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.

February 16 – February 20, 2009
U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, February 19, 2009 Yeboah-Sefah v. Ficco, No. 07-2585
Denial of habeus corpus relief by district court is affirmed where the state court reasonably concluded: 1) plaintiff’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel was not violated because he made a knowing and intelligent waiver of counsel’s conflict of interest; 2) plaintiff cannot satisfy standards set forth in Strickland and adequately prove constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel; and 3) plaintiff right to due process was not violated as he was determined to be competent a week before the trial and no evidence was brought to light indicating the competency determination needed to be revisited.

U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, February 17, 2009 Sledge v. Kooi, No. 07-1547 In a suit brought pro se by plaintiff alleging defendant violated his Eighth Amendment rights while incarcerated, grant of defendant’s motion for summary judgment is affirmed. When facing pro se litigants who are repeat filers, absent a strong showing that the pro se litigant has acquired adequate experience more generally, a district court should limit the withdrawal of pro se litigant’s special status to specific contexts in which the litigant’s experiences indicates that he may fairly be deemed knowledgeable and experienced.
Continue reading

by

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

February 16 – February 20, 2009

U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, February 17, 2009 Sledge v. Kooi, No. 07-1547 In a suit brought pro se by plaintiff alleging defendant violated his Eighth Amendment rights while incarcerated, grant of defendant’s motion for summary judgment is affirmed. When facing pro se litigants who are repeat filers, absent a strong showing that the pro se litigant has acquired adequate experience more generally, a district court should limit the withdrawal of pro se litigant’s special status to specific contexts in which the litigant’s experiences indicates that he may fairly be deemed knowledgeable and experienced. .

U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, February 17, 2009 New York State Restaurant Ass’n v. New York City Bd. of Health , No. 08-1892 In an action challenging the constitutionality of a law requiring restaurants to post caloric information on menus, the District Court’s denial of plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunction, declaratory relief, and summary judgment, and grant of defendant’s motion for summary judgment, are affirmed where New York Health Code 81.50: 1) is not expressly preempted by the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990; and 2) does not infringe on plaintiff’s member restaurants’ First Amendment rights. ..

U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, February 20, 2009 Ponta-Garcia v. Att’y Gen. of the US, No. 07-2551 Petition for review of reinstatement of removal order is granted and the reinstatement determination is vacated and remanded where plaintiff contested the bases for the reinstatement order and offered support for his claims. ICE must then consider the evidence and attempt to verify the claim. The regulation governing the reinstatement of orders of removal is upheld as a valid construction of 8 U.S.C. section 1231(a)(5) and is not found to violate due process.
Continue reading

by

On February 20, 2009 the U.S. Federal Trade Commission announced that it is rescinding the book advertising policy sometimes known as the “mirror image doctrine”. Below is an excerpt from that announcement with links the complete FTC Announcement, the forthcoming notice in the Federal Register, an an article in the National Law Journal discussing this action:

“The Commission has approved the publication of a notice in the Federal Register rescinding the agency’s enforcement policy for advertising of books, also known as the Mirror Image Doctrine (MID). As detailed in the notice, which will be published soon and is available now on the FTC’s Web site and as a link to this press release, the agency is rescinding its stated policy that it will not ordinarily challenge advertising claims that promote the sale of books and other publications when the advertising purports only to express the opinion of the author, or to quote, i.e., ‘mirror,’ the contents of the book or publication….”

As noted above the National Law Journal has also published a Web-only article, FTC Rescinds Decades-old Enforcement Policy on Book Advertising, ” by Marcia Coyle. (February 24, 2009)

by

Update from the Lexis Alert Service,

February 23, 2009

1. People v. Jackson, 5272, 2369/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 1289; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1218, February 19, 2009, Decided, February 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.

Continue reading

by

QUESTION:

Does anyone have any complaints about the accuracy of court transcripts prepared off-site by transcribers who were not in the court at the time of the recording?

Also, what kind of a certification and qualifications do you require for your court reporters in your area?

Continue reading

by

QUESTION:

“…We have a defendant charged with child molestation. The child is the defendant’s niece. The defendant is in his 20s, is deaf and mute and family speaks Spanish. The family has created a home sign language to communicate with the defendant. The court has excluded the brother (father of the child molested) as someone to communicate between the court and the defendant due to the obvious conflict. A sister was questioned in court as to her ability to communicate and it was determined that the home sign language was extremely basic information and she did not have the ability to communicate the court process to the defendant nor did she understand the court process. Today we had an certified American Sign Language interpreter who also is a Spanish interpreter. He was able to communicate very basic words i.e. mother, father, Mexico, hospital but did not believe he could communicate well enough with the defendant to explain the court process or the allegations to him.

Have any of you encountered this situation, and if so, how did you handle it?”

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