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.
[11/19]
Perry v. Prop. 8 Official Proponents
In an action challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8, a California ballot initiative restricting the definition of marriage to the union of a man and a woman, denial of a prospective intervenor's application to intervene is affirmed where the existing parties would adequately represent its interests.
[11/19]
DeBurgo v. Amand
Denial of defendant's request for habeas relief arising from his conviction for armed assault with intent to murder and assault and batter by means of a dangerous weapon is affirmed where: 1) a state appeals court's analysis of the sufficiency of the evidence was not an unreasonable application of the Supreme Court's standard announced in Jackson given the sufficiently suggestive circumstantial evidence presented; and 2) defendant was not deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury.
[11/19]
Jennings v. Jones
In plaintiff's civil rights case against the state of Rhode Island and a State Police representative and other police officers who had executed a search warrant of his workplace at the Narrangansett Indian Tribe "smoke shop", jury's verdict in favor of defendant in the second trial is affirmed as: 1) there was no abuse of discretion in granting a new trial based on the ground that, even if the jury verdict had unambiguously rested on the increased force theory, that theory would have been contrary to the weight of the evidence; and 2) there was no waiver of the new trial motion by defendant.
[11/18]
Harman v. Pollock
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action alleging that defendant-officers unlawfully detained plaintiffs and searched their home, summary judgment for defendants on qualified immunity grounds is affirmed where defendants' discovery of marijuana ultimately gave them reason to detain plaintiffs, to seize the marijuana, and to perform two more searches of plaintiffs' apartment.
[11/18]
US v. Skoien
Defendant's conviction for possessing a firearm after having been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 922(g)(9) is vacated and remanded where: 1) intermediate scrutiny applies to defendant's Second Amendment challenge to the section 922(g)(9) prosecution; and 2) the government has done almost nothing to discharge the burden of establishing a reasonable fit between the statute's means and its end.
[11/17]
Couch v. Bd. of Trustees of Mem. Hosp. of Carbon County
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action alleging that defendant-hospital board deprived plaintiff-physician of his First Amendment right of free speech through a campaign of retaliation against him for speaking out about substance abuse at the hospital, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where neither the hospital's investigation of plaintiff nor its warning letter to him constituted an adverse employment action for First Amendment purposes.
[11/17]
International Action Ctr. v. New York
In a First Amendment challenge to a New York City regulation banning new parades on Fifth Avenue, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the rule did not seek to regulate messages or distinguish between different types of speech; and 2) plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the provision of the rule establishing punishment for violations because the "chill" on those that might spontaneously join plaintiff's marches was purely conjectural.
[11/16]
Corey Airport Servs., Inc. v. DeCosta
In an action by an advertising display company claiming that defendants conspired to ensure that a competing bidder on a municipal project would be awarded the contract, even though acceptance of plaintiff's bid would have been in the best interest of the city, denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is reversed where the Supreme Court's broad statement that the unequal application of facially neutral law with the intent to discriminate may violate the Equal Protection Clause, in and of itself, did not offer defendants fair warning that their treatment of plaintiff was unconstitutional.
[11/13]
Depree v. Saunders
In a First Amendment action by a state university professor alleging that defendants deprived plaintiff of his ability to teach because he criticized the university, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where: 1) no clearly established law dictated that a university official sued in her individual capacity could not impose discipline on plaintiff; and 2) plaintiff failed to identify a cognizable property right for due process purposes. However, the order is reversed in part where plaintiff's claim against university administrators in their official capacities could yield prospective injunctive relief.
[11/13]
Max v. Republican Comm. of Lancaster County
In plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action against defendants claiming violation of her First Amendment rights of free speech and expression during a primary election campaign for judgeship on the County Court of Common Pleas, grant of defendant's motion to dismiss is affirmed as defendants are not state actors and their actions toward plaintiff were not state actions that would subject defendants to section 1983 claims.
[11/13]
Bloch v. Frischholz
In plaintiffs' Fair Housing Act (FHA) suit against their condo association for being required to remove a mezuzah from their doorpost under a new rule requiring that common hallways and outside of the doors be kept free of any objects, summary judgment in favor the condo association and its president is reversed for the most part where: 1) the judgment of the district court with respect to plaintiffs' claims under sections 3604(b), 3617 and 1982 is reversed as a trier of fact could conclude that the condo association's reinterpretation of the hallway rule and clearing of all objects from doorposts was intended to target only groups of residents for which the prohibited practice was religiously required; 2) plaintiffs can therefore proceed on an intentional discrimination theory under sections 3604(b), 3617 and 1982; and 3) district court's judgment granting summary judgment against the plaintiffs on their section 3604(a) claim is affirmed.
[11/12]
Matsuo v. US
In an action claiming that the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act infringed the right to travel because it penalized federal employees who worked in areas where the prevailing pay rates were lower, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) as to employees in lower-paying areas, the act, if anything, imposed a penalty for staying put, not for traveling; and 2) not everything that deterred travel burdened the fundamental right to travel.
[11/12]
Berg v. Obama
In one of the so-called "birther" suits challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to run for and serve as President of the United States based on claims that Obama was born in Kenya and therefore was not a natural born citizen of the United States, dismissal of the action is affirmed where plaintiff lacked standing to bring the suit because he suffered no injury particularized to him.
[11/12]
Cabral v. US Dep't of Justice
In an appeal arising from an underlying action brought by a nurse practitioner claiming that defendant-sheriff barred plaintiff from a County House of Correction (HOC) for informing the FBI of alleged prisoner abuse at the HOC, denial of defendants' motions for a new trial and for remittur is affirmed where: 1) there is nothing in the record indicating that the district court abused its discretion in making its pre-trial evidentiary and disclosure rulings; 2) district court's dismissal of defendants' action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) was proper as there was nothing in the record indicating that agency's denial of the defendants' Touhy requests was arbitrary and capricious; 3) the evidence was sufficient to establish that the sheriff engaged in the callous and reckless conduct necessary to support an award of punitive damages; and 4) the award of punitive damages of $250,000 against sheriff was not excessive.
[11/12]
Wilson v. CIA
In a First Amendment action claiming that the CIA was required to allow former employee Valerie Plame Wilson to publish a memoir about her tenure at the agency, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff, and not the agency, permitted the classified information at issue to be revealed to the public; and 2) further, the public disclosure did not deprive the information of classified status, and the agency demonstrated good reason for adhering to its classification decision. A former CIA agent cannot use her own unauthorized disclosure of classified information to challenge the CIA's ability to maintain the information as classified.
Back to Main Menu
| 
