Articles Posted in Court Decisions

by

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

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, GOVERNMENT BENEFITS, MILITARY LAW Shinseki v. Sanders, No. 07-1209 In an application for veterans’ disability benefits, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s holding that the Department of Veterans Affairs erred in denying benefits is reversed, where the Federal Circuit’s “harmless-error” framework conflicts with 38 U.S.C. section 7261(b)(2)’s requirement that the Veterans Court take “due account of the rule of prejudicial error.”

CIVIL PROCEDURE, DISPUTE RESOLUTION & ARBITRATION, GOVERNMENT LAW, INJURY AND TORT LAW, INTERNATIONAL LAW, JUDGMENT ENFORCEMENT Ministry of Def. v. Elahi, No. 07-615 In an action seeking to attach a judgment obtained by Iran, the District Court’s order permitting the attachment is reversed, where Plaintiff could not attach the judgment because he waived his right to do so, as the U.S. paid Plaintiff as partial compensation for his judgment against Iran under the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act

Continue reading

by

April 13 – April 17, 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, April 17, 2009 US v. Vasco , No. 07-1520 Conviction and sentence for using interstate commerce facilities in the commission of murder-for-hire is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err in declining to issue an entrapment instruction as defendant failed to produce the requisite evidence of government inducement; 2) there sufficient evidence to support a conviction on use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of murder-for-hire based on defendant’s conditional intent to murder his daughter; and 3) the court did not commit sentencing error.

Continue reading

by

April 13 – April 17, 2009

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, April 16, 2009 Matar v. Dichter, No. 07-2579 In an action broungt by survivors of Israeli bombing in Gaza, seeking damages for war crimes and violations of international law, district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s claims for lack of jurisdiction on grounds that defendant is immune from suit under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act is affirmed where, although questions exist as to whether the Act applies to former officials like defendant or not, common law principles that predate and survive the enactment of the Act still apply and recognize the immunity of former foreign officials for acts performed in their official capacity.

Continue reading

by

Update from the Lexis Alert Service,

April 13, 2009.

1. People v. Gagot, 277, 6919/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 2724; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2591, April 9, 2009, Decided, April 9, 2009, Filed, 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

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

April 6-10, 2009:

U.S. Supreme Court, April 06, 2009 Corley v. US, No. 07-10441 Defendant’s bank robbery conviction is vacated, where the District Court erred by denying Defendant’s motion to suppress his confession under McNabb v. US, 318 U.S. 332 (1943), and Mallory v. US, 354 U.S. 449 (1957), based on the government’s delay in bringing him before a judge, where 18 U.S.C. section 3501 modified McNabb-Mallory but did not supplant it. …

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, April 09, 2009 US v. González-Castillo , No. 07-2134 Sentence for unlawfully entering the U.S. after being previously deported is reversed and remanded where a clear and obvious error occurred when the court based defendant’s sentence on unsupported factual assertions, such that the error affected the defendant’s substantial rights and impaired the fairness of defendant’s sentence. .

U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, April 06, 2009 US v. Hertular, No. 07-1453 Conviction for drug and drug-related crimes is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated and remanded where: 1) the evidence was insufficient to support defendant’s conviction for forcibly impeding or intimidating a federal officer under 18 U.S.C. sec. 111(a)(1) as the agents were not being threatened with immediate harm; 2) defendant’s sufficiency challenge to his obstruction of justice conviction was patently without merit; 3) there was no plain error in the district court’s jury instructions regarding the specific intent element of the obstruction of justice charge; and 4) although defendant’s sentence is vacated in light of the reversal of his sec. 111 conviction, there is still no merit to defendant’s procedural challenges to his sentence.
Continue reading

by

U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 08, 2009 Davis v. Tarrant Cty., No. 07-11223 In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action seeking admission to a state system of appointing attorneys in felony cases, the dismissal of the complaint is affirmed, where Plaintiff lacked standing because he failed to show that his application would have been denied had he reapplied for the position after changes in the system. .

U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 06, 2009 US v. Benson , No. 08-1312 District court action enjoining defendant from selling materials based on his premise that customers could stop paying federal income taxes and avoid or defeat prosecution by relying on the materials is affirmed where: 1) defendant violated 26 U.S.C. sec. 6700 by selling an illegal method by which to avoid paying taxes, and knew that his statements regarding the illegal plan were false or fraudulent; and 2) the injunction was properly issued and did not violate the First Amendment. Denial of government’s request to require defendant to divulge a list of his customers is reversed where: 1) defendant would not be harmed by identifying his customers and it would serve the public interest for the government to receive the full list; and 2) an order divulging the client list does not infringe on the First Amendment rights of defendant’s customers.

U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 09, 2009 City of Joliet v. New West, L.P. , No. 08-3032 In an action involving eminent domain proceedings, district court judgment is affirmed where neither the National Housing Act nor the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act preempts state and local condemnation laws.
Continue reading

by

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

April 8-9, 2009.

COMMUNICATIONS LAW, GOVERNMENT LAW, PROPERTY LAW & REAL ESTATE Global Network Communications, Inc. v. City of New York, No. 07-5184 In an action involving the denial of an application for a public pay telephone franchise, district court’s grant of summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) defendant’s refusal to grant plaintiff a franchise to operate on public rights-of-way on the basis of its past history of fraud is within the scope of the safe harbor exception of Telecommunications Act sec. 253; 2) the court did not err in dismissing plaintiff’s state and federal law preemption claims; and 3) the court did not err in dismissing plaintiff’s federal constitutional claims.

Continue reading

by

Update from the Lexis Alert Service,

April 9, 2009.

1. People v. Dunkley, 243, 4713/04, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 2659; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2557, April 7, 2009, Decided, April 7, 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

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

April 7, 2009.

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, PER CURIAM US v. Kopp , No. 07-2797 Conviction for intentionally inflicting on a person, because that person was a provider of reproductive health services, an injury resulting in death is affirmed where: 1) district court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress evidence as untimely, and defendant provided no valid basis for a claim for relief from the Fed. R. Crim. P. rule 12(e) waiver; 2) court did not err when it granted government’s motion to introduce defendant’s statements in redacted form as the redacted portions had no bearing on the jury’s consideration; and 3) the court did not err in precluding defendant from asserting a justification defense and instructing the jury that it was not to consider a justification defense, as the evidence was insufficient to support that defense under any reasonable articulation. ..

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 – 2024, David Badertscher
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design