Articles Posted in Court Decisions

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

by

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

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, SENTENCING US v. Borden , No. 08-1625 Sentence for drug crimes is affirmed where the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant a sentence reduction where: 1) defendant’s sentence was appropriate based upon his extensive criminal history and the need to protect society; and 2) the court did not erroneously rely upon its earlier decision not to resentence defendant as a the basis for the present denial.

CIVIL PROCEDURE, PER CURIAM, SECURITIES LAW Esquire Trade & Fin., Inc. v. CBQ, Inc., No. 07-1701 In an action for breaches of debenture-related agreements and for securities fraud, district court’s grant of summary judgment for defendant on grounds that plaintiff’s claims were barred by res judicata is vacated and remanded where the order dismissing the earlier action between plaintiff and a third party does not operate as a res judicata bar to the claims raised in the present action as the required privity between the third party and defendant is not present. Read more…

Continue reading

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
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