Articles Posted in Court Decisions

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

by

Update from the Lexis Alert Service,

February 5-9, 2009
1. People v. Hernandez, 5162, 1921/04, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 590; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 568, February 3, 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, …

2. People v. Coste, M3189 & 7277/03, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 578; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 586, February 3, 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 …
Appeal from a judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Budd G. Goodman, …

3. People v. McBride, 4605, 1682/04, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 576; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 574, February 3, 2009, Decided, February 3, 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, …

4. People v. Rolle, 5164, 3264/05, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 591; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 570, February 3, 2009, Decided, February 3, 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, …

5. People v. Leiva, 5150, 5151, 1741/04, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 582; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 577, February 3, 2009, Decided, February 3, 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 (William A. Wetzel,

.6. People v. Wright, 5102, 6928/04, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 423; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 589, January 27, 2009, Decided, January 27, 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 (Edwin Torres, J.), …

7. People v. Abney, [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL], SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2008 NY Slip Op 7757; 2008 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10300, October 14, 2008, Decided; March 20, 2006, Rendered, 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 …
… 57 AD3d at 48] Accordingly, the judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (William A. Wetzel, …
… by Moskowitz, J. Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered March 20, …
..
Continue reading

by

A Service from the ABA Criminal Justice Section, http://www.abanet.org/crimjust

VAN DE KAMP, JOHN, ET AL. v. GOLDSTEIN, THOMAS L. (No. 07-854.)

AP reporting: The Court threw out a lawsuit by a Los Angeles man wrongfully convicted of murder and gave district attorneys a broad shield against being sued even if their management mistakes send an innocent person to prison.

Continue reading

by

Update from the Lexis Alert Service,

January 29, 2009

1. People v. Rodriguez, 5115, 810/05, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 434; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 426, January 27, 2009, Decided, January 27, 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

Update from the Lexis Alert Service,

January 21 & 26, 2009

1. People v. Lofton, 4649, 2903/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2008 NY Slip Op 9261; 56 A.D.3d 371; 2008 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8795, November 25, 2008, 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.

Continue reading

by

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

January 26, 2009

CIVIL PROCEDURE, CIVIL RIGHTS, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, No. 07-854 In the context of 42 U.S.C. section 1983 civil rights suits, a prosecutor’s absolute immunity extends to claims that the prosecution failed to disclose impeachment material due to failure to: 1) properly train prosecutors; 2) properly supervise prosecutors; or 3) establish an information system containing potential impeachment material about informants..

Continue reading

by

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

January 19 – January 23, 2009
U.S. Supreme Court, January 21, 2009 Locke v. Karass, No. 07-610 In a case involving circumstances where a local union charges nonmembers a service fee that (among other things) reflects an affiliation fee that the local union pays to its national union organization, a portion of which the national union uses to pay for litigation expenses incurred in large part on behalf of other local units, the Supreme Court rules that the Constitution permits including such an element in the local’s charge to nonmembers as long as: 1) the subject matter of the extra-local litigation is of a kind that would be chargeable if the litigation were local; and 2) the litigation charge is reciprocal in nature.

U.S. Supreme Court, January 21, 2009 Pearson v. Callahan, No. 07-751 In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action against state law enforcement officers who conducted a warrantless search of plaintiff’s house incident to his arrest for the sale of methamphetamine to an undercover informant (whom plaintiff had voluntarily admitted to the premises), a court of appeals ruling reversing a ruling that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity is reversed where: 1) the procedure the Supreme Court mandated in Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001), should not be regarded as an inflexible requirement; and 2) petitioners were entitled to qualified immunity on the ground that it was not clearly established at the time of the search that their conduct was unconstitutional. ..

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, January 22, 2009 Abraham v. Woods Hole Oceanographic Inst., No. 08-1655 In an employment discrimination action brought by former employee, a researcher on the biological aspect of zebrafish, who was terminated after he stated he did not believe in the theory of evolution, denial of plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint, as well as a decision not to apply equitable tolling principles in granting defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, are affirmed where: 1) the request to amend was futile; and 2) the doctrine of equitable tolling could not apply as plaintiff failed to exercise diligence in meeting any of the filing deadlines for his employment discrimination claim Continue reading

by

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

January 19 – January 23, 2009
U.S. Supreme Court, January 21, 2009 Waddington v. Sarausad, No. 07-772 In a case arising from a fatal drive-by shooting of a group of students standing in front of a Seattle high school, grant of a petition for habeas relief from defendant’s conviction for being an accomplice to second-degree murder, attempted murder, and assault is reversed where: 1) Washington courts reasonably concluded that the trial court’s instruction to the jury regarding accomplice liability was not ambiguous; and 2) even were it ambiguous, the circuit court still erred in finding the instruction so ambiguous as to cause a federal constitutional violation.

U.S. Supreme Court, January 21, 2009 Pearson v. Callahan, No. 07-751 In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action against state law enforcement officers who conducted a warrantless search of plaintiff’s house incident to his arrest for the sale of methamphetamine to an undercover informant (whom plaintiff had voluntarily admitted to the premises), a court of appeals ruling reversing a ruling that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity is reversed where: 1) the procedure the Supreme Court mandated in Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001), should not be regarded as an inflexible requirement; and 2) petitioners were entitled to qualified immunity on the ground that it was not clearly established at the time of the search that their conduct was unconstitutional.

U.S. Supreme Court, January 21, 2009 Spears v. US, No. 08–5721 In proceedings arising from the government’s appeal of a sentence for conspiracy to distribute cocaine base and powder cocaine, a circuit court’s ruling reversing a mandatory minimum sentence is reversed where district courts are entitled to reject and vary categorically from the crack-cocaine Sentencing Guidelines based on a policy disagreement with those Guidelines Continue reading

by

January 23, 2009 From the American Bar Association Criminal Justice Section “> www.abanet.org/crimjust“>

Spears v. US, No. 08–5721

The government appealed a sentence for conspiracy to distribute cocaine base and powder cocaine in which the District Court reduced the sentencing range for crack cocaine from the 100 to 1 ratio to a 20 to one ratio based on the U. S. Sentencing Commission guidelines and the Smith and Perry cases. The District Court imposed a sentence based on a 20 to 1 ratio which was its interpretation of the mandatory minimum sentence in the case. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district Court’s interpretation of the minimum sentence in the case and imposed a tougher sentence based on the 100 to 1 ratio. The Supreme Court remanded for rehearing by the Eighth Circuit which again imposed the tougher sentence. On rehearing the Supreme Court reversed stating, “we now clarify that district courts are entitled to reject and vary categorically from the crack cocaine Guidelines based on a policy disagreement with those Guidelines.”

Continue reading

by

Update from the Lexis Alert Service,

January 19.21, 2009:

1. People v. Starnes, 5042, 5249/05, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 125; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 119, January 15, 2009, Decided, January 15, 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