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.

February 21 – February 27, 2009
U.S. Supreme Court, February 24, 2009 Ysursa v. Pocatello Educ. Ass’n., No. 07-869 In a First Amendment challenge to a law prohibiting public employees from making payroll deductions for political activities, summary judgment for Defendant is affirmed, where the First Amendment does not confer a right to use government payroll mechanisms for political expression.

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, February 25, 2009 Del Gallo v. Parent, No. 08-1511
In a case involving First Amendment rights and the right to campaign on a post office sidewalk, grant of defendant’s motion for summary judgment is affirmed where: 1) the post office sidewalk is not a traditional public forum; 2) the regulation barring candidate’s election campaigning on a post office sidewalk is viewpoint neutral and reasonable to prevent abuses and to preclude any appearance of partisan endorsement or preference; and 3) there is insufficient evidence of a pattern of selective enforcement before plaintiff’s arrest, and the regulation has been consistently applied since then.

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, February 27, 2009 Poirier v. Massachusetts Dept. of Corr. , No. 08-1290
In a civil rights action, district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim is affirmed where enforcement of a Department of Corrections rule prohibiting unauthorized personal contact with former inmates did not violate plaintiff’s constitutional right to intimate association because the rule is a rational means of promoting the legitimate government interest in prison security. District court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s suit against the DOC on sovereign immunity grounds and claim for damages is affirmed.
Continue reading

by

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

February 21 – February 27, 2009
U.S. Supreme Court, February 24, 2009 US v. Hayes, No. 07-608 Defendant’s conviction for possessing a firearm under 18 U.S.C. section 921 is affirmed, where a domestic relationship between the offender and victim need not be an element of the defendant’s “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” to trigger Section 921’s possession ban. .

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, February 24, 2009 US v. Rodriguez-Lozada , No. 06-1988 Defendant’s convictions and sentences are vacated in part and otherwise affirmed where: 1) district court properly denied motion to suppress evidence for lack of standing as he had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the area searched; 2) motion for severance was properly denied as untimely; and 3) although evidence was sufficient to uphold most counts of defendant’s conviction, there was insufficient evidence to uphold convictions for possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking and aiding and abetting possession. Co-defendant Rivera’s sentence is affirmed where: 1) district court’s drug quantity calculation for sentencing purposes was well-supported by evidence and not clearly erroneous; 2) court correctly imposed statutory sentencing enhancement for co-defendant Rivera’s leadership role; and 3) the sentence was reasonable in light of his particular circumstances. .

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, February 26, 2009 US v. Glover , No. 07-1983
Conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm is affirmed where: 1) the prosecutor’s closing statements were not improper; 2) the court did not err in classifying defendant’s prior conviction for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon as a crime of violence under the sentencing guidelines; and 3) the sentence imposed was reasonable.
Continue reading

by

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

February 16 – February 20, 2009
U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, February 19, 2009 Yeboah-Sefah v. Ficco, No. 07-2585
Denial of habeus corpus relief by district court is affirmed where the state court reasonably concluded: 1) plaintiff’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel was not violated because he made a knowing and intelligent waiver of counsel’s conflict of interest; 2) plaintiff cannot satisfy standards set forth in Strickland and adequately prove constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel; and 3) plaintiff right to due process was not violated as he was determined to be competent a week before the trial and no evidence was brought to light indicating the competency determination needed to be revisited.

U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, February 17, 2009 Sledge v. Kooi, No. 07-1547 In a suit brought pro se by plaintiff alleging defendant violated his Eighth Amendment rights while incarcerated, grant of defendant’s motion for summary judgment is affirmed. When facing pro se litigants who are repeat filers, absent a strong showing that the pro se litigant has acquired adequate experience more generally, a district court should limit the withdrawal of pro se litigant’s special status to specific contexts in which the litigant’s experiences indicates that he may fairly be deemed knowledgeable and experienced.
Continue reading

by

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

February 16 – February 20, 2009

U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, February 17, 2009 Sledge v. Kooi, No. 07-1547 In a suit brought pro se by plaintiff alleging defendant violated his Eighth Amendment rights while incarcerated, grant of defendant’s motion for summary judgment is affirmed. When facing pro se litigants who are repeat filers, absent a strong showing that the pro se litigant has acquired adequate experience more generally, a district court should limit the withdrawal of pro se litigant’s special status to specific contexts in which the litigant’s experiences indicates that he may fairly be deemed knowledgeable and experienced. .

U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, February 17, 2009 New York State Restaurant Ass’n v. New York City Bd. of Health , No. 08-1892 In an action challenging the constitutionality of a law requiring restaurants to post caloric information on menus, the District Court’s denial of plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunction, declaratory relief, and summary judgment, and grant of defendant’s motion for summary judgment, are affirmed where New York Health Code 81.50: 1) is not expressly preempted by the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990; and 2) does not infringe on plaintiff’s member restaurants’ First Amendment rights. ..

U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, February 20, 2009 Ponta-Garcia v. Att’y Gen. of the US, No. 07-2551 Petition for review of reinstatement of removal order is granted and the reinstatement determination is vacated and remanded where plaintiff contested the bases for the reinstatement order and offered support for his claims. ICE must then consider the evidence and attempt to verify the claim. The regulation governing the reinstatement of orders of removal is upheld as a valid construction of 8 U.S.C. section 1231(a)(5) and is not found to violate due process.
Continue reading

by

Update from the Lexis Alert Service,

February 23, 2009

1. People v. Jackson, 5272, 2369/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 1289; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1218, February 19, 2009, Decided, February 19, 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.

February 11,17, 2009.

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE People v. Williams, No. 22mem09 The order of the Appellate Division is affirmed where there is no legal reason to upset the court’s exercise of its discretion in allowing the prosecution to use prior convictions to impeach a defendant’s testimony.

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, INTERNATIONAL LAW People v. Romeo, No. 7opn09 Reversal of a conviction for manslaughter is affirmed where the People’s lengthy post-indictment delay occasioned by delaying their prosecution in favor of a Canadian prosecution violated defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial.

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, SENTENCING People v. Taveras, No. 2opn09 Sentence for a criminal sexual act in the third degree and falsifying business records in the first degree is affirmed where the actus reus underlying the crime of criminal sexual act in the third degree does not constitute a “material element” of falsifying business records in the first degree, thus the Appellate Division correctly held that the sentencing court’s imposition of consecutive sentences for these crimes was not in error.

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE People v. Rouse, No. 8mem09 Order of the Appellate Division is reversed and the indictment dismissed where the People did not satisfy their statutory readiness obligation. .

INSURANCE LAW In the Matter of the Ancillary Receivership of Reliance Ins. Co., No. ssm2ent09 In an insurance dispute, order of the Appellate Division is affirmed where the Appellate Division did not err in concluding that the insurance company could not rely on an August 1993 letter as the basis to avoid coverage under the claims-made policy.
Continue reading

by

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

February 11, 13, 17, 2009.

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, ETHICS & PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, SENTENCING U.S. v. Gutierrez, No. 083581 Conviction for possession of counterfeit checks and bank fraud and sentence of 24 months on each count, to run concurrently, is affirmed over claims of error that: 1) defendant’s sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the District Court did not provide defense counsel a meaningful opportunity to speak before imposing a sentence, in violation of Rule 32 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure; and 2) a sentence of twenty-four months’ imprisonment was procedurally unreasonable because the District Court did not adequately consider the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. section 3353(a), provide sufficient reasons for imposing a sentence of twenty-four months’ imprisonment, or address defendant’s specific arguments for a non-Guidelines sentence

Continue reading

by

U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, February 09, 2009 Cloaninger v. McDevitt , No. 072054 In a claim against defendant-deputy sheriffs alleging violation of plaintiff’s search and seizure rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and his due process and equal protection rights, grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants is affirmed where: 1) there was no genuine dispute of fact material to defendants’ qualified immunity suit under 42 U.S.C. section 1983; and 2) plaintiff’s state law claims had abated, were abandoned, or failed as a matter of law.

U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, February 12, 2009 Waller v. City of Danville, Virginia, No. 072099 In a claim under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) alleging defendant-city violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution by unlawfully arresting decedent using excessive force and failing to properly train officers in dealing with the disabled, grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants is affirmed where any duty of reasonable accommodation that existed under the ADA was satisfied under the circumstances.

U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, February 09, 2009 Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n v. Bd. of Regents for the Univ. of Louisiana Sys., No. 08-30327 In a suit alleging violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss on Eleventh Amendment grounds is affirmed where the Eleventh Amendment does not shield a state from suit brought by a federal government agency to enforce a federal law, and the federal agency may seek make-whole relief on behalf of a private individual.
Continue reading

by

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

February 09 – February 13, 2009
U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, February 09, 2009 US v. Rivera-Rivera, No. 05-2495, 05-2498
Defendants’ convictions and sentences stemming from the armed robbery of a lottery ticket business in Puerto Rico are affirmed over claims that: 1) a key witness’s in-court identification was tainted by unnecessarily suggestive pretrial encounters; 2) the government failed to meet its burden of proving that the robbery affected interstate commerce; and 3) there were multiple errors during sentencing, including that the district court improperly imposed a 25-year mandatory minimum based on facts not found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, February 11, 2009 US v. Combs, No. 06-2258 A conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition is affirmed over claims that: 1) the trial court improperly declined to give his proposed jury instruction regarding witness intimidation; and 2) the government failed to offer sufficient evidence that the firearm and ammunition had traveled in interstate commerce.

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, February 13, 2009 US v. Campusano, No. 07-1931, 07-2442 Defendants’ sentences for drug offenses are affirmed over claims that: 1) for purposes of a drug quantity determination, defendants never intended to buy one hundred kilos and they lacked the financial capacity to do so; and 2) the district court erred in imposing a two-level sentence enhancement for obstruction of justice based on their testimony at trial.
Continue reading

by

Update from the Lexis Alert Service,

February 13,18, 2009
1. People v. Anonymous, 5224, 5721/04, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 1005; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1001, February 10, 2009, Decided, February 10, 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 (Charles H. Solomon, …

2. People v. James, 5229, 6659/05, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 1009; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 998, February 10, 2009, Decided, February 10, 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 (Lewis Bart Stone, …

3. People v. Davis, 5232, 5233, 2736/05, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 1011; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 996, February 10, 2009, Decided, February 10, 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 …
Amended; Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William A. Wetzel, …

4. People v. White, 5194, 5680/06, 5116/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 986; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1025, February 10, 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, …

5. People v. McCroskey, 5200, 5911/05, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 991; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1026, February 10, 2009, Decided, February 10, 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 (Michael J. Obus, …
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