Articles Posted in Court Decisions

by

May 4 -8, 2009

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

U.S. Fed. Circuit Court of Appeals, May 05, 2009 Ellamae Phillips Co. v. US , No. 08-5042 In a takings action, district court grant of summary judgment against the government is vacated and remanded where court of Federal Claims improperly applied the present court’s prior decision in Hash v. US in ruling that a taking had occurred, as Hash did not decide the scope of the easement granted under the 1875 Act or whether any residual easement has been abandoned in this case.

Continue reading

by

May 4 -8, 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, May 04, 2009 Flores-Figueroa v. US, No. 08-108 Defendant’s aggravated identity theft conviction is reversed where 18 U.S.C. section 1028A(a)(1) requires the government to show that a defendant knew that the means of identification at issue belonged to another person.

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, May 04, 2009 Rice v. Hall, No. 07-2660 In conviction for murder, denial of petition for habeas relief is affirmed where plaintiff failed to show: 1) counsel’s performance was unreasonable or incompetent; and 2) any error that prejudiced him such that the outcome would likely have been different but for the error.

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, May 05, 2009 US v. Angulo-Hernández, No. 07-2428 Conviction and sentence for drug crimes is affirmed where: 1) the evidence presented was sufficient to support each of the defendants’ convictions; 2) any possible error in the admission of lay testimony was harmless; 3) district court’s participation in trial did not constitute prejudicial error; 4) the defendants’ jurisdictional challenge under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act was meritless; 5) the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendants’ multiple requests for a continuance and proceeding with the trial as scheduled; and 6) defendant’s sentence was reasonable.
Continue reading

by

Update from the Lexis Alert Service,

May 11, 2009.

1. People v. Acevedo, 511 70/06, 512 70/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 3673; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3554, May 7, 2009, Decided, May 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

April 27 – May 1, 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, April 28, 2009 Cone v. Bell, No. 07-1114 In a capital habeas proceeding, the denial of Petitioner’s habeas petition is reversed where the state courts’ rejection of Petitioner’s Brady v. Maryland claim did not rest on a ground that barred federal review, and the lower courts failed to adequately consider whether the allegedly withheld evidence was material to Petitioner’s sentence. .

U.S. Supreme Court, April 29, 2009 Kansas v. Ventris, No. 07-1356 The state supreme court’s reversal of defendant’s burglary conviction is reversed where the state obtained a confession from a confidential informant but defendant’s statement to the informant, concededly elicited in violation of the Sixth Amendment, was admissible to impeach his inconsistent testimony at trial.

U.S. Supreme Court, April 29, 2009 Dean v. US, No. 08-5274 Defendant’s firearm conviction is affirmed where defendant claimed he unintentionally fired his gun during a robbery, but 18 U.S.C. section 924(c)(1)(A)(iii) requires no separate proof of intent, and its 10-year mandatory minimum applies if a gun is discharged in the course of a violent or drug trafficking crime, whether on purpose or by accident.
Continue reading

by

April 27 – May 1, 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 28, 2009 Molinari v. Bloomberg , No. 09-0331 In an action challenging amendments to New York term limits legislation, district court’s grant of summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs do not have a viable First Amendment claim as any chilling of plaintiffs’ First Amendment activity is self-imposed and thus incidental and constitutionally insignificant; 2) the challenged law does not violate plaintiffs’ substantive due process rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment; 3) New York Municipal Home Rule Law sec. 23(2)(b) does not require a referendum to enact the challenged law; and 4) court properly dismissed plaintiff’s claim that defendants violated the conflicts of interest provisions of the City Charter as any any conflict of interest was not in the terms and conditions of public office.

U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, April 27, 2009 McTernan v. City of York , No. 07-4437 In a First Amendment action, district court’s judgment is affirmed in part and vacated and remanded where: 1) the court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the officer on plaintiff’s free exercise claim as a reasonable jury could conclude that the restriction imposed on plaintiff failed the general applicability requirement; 2) the court erred in granting summary judgment on plaintiff’s free speech claim as significant fact questions persist as to whether the restriction was narrowly tailored and burdened no more speech than necessary to protect traffic safety; and 3) the court properly dismissed plaintiff’s municipal liability claims against the defendant and co-defendants in their official capacity.

U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, April 27, 2009 Holman v. City of York , No. 07-4438 In a First and Fourth Amendment action, district court judgment is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff failed to demonstrate a cognizable First Amendment violation; 2) plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim fails as the officer had probable cause to arrest plaintiff for trespass at the scene; and 3) the court properly dismissed plaintiff’s municipal liability claims against the defendant and co-defendants in their official capacity.
Continue reading

by

Update from the Lexis Alert Service,

April 29, 2009.

1. People v. Jackson, 195, 3988/04, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 2450; 874 N.Y.S.2d 908; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2503, March 31, 2009, Decided, March 31, 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.
The People of the State …
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie G. Wittner, …

2. People v. Orta, 138, 2762/07, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 2239; 874 N.Y.S.2d 856; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2416, March 24, 2009, Decided, 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.
The People of the State …
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena K. Uviller, …

3. People v. Anonymous, 61, 1831/05, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 1855; 874 N.Y.S.2d 856; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1850, March 17, 2009, Decided, 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.
The People of the State …
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Anthony Ferrara, J.), …

4. People v. Goodson, 87, 2590/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 1870; 874 N.Y.S.2d 856; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1860, March 17, 2009, Decided, 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.
The People of the State …
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles H. Solomon, …
Continue reading

by

Update from the Lexis Alert Service,

1. People v. Hinton, 304, 2530/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 2836; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2782, April 14, 2009, Decided, April 14, 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.

The People of the State …

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