Legal News

News

Top Headlines

[11/20] $6M verdict upheld in McDonald's strip search case
[11/20] Investors sue Fla. lawyer in fraud probe for $100M
[11/20] NYC model who married doorman sues upscale co-op
[11/20] NYC TV newsman guilty of attempted assault on wife
[11/20] Ala. court says woman can't claim $41.8M jackpot

More...

Case Summaries

Constitutional Law

[11/20] Reed v. Gilbert
In a First Amendment challenge to a municipal sign regulation that prohibited all signs without a permit, subject to nineteen enumerated exemptions ranging from directional signs to ideological and political signs, a denial of a preliminary injunction is affirmed in part where the regulation was content-neutral and did not impermissibly favor commercial speech. However, the order is remanded in part where the district court did not address plaintiff's claim that the ordinance unfairly discriminates among forms of noncommercial speech.

[11/20] Levine v. Vilsack
In an action challenging the USDA's enunciation of its position in the Federal Register that there was no specific federal humane handling and slaughter statute for poultry, plaintiffs' appeal is remanded with instructions to dismiss the matter where plaintiffs could not satisfy the redressability requirement for Article III standing because the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act contained no statutory enforcement mechanism.

[11/20] Delano Farms Co. v. Cal. Table Grape Comm'n
In a First Amendment challenge to a state statutory scheme requiring grape growers to fund generic advertising, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where the state agricultural commission's promotional activities constituted government speech that was immune to challenge under the First Amendment.

[11/20] Carr v. Dist. of Columbia
In an action alleging that the police unlawfully arrested plaintiffs during a protest, summary judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed in part where the city did not have probable cause to believe that the protesters knew the protest at issue lacked a permit. However, the order is reversed in part where: 1) the city only needed to show that the officers had reasonable grounds to believe that everyone arrested was part of the rioting group; and 2) the city could lawfully complete the mass arrest without first ordering the crowd to disperse and giving plaintiffs an opportunity to comply.

[11/20] White v. Howes
District court's grant of petition for habeas relief on the ground that the trial court violated the Double Jeopardy Clause by convicting defendant for both the felon in possession statute and the felony firearm statute is reversed as current jurisprudence allows for multiple punishment for the same offense provided the legislature has clearly indicated its intent to so provide and recognizes no exception for necessarily included or overlapping offenses.

More...

Asset Forfeiture

[11/19] US v. Miller
District court's order to destroy 34 firearms and for defendant to collect just compensation from the government arising from his conviction of aiding and abetting the possession of firearms by a felon, is vacated and remanded where: 1) because the government did not commence a timely forfeiture proceeding, defendant's property interest in the firearms continues even though his possessory interest has been curtailed; and 2) as such, if the government does not want to sell the firearms for his account, then it must offer defendant some other lawful option, such as having a trustee sell or hold the guns, or giving them to someone who can be relied on to treat them as his own.

[11/18] US v. Moser
In a petition for attorney's fees pursuant to the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (CAFRA) after petitioner prevailed in an asset forfeiture proceeding pursuant to 21 U.S.C. section 853(n), denial of the petition is affirmed where the arguments for and against permitting a prevailing section 853(n) petitioner to receive attorneys' fees from the government were too closely balanced to allow the court of appeals to conclude that Congress's waiver of sovereign immunity clearly and unequivocally applied in this situation.

[11/13] Hawknet, Ltd. v. Overseas Shipping Agencies
In an appeal from the district court's order vacating the attachment of an electronic funds transfer (EFT), the order is affirmed and the case is remanded for an order to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction where: 1) the rule announced recently in Shipping Corp. of India Ltd. v. Jaldhi Overseas Pte Ltd., __ F.3d __, No.08-3477, 2009 WL 3319675 (2d Cir. Oct. 16, 2009), applies retroactively; and 2) a party's failure to assert an argument prior to the announcement of a decision which might support it does not constitute waiver.

[10/27] US v. Venturella
District court's conviction of defendants for mail fraud and order to pay a criminal forfeiture money judgment and restitution is affirmed as: 1) forfeiture is not limited solely to the amounts alleged in the count(s) of conviction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 981(a)(1)(C); 2) defendants waived their rights to forfeiture calculations review on appeal; and 3) imposing restitution and forfeiture for the same crime is not an improper double payment.

[10/20] US v. $186,416.00 in U.S. Currency
In a civil forfeiture action seeking the proceeds of medical marijuana distribution, judgment for the government is reversed where the evidence relied upon by the district court was itself tainted by the illegal search and should have been suppressed, and without the suppressed evidence, the government lacked probable cause to connect the defendant currency to a violation of federal law.

More...

Evidence

[11/20] US v. Miller
Defendant's tax evasion conviction and sentence are affirmed where: 1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence regarding settlement negotiations because that evidence did not relate to defendant's alleged embezzlement activities; 2) the district court properly refused to exclude defendant's spouse's testimony under the marital privilege because that testimony referred to acts, not communications; and 3) the district court properly gave a deliberate ignorance instruction because the evidence demonstrated that defendant was subjectively aware of a high probability of existence of illegal conduct.

[11/20] Perez v. Holder
Guatemalan national's petition for review of the BIA's order denying petitioner's request for withholding of removal is denied as the BIA adequately articulated a reasoned basis for its decision.

[11/20] US v. McElroy
Defendants' sentence and conviction for conspiring to defraud the US of employment and income taxes and to commit insurance fraud by use of the mails and for procuring false tax returns is affirmed where: 1) a denial of motion to suppress evidence found at a certain address was correct as the evidence was sufficient to support a finding of probable cause; 2) prosecutor's remarks regarding a trial exhibit did not constitute reversible error; 3) district court did not commit reversible error by admitting into evidence summary testimony and charts; 4) district court did not commit reversible error by allowing the prosecutors to elicit out-of-court testimony identifying one of the defendants; and 5) district court did not err in including unpaid state taxes in the total tax loss amount used to calculate the base offense level for sentencing the defendants.

[11/20] Curia v. Nelson
In parties' dispute over the terms of a stock purchase agreement entered into in 1989 and several modification of the agreement over the next decade involving a small number of shares in two automobile dealerships and whether the contract also gave plaintiff option to purchase remaining shares, summary judgment in plaintiff's favor is reversed as extrinsic evidence is required to clarify what the parties meant because the contract as modified is reasonably susceptible to both parties' interpretation and is therefore ambiguous regarding the survival of the options.

[11/20] US v. Hardy
In a prosecution for bank fraud and tax evasion, district court's exclusion of defense evidence on the ground that defendant failed to comply with the reciprocal discovery requirement of Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(c) is affirmed as the district court did not err in excluding the evidence, but even if the court did err, it was harmless error because the excluded evidence would not have created reasonable doubt.

More...

Criminal Law & Procedure

[11/20] US v. Miller
Defendant's tax evasion conviction and sentence are affirmed where: 1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence regarding settlement negotiations because that evidence did not relate to defendant's alleged embezzlement activities; 2) the district court properly refused to exclude defendant's spouse's testimony under the marital privilege because that testimony referred to acts, not communications; and 3) the district court properly gave a deliberate ignorance instruction because the evidence demonstrated that defendant was subjectively aware of a high probability of existence of illegal conduct.

[11/20] N-A-M v. Holder
In a petition for review of the BIA's order removing petitioner to El Salvador, the petition is denied where: 1) petitioner's prior state offense of felony menacing was a "particularly serious crime" under 8 U.S.C. section 1231; and 2) the Immigration Judge's reliance on a Statement in Support of Warrantless Arrest detailing petitioner's prior offense was not fundamentally unfair.

[11/20] US v. McElroy
Defendants' sentence and conviction for conspiring to defraud the US of employment and income taxes and to commit insurance fraud by use of the mails and for procuring false tax returns is affirmed where: 1) a denial of motion to suppress evidence found at a certain address was correct as the evidence was sufficient to support a finding of probable cause; 2) prosecutor's remarks regarding a trial exhibit did not constitute reversible error; 3) district court did not commit reversible error by admitting into evidence summary testimony and charts; 4) district court did not commit reversible error by allowing the prosecutors to elicit out-of-court testimony identifying one of the defendants; and 5) district court did not err in including unpaid state taxes in the total tax loss amount used to calculate the base offense level for sentencing the defendants.

[11/20] Carr v. Dist. of Columbia
In an action alleging that the police unlawfully arrested plaintiffs during a protest, summary judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed in part where the city did not have probable cause to believe that the protesters knew the protest at issue lacked a permit. However, the order is reversed in part where: 1) the city only needed to show that the officers had reasonable grounds to believe that everyone arrested was part of the rioting group; and 2) the city could lawfully complete the mass arrest without first ordering the crowd to disperse and giving plaintiffs an opportunity to comply.

[11/20] Mitchell v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons
In a prisoner's application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal, the application is denied where, although plaintiff had only two "strikes" under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) and thus the PLRA did not automatically bar him from proceeding IFP, the court denied the application as a discretionary matter because of plaintiff's pattern of abusive litigation in the past and his failure to qualify for IFP status under the imminent danger exception.

More...

Sentencing

[11/20] US v. McElroy
Defendants' sentence and conviction for conspiring to defraud the US of employment and income taxes and to commit insurance fraud by use of the mails and for procuring false tax returns is affirmed where: 1) a denial of motion to suppress evidence found at a certain address was correct as the evidence was sufficient to support a finding of probable cause; 2) prosecutor's remarks regarding a trial exhibit did not constitute reversible error; 3) district court did not commit reversible error by admitting into evidence summary testimony and charts; 4) district court did not commit reversible error by allowing the prosecutors to elicit out-of-court testimony identifying one of the defendants; and 5) district court did not err in including unpaid state taxes in the total tax loss amount used to calculate the base offense level for sentencing the defendants.

[11/20] US v. Thompson
Defendant's sentence to 28 months' imprisonment for possession with intent to distribute cocaine base is affirmed as the district court properly attributed six criminal history points to defendant's prior convictions and two additional points under U.S.S.G. section 4A1.1(e) because the instant offense occurred less than two years after his release from his juvenile confinement, for a total of eight criminal history points and a sentencing guidelines range of 24 to 30 months.

[11/20] White v. Howes
District court's grant of petition for habeas relief on the ground that the trial court violated the Double Jeopardy Clause by convicting defendant for both the felon in possession statute and the felony firearm statute is reversed as current jurisprudence allows for multiple punishment for the same offense provided the legislature has clearly indicated its intent to so provide and recognizes no exception for necessarily included or overlapping offenses.

[11/18] US v. Varela
Defendant's firearm possession conviction is affirmed where, according to the Sentencing Guidelines, if a defendant possesses a firearm in connection with the commission of another offense, the district court must apply the offense level for the other offense if the resulting offense level is higher than the offense level as calculated under the provision governing the unlawful possession of firearms.

[11/18] US v. Johnson
Defendant's sentence for unlawful possession of a firearm by a person previously convicted of a felony is vacated and remanded where: 1) the district court is restricted to considering the materials outlined by the Supreme Court in Sheppard for the sole purpose of determining to which part of the Pennsylvania simple assault statute defendant actually pled guilty to; and 2) in the even the materials do not demonstrate the mens rea to which defendant pled guilty, his simple assault conviction cannot qualify as a crime of violence in this case in light of the government's representation that it does not seek to define that conviction as a crime of violence to the extent it is premised on reckless conduct.

More...