Articles Posted in Court Decisions

by

-December-7-11, 2009.

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

U.S. Supreme Court, December 07, 2009 Michigan v. Fisher, No. 09–91 In an assault prosecution, grant of petitioner’s motion to suppress evidence that he pointed a rifle at an officer when he entered his house is reversed where the officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment because he was responding to a report of a disturbance and encountered a tumultuous situation in the house, which justified a warrantless search under the emergency aid exception.

U.S. Supreme Court, December 08, 2009 Beard v. Kindler, No. 08–992 In a capital habeas matter involving whether Pennsylvania’s fugitive forfeiture rule provided an adequate basis to bar federal habeas review of petitioner’s claims, grant of his habeas petition is vacated and remanded where a state procedural rule is not automatically “inadequate” under the adequate state ground doctrine (and therefore unenforceable on federal habeas review) because the state rule was discretionary rather than mandatory. ..

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, December 07, 2009 US v. Leon-Quinones, No. 07-1395 Defendant’s conviction for robbing two banks and for carrying a firearm during and in relation to a robbery is affirmed where: 1) there was sufficient evidence that defendant used a real firearm during the robbery of one of the banks; 2) the district court committed no clear or obvious error in allowing a witness to identify defendant; and 3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the prosecutor to ask witnesses leading questions when they returned to the stand to identify defendant.
Continue reading

by

A Service from the ABA Criminal Justice Section, http://www.abanet.org/crimjust

Beard v. Kindler, No. 08-992 (U.S. Dec. 8, 2009)

“The Court decided a capital habeas matter involving whether Pennsylvania’s fugitive forfeiture rule provided an adequate basis to bar federal habeas review of petitioner’s claims, grant of habeas petition is vacated and remanded where a state procedural rule is not automatically “inadequate” under the adequate state ground doctrine (and therefore unenforceable on federal habeas review) because the state rule was discretionary rather than mandatory).

Continue reading

by

December 7, 2009.

Update from the Lexis Alert Service,

1. People v Basbus, 1649, 2759/05, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 8964; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8782, December 3, 2009, Decided, December 3, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

Continue reading

by

November 30-December-4, 2009.

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

U.S. Supreme Court, November 30, 2009 Porter v. McCollum, No. 08–10537 In capital habeas proceedings, circuit court’s order reversing a district court’s grant of a habeas petition is reversed where it was objectively unreasonable for a state court to conclude that there was no reasonable probability the sentence would have been different if the sentencing judge and jury had heard the significant mitigation evidence that petitioner’s counsel neither uncovered nor presented, including evidence of petitioner’s mental health or mental impairment, his family background, or his military service.

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, December 01, 2009 US v. Willings, No. 09-1334 In a prosecution for robbery of a federal bank through the use of a dangerous weapon, district court’s imposition of a sentence designating defendant as a career offender under U.S.S.G. section 4B1.1(a) is affirmed as escape from secure custody is a crime of violence within the purview of the career offender guideline.

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, December 03, 2009 US v. Hersom, No. 07-2401 Defendant’s conviction for maliciously destroying by fire a building owned by an institution receiving Federal financial assistance in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 844(f) is affirmed where: 1) in general, the statute should be limited to arson of property acquired, renovated, or leased using federal financial assistance; 2) section 844(f) is constitutional and it applies to defendant’s conduct in this case; but 3) defendant’s sentence is vacated and remanded in light of US v. Giggey to determine whether defendant’s second career offender predicate is a crime of violence.
Continue reading

by

November 30-December-4, 2009.

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 03, 2009 US v. Hersom, No. 07-2401 Defendant’s conviction for maliciously destroying by fire a building owned by an institution receiving Federal financial assistance in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 844(f) is affirmed where: 1) in general, the statute should be limited to arson of property acquired, renovated, or leased using federal financial assistance; 2) section 844(f) is constitutional and it applies to defendant’s conduct in this case; but 3) defendant’s sentence is vacated and remanded in light of US v. Giggey to determine whether defendant’s second career offender predicate is a crime of violence. ..

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, December 03, 2009 Lopez v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, No. 09-1664 In minority police officers’ disparate impact race claim under Title VII against a state agency that prepares and administers promotional examinations for local police officers under the state civil service system, their employers, various cities, and the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), district court’s denial of Eleventh Amendment immunity for the state defendants, the state of Massachusetts and a chief human resources officers of the Human Resources Division (HRD) in his official capacity, is reversed where: 1) the state defendants do not qualify as employers as that term is used in Title VII; 2) HRD cannot be deemed plaintiffs’ de facto employer as it exercised no control, direct or indirect, over the factors relevant to the common law agency test; and 3) plaintiffs’ alternate theories why HRD should be considered their employer under Title VII are rejected.

U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, December 02, 2009 Francis v. Giacomelli, No. 08-1908 In a case brought by a police commissioner and his deputies following a highly public dispute with the mayor of Baltimore resulting in the termination of their employment, dismissal of the action is affirmed as, based on the facts alleged in the complaint, the complaint fails to articulate any claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Furthermore, the mayor, against whom the allegations of due process violations were directed, is entitled to qualified immunity.
Continue reading

by

November 23-27, 2009.

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 25, 2009 US v. Gonzalez-Velez, No. 07-2277 Defendant’s sentence of 135-months’ imprisonment after being convicted of participating in a conspiracy to distribute narcotics is affirmed where: 1) trial court’s reliance on witness’ testimony was not unreasonable; 2) district court did not err in attributing the full five kilograms of cocaine to defendant in calculating the base offense level of 32; 3) district court did not err in denying defendant’s request for a two-level reduction in his offense level for acceptance of responsibility.

U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, November 25, 2009 Michtavi v. N.Y. Daily News, No. 08-2111 In an action for libel and intentional infliction of emotional distress based on news reports stating that plaintiff, a criminal defendant, was to cooperate with prosecutors, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where the statement reporting that plaintiff planned to cooperate with authorities was not defamatory as a matter of law.

U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, November 24, 2009 US v. Phillips, No. 07-4230 Defendant’s conviction for securities fraud, mail fraud, and other related crimes is affirmed as a warrant’s inclusive language was reasonably read by the postal inspection agents to encompass the seized evidence and thus, the agents’ seizures were permissible.

U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, November 25, 2009 US v. Carey, No. 08-60961 Defendant’s aggravated sexual abuse of a minor conviction and sentence are affirmed where: 1) the admissibility of testimony accompanied by a Fed. R. Evid. 612 refreshment did not depend upon the source of the writing, the identity of the writing’s author, or the truth of the writing’s contents; 2) a victim-witness’s youth and nervousness could satisfy Rule 611’s necessity requirement; and 3) defendant’s sentence was not procedurally unreasonable because the district court examined the 18 U.S.C. section 3553 factors.

U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, November 23, 2009 US v. Simmons, No. 07-3449 Defendant’s sentence of 116 months’ imprisonment for possession of more than five grams of crack cocaine with intent to distribute and for being a previously convicted felon in possession of a firearm is affirmed and remanded where, although the district court’s sentencing was procedurally and substantively adequate, the Guidelines have since been revised to lower the range for certain crack offenses and defendant may be eligible for a sentencing reduction.

U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, November 23, 2009 US v. Petrus, No. 08-1706 Defendant’s sentence to 70 months’ imprisonment for conspiring to possess with intent to distribute illegal drugs is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not commit any significant procedural error in imposing defendant’s sentence and the sentence was procedurally reasonable; and 2) considering the totality of the circumstances, including the Guidelines, the section 3553(a) factors, the nature of the offense, defendant’s family situation, his immigration status, his lack of criminal history, and defendant’s asserted attempt to cooperate with the government, the 70 month sentence is substantively reasonable.
Continue reading

by

November 23-27, 2009.

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 23, 2009 Vaqueria Tres Monjitas, Inc. v. Irizarry, No. 07-2240 In plaintiffs’ suit against Puerto Rico’s Milk Industry Regulation Administration, claiming that the Administration’s regulatory scheme governing milk prices violates the Due Process, Equal Protection, Takings, and dormant Commerce Clauses, grant of a preliminary injunction enjoining the regulatory scheme is affirmed where: 1) the district court properly declined defendants’ invitation to abstain from entertaining the action; 2) the Eleventh Amendment does not bar the form of relief granted by the district court in its preliminary injunction; 3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting defendants’ unclean hands defense; 4) the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to dismiss the action on the basis of laches; 5) the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting defendants’ estoppel defense; and 6) district court did not abuse its discretion in granting plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. ..

U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, November 24, 2009 Stratechuk v. Bd. of Educ., S. Orange-Maplewood Sch. Dist. , No. 08-3826 In plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit challenging school district’s prohibition on celebratory religious music at school-sponsored events for the purpose of maintaining a policy of complete religious neutrality, summary judgment for the school district is affirmed as the court did not err in concluding that December concerts are not public fora, and that the school district’s interpretation of the policy was reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.

U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, November 25, 2009 Entm’t Prod., Inc. v. Shelby County, Tenn. , No. 08-5494 Denial of plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction in their suit against the county challenging the constitutionality of the Tennessee Adult-Oriented Establishment Registration Act is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err in denying the preliminary injunction on the basis that plaintiffs did not demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success in their challenges to the definitions of “adult cabaret,” “adult-oriented establishment,” and “adult entertainment”; 2) the district court did not err in holding that a vagueness challenge is not likely to succeed on the merits as a narrowing construction sufficiently clarifies the parts this Act allegedly contaminated by vagueness; 3) plaintiffs’ claim that the Act’s requirements will result in a drastic reduction in the quantity and accessibility of speech is rejected; and 4) the issue of balancing of equities is moot as the district court correctly determined that plaintiffs have not demonstrated a likelihood of s! uccess on the merits.
Continue reading

by

November 26, 2009.

Update from the Lexis Alert Service,

1. People v Johnson, 1541, 1748/99, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 8682; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8510, November 24, 2009, Decided, November 24, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

Continue reading

by

November 9-13, 2009.

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 12, 2009 Cabral v. US Dep’t of Justice, No. 07-1633 In an appeal arising from an underlying action brought by a nurse practitioner claiming that defendant-sheriff barred plaintiff from a County House of Correction (HOC) for informing the FBI of alleged prisoner abuse at the HOC, denial of defendants’ motions for a new trial and for remittur is affirmed where: 1) there is nothing in the record indicating that the district court abused its discretion in making its pre-trial evidentiary and disclosure rulings; 2) district court’s dismissal of defendants’ action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) was proper as there was nothing in the record indicating that agency’s denial of the defendants’ Touhy requests was arbitrary and capricious; 3) the evidence was sufficient to establish that the sheriff engaged in the callous and reckless conduct necessary to support an award of punitive damages; and 4) the award of punitive damages of $250,000 against sheriff was not excessive.

U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, November 12, 2009 Wilson v. CIA, No. 07-4244 In a First Amendment action claiming that the CIA was required to allow former employee Valerie Plame Wilson to publish a memoir about her tenure at the agency, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff, and not the agency, permitted the classified information at issue to be revealed to the public; and 2) further, the public disclosure did not deprive the information of classified status, and the agency demonstrated good reason for adhering to its classification decision. A former CIA agent cannot use her own unauthorized disclosure of classified information to challenge the CIA’s ability to maintain the information as classified.

U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, November 12, 2009 Berg v. Obama, No. 08-4340 In one of the so-called “birther” suits challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility to run for and serve as President of the United States based on claims that Obama was born in Kenya and therefore was not a natural born citizen of the United States, dismissal of the action is affirmed where plaintiff lacked standing to bring the suit because he suffered no injury particularized to him Continue reading

Contact Information
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2016 – 2025, David Badertscher
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design