Libraries are bridges to information and knowledge.

by

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

May 26, 2009.

CIVIL RIGHTS, CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, GOVERNMENT LAW, LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW Haywood v. Drown, No. 07-10374 In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action by a prisoner, judgment for Defendant-Officers is reversed where Correction Law section 24, as applied to Section 1983 claims, violates the Supremacy Clause, because New York’s policy of shielding correctional officers from liability for conduct performed in the scope of their employment is contrary to Congress’s judgment that all persons who violate federal rights while acting under color of state law shall be held liable for damages.

Continue reading

by

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

May 17-22, 2009.

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, May 19, 2009 US v. Paret-Ruiz , No. 06-2709
Conviction for conspiracy to import cocaine with intent to distribute is reversed and remanded with instructions to enter a verdict of not guilty where the evidence was insufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude that defendant had an agreement to import or possess cocaine with anyone other than a government agent.

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, May 20, 2009 US v. Pulido , No. 08-1626
Conviction and sentence on drug and firearms charges is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not commit reversible error in denying defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea without conducting an evidentiary hearing, as defendant’s allegations that his plea was not voluntary and knowing were contradicted by the record; 2) the court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to recuse based on the court’s statement about defendant in a different case, as the evidence shows that there was no likely appearance of partiality; 3) the court did not err and fail to consider mitigating evidence related to the U.S.S.G. sec. 3553(a) factors, as the record shows the court considered all of the mitigating evidence; and 4) the court did not err in imposing the mandatory minimum sentence for the firearm count under 18 U.S.C. sec. 924(c). ..

U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, May 20, 2009 US v. Jones, No. 07-2798 Conviction for conspiracy to commit murder, attempted murder and assault with a dangerous weapon under the Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering Act is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to restart jury selection after six co-defendants pled guilty during voir dire, and thus did not violate his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights; 2) the court properly rejected defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal on his conviction for murder conspiracy, as a rational jury could have found all elements of the murder conspiracy charge beyond a reasonable doubt; 3) the court did not abuse its discretion by admitting challenged evidence at trial as the evidence did not overwhelm the jury or prejudice its judgment; and 4) defendant’s sentence was not procedurally or substantively unreasonable.
Continue reading

by

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

May 17-22, 2009.

U.S. Supreme Court, May 18, 2009 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, No. 07-1015 In an action alleging that Plaintiff, who was arrested on suspicion of September-11th terrorist activity, was unconstitutionally detained, the denial of the government’s motion to dismiss is reversed and remanded where the complaint failed to plead sufficient facts to state a claim for purposeful and unlawful discrimination, as it did not show that the government policy under which Plaintiff was detained was based on discriminatory factors.

Continue reading

by

Update from the Lexis Alert Service,

May 21, 2009:.

1. People v. Bolar, 599, 5414/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 3946; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3791, May 19, 2009, Decided, May 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.
The People of the State …
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Eduardo Padro, J.), …

2. People v. Liggan, 573, 574, 297/04, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 3929; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3781, May 19, 2009, Decided, May 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.
The People of the State …
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), …

3. People v. McNeely, 589, 590, 531/08, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 3940; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3783, May 19, 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 (Renee A. White, …

4. People v. Tucker, 176, 800/07, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 2469; 60 A.D.3d 595; 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. …

5. People v. Jackson, 185, 11990/91, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 2475; 60 A.D.3d 599; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2488, 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 (Jeffrey M. Atlas, …
Continue reading

by

Published by Research and Markets Ltd. Dublin, Ireland.

The study presents data from 90 libraries – corporate, legal, college, public, state, and non-profit libraries – about their database licensing practices.

More than half of the participating libraries are from the USA, and the rest are from Canada, Australia, the UK, and other countries.

Continue reading

by

Brian R. Leiter the John P. Wilson Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Law, Philosophy and Human Values at the University of Chicago has conducted a poll to determine who people think were the most important legal thinkers in american law in the past century. There were 180 votes cast. Professor Leiter has post the top 25 on his blog, Brian Leiter’s Law School Reports. When looking at the list don’t forget to scroll down and read the comments which are also thought provoking. As one would expect on such a list there are always questions about why so-and-so was or was not included.

by

In Congressional Quarterly (CQ) Online News, Keith Perine writes: “…Obama, speaking with the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as a backdrop, defended his order to close the detainee prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and outlined several tenets of his own counterterrorism strategy. The president tried to reframe the complex problem of how to treat the Guantánamo detainees as one that requires pragmatism above politics and bipartisan deliberation over partisan attacks.

“As president, I refuse to allow this problem to fester. I refuse to pass it on to somebody else,” Obama said, in one of several thinly veiled digs at the George W. Bush administration. ‘It is my responsibility to solve the problem. Our security interests will not permit us to delay. Our courts won’t allow it. And neither should our conscience.’ ” To see the entire article, including an account of a rebuttal speech by former Vice President Cheney, delivered from the American Enterprise Institute, click here.

by

Update from the Lexis Alert Service,

May 20, 2009:.

1. People v. McDonald, 157, 5982/07, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 2287; 60 A.D.3d 553; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2233, March 26, 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 (Carol Berkman, J.), …

2. People v. Batista, 163, 5636/05, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 2292; 60 A.D.3d 557; 874 N.Y.S.2d 808; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2229, March 26, 2009, Decided, March 26, 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, …

3. People v. Ramirez, 168, 6600/03, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 2296; 60 A.D.3d 560; 875 N.Y.S.2d 482; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2235, March 26, 2009, Decided, March 26, 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.), …

4. People v. Pequero, 143, 1348/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 2242; 60 A.D.3d 542; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2418, March 24, 2009, Decided, March 24, 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. Cantey, 120, 2132/07, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 2228; 60 A.D.3d 533; 874 N.Y.S.2d 805; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2259, March 24, 2009, Decided, March 24, 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, …
Continue reading

by

Late in October 2008 rumors were circulating around the lbrary community that OCLC was in the process of updating its Guidelines for the Use and Transfer of OCLC Derived Records These rumors proved true; OCLC published its new policy on Sunday November 2, 2008. The reaction to these changes was sufficiently “swift and harsh” that on November 19, 2008 OCLC removed the original updated version and released a second updated version on November 19. Since that time reaction has continued to be animated, resulting in a continuing series of meetings, proposed changes, commentaries etc.

What is the present status of this discussion? To help answer that question Phyllis Post, who attended the May 2009 OCLC Members Council Meeting where a presentation was made by OCLC, has provided a brief but most helpful update which I received as an e-mail. With the permission of Phyllis I am posting her message below:

Colleagues,

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