Libraries are bridges to information and knowledge.

by

Des Moines, IA – September 1, 2009 – According to an editorial in the latest issue of Judicature, the journal of the American Judicature Society, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Caperton v. Massey Coal Company is a wake-up call for states to take disqualification seriously.

The editorial explains that “If state judicial systems have procedures in place to ensure that judges understand and follow more exacting disqualification rules, legitimate due process problems need never arise.” Caperton held that West Virginia Supreme Court Justice Brent Benjamin’s failure to recuse himself in a case involving a litigant who supported his election campaign was a violation of due process.

The editorial recommends judicial education programs that identify factors judges should consider when deciding whether campaign support they have received gives rise to a disqualifying appearance of partiality; having contested disqualification motions assigned to a different judge for final resolution; and, in the highest courts of each state, establishing a procedure to review disqualification decisions of individual justices by the remainder of the court or a special panel of judges. The editorial concludes that such procedures will foster public confidence in the expeditious administration of justice.

Continue reading

by

**The Government Domain: Tracking Congress 2.0

http://www.llrx.com/columns/govdomain42.htm

With the 111th Congress of the United States reconvening on September 8th, e-gov expert Peggy Garvin highlights new tools and sources that enhance and expand your ability to track and monitor the action.

Continue reading

by

In their September 8 article in Bloomberg News, Cary O’Reilly and Linda Sandler write that “[A]s the White House and Congress debate how to regulate financial crisis, judges have assumed the point position of punishing Wall Street for causing the worst recession since the 1930s.” O’Reilly and Sandler point out that while the executive and legislative branches of government continue to discuss the possibilities of implementing various reforms as a response to the financial crisis that began approximately a year ago, “judges are [actually] taking the first steps toward the same goal, punishing executives and issuing rulings with national impact.” In their article O’Reilly and Sandler go on to enumerate specific examples of how some judges have proceeded along this path.

by

We are forwarding the following message from Emily Feldman of the Government Relatiojns Office of the American Association of Law Libraries (AALL) because it contains important information that we believe should be distributed widely:

OpenTheGovernment.org today released the latest edition of their annual Secrecy Report Card (http://www.openthegovernment.org/otg/SecrecyRC_2009.pdf). This year’s report card found slight decreases in government secrecy overall, though secrecy still trumps openness in many instances. This year’s report also includes a special analysis of the Obama Administration’s mixed track record on transparency.

Some of the highlights from this year’s report include:

Continue reading

by

Change 2010:

August 27, 2009, Washington, DC –“The Obama administration has challenged Federal information technology managers to explore more open systems,” said Arpan Patel, Director of Somat’s Information Engineering practice. “Federal managers face a compelling need to understand the differences between traditional approaches to information technology and increasingly important open approaches.”

Somat Engineering, the company that builds engineering solutions worldwide, is holding a special, limited attendance briefing, Change 2010: Responding to Real Time Information, Open Systems and the Obama IT Vision, at the National Press Club in Washington, DC on September 23, 2009, at 9am.

Continue reading

by

According to a report by Matthew Weigett in the September 4, 2009 Federal Computer Week, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, DC has held that Mircosoft can keep selling its Word software in the United States. Microsoft had filed an emergency motion with the court to stay a ruling by Judge Leonard Davis of the U.S. District Court for Eastern Texas that ordered to the company to stop selling Word in the United States and to also pay the plaintiff i4i, a Toronto based software developer, over $290 million in damages and interest. The motion to stay has been granted, allowing Word sales in the U.S. to continue while the infringement lawsuit is appealed. The appeal is scheduled for September 23.

by

August 24 – 28, 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, August 24, 2009 Calderon-Garnier v. Sanchez-Ramos, No. 08-1284
In an employment discrimination case brought by a former prosecutor of Puerto Rico, summary judgment and dismissal rulings for defendants are affirmed where plaintiff raised no genuine issue as to any material fact that would cause the court to doubt whether the plaintiff had a meaningful opportunity to participate in a pre-termination hearing.

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, August 24, 2009 Crawford v. Clarke, No. 08-2100 In an action brought by Muslim inmates in the custody of the Massachusetts Department of Corrections (DOC) alleging the Commissioner violated their right to freely exercise their religion, grant of an injunction in favor of inmates is affirmed where the district court did not abuse its decision in denying Commissioner’s motion for reconsideration as the Commissioner sought to introduce evidence that could have been introduced at trial but chose not to.

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, August 26, 2009 Negron-Almeda v. Santiago, No. 08-2360 In a case brought by dismissed employees of a government agency in Puerto Rico claiming political discrimination, district court’s order of reinstatement against defendant-intervenor is affirmed where: 1) it was proper for the district court to revisit the earlier order where, under the law of the case doctrine, courts may reopen a matter previously decided on a showing of exceptional circumstances such as the serious injustice to the plaintiffs in this case; 2) the reinstatement order was proper as defendants could be substituted for the original party under Rule 25(c) and they are not protected by sovereign immunity.
Continue reading

by

August 24 – 28, 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, August 24, 2009 US v. Padilla-Colon, No. 07-2372 Conviction of defendant for possession of drugs with intent to distribute is affirmed where, although defendant’s waiver of appeal was invalid, there was no error in the district court finding that defendant did not qualify for the safety valve provision of 18 U.S.C. section 3553(f), based on a reasoned assessment of the defendant’s credibility in light of the facts on record.

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, August 24, 2009 Crawford v. Clarke, No. 08-2100 In an action brought by Muslim inmates in the custody of the Massachusetts Department of Corrections (DOC) alleging the Commissioner violated their right to freely exercise their religion, grant of an injunction in favor of inmates is affirmed where the district court did not abuse its decision in denying Commissioner’s motion for reconsideration as the Commissioner sought to introduce evidence that could have been introduced at trial but chose not to.

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, August 26, 2009 US v. Calderon, No. 05-2650 District court’s sentence and conviction of defendants for conspiring to possess drugs with the intent to distribute is affirmed where: 1) under the totality of the circumstances, the existence of common purpose, distribution of drugs, interdependence of various elements in the overall plan, and overlap among defendants, a reasonable jury could have convicted each of the defendants of the single conspiracy charge; 2) district court did not err in allowing a witness to testify as the defendant had not preserved a delayed disclosures claim; 3) court did abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of a firearm as it was clearly a relevant evidence and Rule 403 balancing did not weigh in favor of exclusion; 4) district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that murder evidence was relevant, and even were the circuit court to conclude that the district court erred in admitting the evidence, the error would not be clear or obvious; 5) district court did not err in severing! defendant’s trial from his codefendants as he did not file a severance motion before trial; and 6) district court did not err in determining the drug quantity findings in sentencing the defendants under the sentencing Guidelines 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