Criminal Law Library Blog

To view these cases distributed by Findlaw.com you must first sign in to Findlaw.com. "Findlaw summaries [may] include opoinions that have not yet been released for publication and may be subject to modification, correction or withdrawl":

To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com.

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, January 22, 2008
"Chmielinski v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, No. 07-1652
In a suit alleging that termination proceedings for a probation officer violated his procedural due process rights, dismissal for failure to state a claim is affirmed where: 1) the initial hearing granted to the plaintiff did not deviate from state law; and 2) the hearing did not violate due process".

U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, January 23, 2008
"Doe v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation & Parole, No. 05-4200
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit brought by an anonymous plaintiff seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from aspects of Pennsylvania's Registration of Sexual Offenders Act, or Megan's Law, a judgment finding that the treatment of out-of-state offenders under the law violates the Equal Protection Clause is affirmed where: 1) although Pennsylvania's interest in protecting its citizens from sexually violent predators was compelling; nevertheless, 2) subjecting out-of state sex offenders to community notification without providing equivalent procedural safeguards as given to in-state sex offenders was not rationally related to that goal."

U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, January 22, 2008
Roe v. Crawford, No. 06-3108
"An elective, non-therapeutic abortion does not constitute a serious medical need, and a prison institution's refusal to provide an inmate with access to an elective, non-therapeutic abortion does not rise to the level of deliberate indifference to constitute an Eighth Amendment violation. However, under the test established by Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987), the Missouri Department of Corrections' policy of prohibiting transportation for elective, non-therapeutic abortions is unreasonable under the Fourteenth Amendment."

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, January 22, 2008
Greene v. Solano County Jail, No. 06-16957
"In an action brought by a former maximum security prisoner claiming that a jail's policy of prohibiting maximum security prisoners from participating in group worship was a violation of his rights under, inter alia, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), summary judgment for defendant on the RLUIPA claim is reversed as there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether a total ban on group religious worship by maximum security prisoners at a jail was the least restrictive means of maintaining jail security. Summary judgment for defendant on other claims is vacated as defendant did not meet her burden on summary judgment as to those claims, and plaintiff was not given notice and an opportunity to oppose summary judgment as to those claims."

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, January 22, 2008
Price v. Sery, No. 06-35159
"In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action alleging, inter alia, that police officers unconstitutionally used deadly force for which defendant-City was liable, summary judgment for the city on the Monell claims is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the city's official policy concerning the use of deadly force, as written, does not violate the requirements of the Constitution; 2) plaintiff failed to make a sufficient showing of a failure to train on the part of the city to survive summary judgment; but 3) a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether a "longstanding" practice or custom of the city might in fact have deprived decedent of his constitutional rights."

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, January 23, 2008
Shakur v. Schriro, No. 05-16705
"In an action alleging prison officials violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, the Free Exercise Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause by denying a Muslim inmate’s request for a religious dietary accommodation, summary judgment for defendants is reversed and remanded where: 1) for purposes of a free exercise claim, the district court made insufficient findings with respect to certain factors of the Turner analysis; 2) on the RLUIPA claim, summary judgment was inappropriate as there was a factual dispute as to the extent of the burden on plaintiff's religious activities, the extent of the burden that would be created by accommodating his request, and the existence of less restrictive alternatives; and 3) the district court applied the wrong standard of review on an Equal Protection claim, and the identified penalogical interest was insufficient for summary judgment."

U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, January 23, 2008
Clark v. Edmunds, No. 07-4029
"In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action alleging that defendant-sheriff used excessive and unreasonable force against her in the course of taking her adult daughter into protective custody, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) no Fourth Amendment seizure of plaintiff occurred; 2) for purposes of a substantive due process claim, plaintiff could not establish that the sheriff's conduct shocked the conscience; 3) thus, plaintiff could not show the violation of a constitutional right and sheriff was entitled to qualified immunity; and 4) the district court correctly dismissed other claims.".

U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, January 23, 2008
Jenkins v. Currier, No. 07-6113
"In a state prisoner's 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action alleging state officials violated his constitutional rights and state law when they took him into custody without a warrant or a probable cause hearing and transferred him to a correctional facility in order for him to serve his previously imposed sentences, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) his erroneous release from federal custody onto the street did not destroy Oklahoma's claim to legal custody over him, as he was subject to an unfinished sentence; and 2) state authorities had sufficient basis for his seizure and no warrant was necessary to take him into physical custody."

Illinois Supreme Court, January 25, 2008
"The Vill. of Mundelein, v. Wisconsin Cent. R.R., No. 103543
In the matter of a Wisconsin Central Railroad train that blocked a railroad crossing in the Village of Mundelein for over two and a half hours, finding of an ordinance violation and imposition of a $14,000 fine are reversed where the ordinance is preempted by federal railroad law."

Illinois Supreme Court, January 25, 2008
"Eagle Marine Indus. Inc. v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., No. 102462
Injunction prohibiting defendant railroad from blocking a certain railroad crossing for more than 10 minutes should not have been issued and the matter is remanded with direction to dissolve the injunction where the ordinance relied upon to issue the injunction violates the commerce clause, is preempted by federal railroad law, and is unenforceable."

California Appellate Districts, January 24, 2008
"County of L.A. v. Superior Ct. of L.A. County, No. B198118
In class action complaints against the County of Los Angeles alleging that the county imposed new utility user taxes without prior approval by the voters as required by law, and also raising a related equal protection claim, county's petition for a writ of mandate challenging certification of a class in the matter is denied as: 1) the rule from City of San Jose v. Superior Court, 12 Cal.3d 447 (1974), governs tax refund claims under Government Code section 910 absent a specific tax refund statute; 2) class claims are permissible under section 910; and 3) the county's claims ordinance is inapplicable. The court rejects the language in other Court of Appeal opinions stating that class action claims are not allowed in any tax refund litigation."