.

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, November 05, 2008 Parker v. Gerrish, No. 081045 In a claim that defendant-police officer violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights by using his Taser during the course of arrest, verdict in favor of plaintiff and compensatory damage award of $111,000, are affirmed over claims of error that: 1) defendant was entitled to qualified immunity; and 2) the district court’s answer to a jury was responsible for an inappropriate damages award.

U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, November 07, 2008 Choose Life Illinois, Inc. v. White, No. 07-1349 In a suit by an interest group seeking on First Amendment grounds to force the state of Illinois to issue “Choose Life” specialty license plates, judgment in favor of plaintiffs is reversed where: 1) specialty license plates implicate the speech rights of private speakers, not government speech; 2) specialty plates are a nonpublic forum; and 3) the state could enforce a content-based but viewpoint-neutral ban disallowing any abortion-related message, whether pro-life or pro-choice, to be displayed on its license plates.

To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com. All summaries are produced by Findlaw.

U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, October 29, 2008 Nader v. Blackwell, No. 07-4350 In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit brought by Ralph Nader against Ohio’s former Secretary of State for violating his First Amendment rights in applying a state law, which required that petition circulators reside and be registered to vote in Ohio, to Nader’s nominating petitions, dismissal of the suit is affirmed where: 1) contrary to the ruling below, Nader had standing to bring the suit; 2) the voter-registration restriction and the residency restriction contained in Ohio Rev. Code section 3505.06 are both unconstitutional in violation of the First Amendment; but 3) because the violations were not clearly established in 2004, the Secretary was entitled to qualified immunity. Petition circulation activity constitutes core political speech, and any regulation of that speech is subject to exacting scrutiny.

U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, October 31, 2008 Phelps-Roper v. Nixon, No. 07-1295 In an action challenging a Missouri statute which criminalizes picketing in front of a funeral location or procession, denial of a preliminary injunction while the statute’s constitutionality is reviewed is reversed where, incorporating the modified standard articulated in Planned Parenthood Minn., N.D., S.D. v. Rounds, 530 F.3d 724, 732 (8th Cir. 2008): 1) plaintiff was likely to prove any interest the state has in protecting funeral mourners from unwanted speech was outweighed by the First Amendment right to free speech; 2) there was enough likelihood plaintiff will be able to prove the statute is not narrowly tailored or is facially overbroad; and 3) she was likely to prevail in proving the statute fails to afford open, ample and adequate alternative channels for the dissemination of her particular message that God is punishing America for the sin of homosexuality by killing Americans, including soldiers. (Opinion on rehearing)

To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com. All summaries are produced by Findlaw.

U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, October 24, 2008 Jelovsek v. Bredesen, No. 07-5443, 07-5524 In a case involving whether certain Tennessee laws governing the wine industry violate the dormant commerce clause of the Constitution, a judgment upholding the laws is affirmed in part, and vacated in part where: 1) upholding a Tennessee law banning the direct shipment of alcoholic beverages to consumers, including wine, was proper; but 2) Tennessee’s Grape and Wine Law is discriminatory on its face; and 3) a remand was required in order to fashion an adequate remedy and to allow in-state wineries an opportunity to intervene.

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, October 20, 2008 Porter v. Osborn, No. 07-35974 In the case of a roadside killing of a man by an Alaska State Trooper, denial of summary judgment for the state trooper on grounds of qualified immunity is reversed and remanded for reconsideration where to “shock the conscience” by actions stripping an officer of qualified immunity, the officer must act with a purpose to harm unrelated to law enforcement, rather than act with only deliberate indifference.

To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com. All summaries are produced by Findlaw.

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, October 15, 2008 Batterman v. Leahy, No. 072653 In a claim for attorneys fees, the district court’s administrative closure of the case on grounds of Pullman abstention is vacated and remanded where: 1) the Pullman abstention did not apply in this case; 2) there was no right under state law, property or otherwise, for attorney-plaintiff to be paid more than the cap on billable hours and so no federal constitutional issue is presented by defendants’ refusal to do so; 3) there was no ambiguity with respect to state law that required clarification; and 4) no single abstention doctrine, or probably any combination of them, would justify abstention for all of the counts.

U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, October 17, 2008 Diaz v. Paterson , No. 052685, 063942, 063992 In a putative class action challenging the constitutionality of state civil procedure law, which allows a plaintiff who brings a lawsuit claiming interest in real property to file a lis pendens with respect to the property, is affirmed where the state’s lis pendens law as applied to plaintiffs did not offend the Constitution as construed by Connecticut v. Doehr, 501 U.S. 1 (1991).

To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com. All summaries are produced by Findlaw.

U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, October 08, 2008 Hartline v. Gallo, No. 065309 In claim for unconstitutional strip search in the absence of individualized suspicion that she was secreting contraband, grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants is vacated in part, affirmed in part, and remanded where: 1) defendant’s evidence demonstrated a violation of her Fourth Amendment right; 2) defendant was subjected to a strip search by the police, pursuant to departmental policy, in the absence of individualized suspicion that she was secreting contraband on her person; and 3) the district court erred in holding that defendant waived the alternative basis for her section 1983 claim, namely, that the officers violated her Fourth Amendment rights by telecasting her strip search through the 20 police station.

U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, October 07, 2008 M.A.L. v. Kinsland, No. 07-1409 In an action involving the constitutionality of a public middle school’s regulation of a student’s leafleting, entry of a permanent injunction against the school and an award of nominal damages is reversed where: 1) the school hallways constituted a nonpublic forum; 2) the restrictions were reasonable and were not overbroad; 3) the heightened Tinker standard did not apply to the school’s viewpoint-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions on speech, which were designed to prevent hallway clutter and congestion; and 4) the award could not stand without a constitutional violation.