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.

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

by

Harbison v. Bell, Warden

No. 07-8521

“In reversing a 6th Circuit opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court has found that a certificate of appealability is not required to appeal a denial of federally appointed counsel, and that federally appointed counsel may represent clients in state clemency proceedings and be compensated for that representation. Following Tennessee state courts’ rejection of Petitioner’s conviction and death penalty challenges, a federal public defender had been appointed to represent him in a habeas petition. Upon denial of that petition, counsel sought to continue representing Petitioner in state clemency proceedings since Tennessee does not provide counsel for such proceedings. The District Court had denied the motion, and the 6th Circuit had affirmed.”

Continue reading

by

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

March 30 – April 3, 2009:

U.S. Supreme Court, March 31, 2009 Rivera v. Illinois, No. 07-9995 Provided that all jurors seated in a criminal case are qualified and unbiased, the Due Process Clause does not require automatic reversal of a conviction because of the trial court’s good-faith error in denying the defendant’s peremptory challenge to a juror. Defendant’s murder conviction is therefore affirmed.

U.S. Supreme Court, April 01, 2009 Harbison v. Bell, No. 07-8521 In a capital habeas proceeding, the denial of federal appointed counsel’s motion to expand the scope of her representation to include state clemency proceedings is reversed, where: 1) a certificate of appealability is not required to appeal an order denying a request for federally appointed counsel, because 28 U.S.C. section 2253(c)(1)(A) governs only final orders that dispose of a habeas corpus proceeding’s merits; and 2) because state clemency proceedings are “available” to state petitioners who obtain representation under 28 U.S.C. section 3599(a)(2), the statute’s plain language indicates that appointed counsel’s authorized representation includes such proceedings.

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, March 30, 2009 US v. Gonzalez-Ramirez , No. 07-1880 Conviction and sentence for drug crimes is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for a competency hearing and request for a continuance; 2) the court did abuse its discretion in admitting the cocaine and packaging as evidence, or the officer’s testimony related to the evidence; and 3) the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction.

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, March 30, 2009 US v. Rivera , No. 07-2675
District court judgment is affirmed where the “did assault and beat” charging language in the criminal complaint sufficed to identify the offense as a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act or a “crime of violence” under the career offender provision of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Read more…

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, April 01, 2009 US v. Marsh , No. 07-1698
Sentence for drug crimes is affirmed where the court was not unreasonable in applying a twelve-month upward departure from defendant’s mandatory minimum sentence, as the court made an informed decision and also stated it would have reached the same result under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines as it would have in a non-Guideline setting.
Continue reading

by

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

March 30 – April 3, 2009:

U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, April 01, 2009 Garcia v. Yonkers Sch. Dist. , No. 07-3167 In an First Amendment action between students and school district, district court’s grant of attorney’s fees to plaintiff is reversed where plaintiffs were not prevailing parties in the matter as the court did not issue a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order and therefore there was no basis for according prevailing party status. ..

U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 02, 2009 Andrew v. Clark, No. 07-1184 In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action alleging that Defendants violated Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights by retaliating against him for releasing an internal police memorandum, the complaint’s dismissal is vacated, where there was a dispute as to whether Plaintiff released the memorandum as part of his official duties.

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, March 30, 2009 Coors Brewing Co. v. Méndez-Torres, No. 07-2682 In an action challenging a beer tax exemption as unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause, district court’s grant of defendant’s motion to dismiss is reversed and remanded where: 1) the court erred in finding that the decision of the jurisdictional issue in the earlier Calderón action precluded consideration of that issue in the current suit; 2) plaintiff’s action is not barred by the Butler Act limiting federal jurisdiction in Puerto Rico or by principles of comity; 3) the PR Supreme Court’s decision in Brewers does not provide a basis for granting defendant’s motion to dismiss; and 4) defendant failed to meet the burden of showing sufficient privity between plaintiff and plaintiff’s PR beer distributor, and thus the the prior final judgment involving the distributor does not preclude the present action.
Continue reading

by

Update from the Lexis Alert Service,

April 6, 2009.

1. People v. Nunez, 212, 4936/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 2535; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2442, April 2, 2009, Decided, April 2, 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 (James A. Yates, …

2. People v. Pearson, 225, 225A, 225B, 4340/06, 4464/06, 4478/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 2543; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2428, April 2, 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 …
Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Solomon, J. …

3. People v. Smith, 217, 5584/05, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 2538; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2431, April 2, 2009, Decided, April 2, 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, …

4. People v. McClain, 222, 1200/06, 223, 224, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 2542; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2441, April 2, 2009, Decided, April 2, 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 …
… Defendant-Appellant. The People of the State …
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena K. Uviller, …

5. People v. Tucker, 176, 800/07, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 2469; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2510, March 31, 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 (Bonnie Wittner, J. …

6. People v. Bush, 193, 5516/04, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 2477; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2504, 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 (Charles H. Solomon,
Continue reading

by

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

ATTORNEY’S FEES, INSURANCE LAW LMK Psych. Servs., P.C. v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., No. 31 In an action for no-fault insurance proceeds, the attorneys’ fee award in favor of Plaintiffs is reversed, where: 1) attorneys’ fees in an insurance claim are to be calculated based on the aggregate of all bills for each insured; and 2) an insurer who issues a proper and timely denial is entitled to tolling with regard to interest on the claim.

CONSTRUCTION, INJURY AND TORT LAW, PROPERTY LAW & REAL ESTATE Kerusa Co. v. W10Z/515 Real Estate Ltd. Pshp., No. 36 In a fraud action stemming from construction defects, the dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where a purchaser of a condominium apartment may not bring a claim for common-law fraud against the building’s sponsor when the fraud is predicated solely on alleged material omissions from the statutorily mandated offering plan amendments

INJURY AND TORT LAW, LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW Ferluckaj v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., No. 45 In a tort action based on Plaintiff janitor’s accident while cleaning a building leased to Defendant, the denial of Defendant’s summary judgment motion is reversed, where Defendant did not hire Plaintiff’s employer and exercised no control over Plaintiff’s work. .

PROBATE, TRUSTS & ESTATES, SPORTS LAW Golden Gate Yacht Club v. Societe Nautique de Geneve, No. 25 In an action seeking to exclude a challenger from the America’s Cup yacht race, summary judgment for Plaintiff is affirmed where the phrase “having for its annual regatta” in the trust instrument required a yacht club to hold an annual regatta on the sea prior to issuing its challenge to participate in the race Continue reading

by

Update from the Lexis Alert Service,

March 25, 2009.

1. People v. Rivers, 1636, 3191/03, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 298; 58 A.D.3d 529; 870 N.Y.S.2d 790; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 272, January 22, 2009, Decided, January 22, 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
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