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.

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, February 08, 2008
Evans v. Thompson, No. 07-1014
"Denial of a petition for federal habeas relief is affirmed over petitioner's arguments that: 1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel during his state trial for murder; 2) the revised 28 U.S.C. section 2254(d)(1) violates Article III, the separation of powers, and the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution because it restricts the capacity of federal judges to reach independent decisions and limits the sources of law on which they may rely; and 3) the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act so narrows the availability of habeas relief for state prisoners as to effectively suspend habeas in violation of the Suspension Clause.".

U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, February 06, 2008
Ruotolo v. City of New York, No. 06-3886
"In case where police officer claims he was subjected to retaliation in violation of his First Amendment rights for writing a report about health concerns at his precinct, and filing a lawsuit that challenged personnel action taken against him in the wake of that report, dismissal of action is affirmed where the suit did not address a matter of public concern."

U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, February 05, 2008
Phillips v. County of Allegheny, No. 06-2869
"In an action against various defendants for violations of 42 U.S.C. section 1983 and state law, arising from a former 911 dispatcher's improper use of his job facilities to track down and kill his ex-girlfriend and her boyfriend, plaintiff's son, dismissal of the claims is reversed in part and the matter remanded with instructions to permit plaintiff an opportunity to amend certain state-created danger and equal protection claims, as the district court erred in various respects at the pleading stage."

U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, February 05, 2008
Gary v. Braddock Cemetery, No. 06-3469
"In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action brought by plaintiffs, owners of burial plots, against a cemetery and other defendants alleging their actions resulted in an unconstitutional "taking" of their "support estates", dismissal of plaintiffs' claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is affirmed, but the matter is remanded for the district court to rule on defendants' Rule 11 motion for sanctions, which should have been done prior to entry of final judgment."

U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, February 06, 2008
"729, Inc. v. Kenton County Fiscal Court, No. 06-6390
In a suit challenging the constitutionality of a county's licensing ordinance that comprehensively regulates sexually oriented businesses within the county's jurisdiction, summary judgment for the county is affirmed for the most part, but vacated in part and remanded as to a claim that the ordinance's license fees are excessive, content-based taxes that violate the First Amendment."

U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, February 04, 2008
Patel v. US Bureau of Prisons, No. 06-3819
"In a suit against the United States Bureau of Prisons and certain prison officials at a federal correctional facility alleging they violated his right to practice his religion by failing to provide him with appropriate meals in compliance with his beliefs as a Muslim, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed as plaintiff failed to establish any constitutional or statutory violations."

U.S. Fed. Circuit Court of Appeals, February 05, 2008
Bair v. US, No. 2007-5049
"In a case involving a takings claim arising from the Commodity Credit Corporation's enforcement of its super-priority lien interest in sugar produced from sugar beets under 7 U.S.C. section 7284(d) (2000), summary judgment against beet growers whose state-law liens on the sugar were rendered valueless by the lien's enforcement is affirmed where the Court of Federal Claims correctly determined that there was no taking.".

Illinois Supreme Court, February 07, 2008
"Imperial Apparel Ltd. v. Cosmo's Designer Direct, Inc., No. 103331
In a defamation complaint arising from the publication of a menswear store advertisement, the circuit court's dismissal of the complaint with prejudice is affirmed where the ad, although distasteful, was protected by the first amendment because it could not reasonably be interpreted as stating facts.".

California Appellate Districts, February 06, 2008
Krinsky v. Doe 6, No. H030767
"In case involving an anonymous message board participant's scathing verbal attacks on plaintiff, a corporate officer of a Florida company, and where plaintiff served a subpoena on Yahoo! to discover identities of anonymous participants, denial anonymous participant's motion to quash the subpoena is reversed as he has a First Amendment right to speak anonymously on the Internet and his identity should be protected."

California Appellate Districts, February 07, 2008
L.A. v. 2000 Jeep Cherokee, No. B185673
"In case where defendant's vehicle was seized, and forfeiture proceedings initiated after he was arrested for soliciting prostitution, judgment and award of attorney's fees for defendant against city is affirmed as the ordinance under which the vehicle was forfeited was preempted by state law, and the attorney's fees award was proper based on O'Connell v. City of Stockton, 41 Cal.4th 1061 (2007)."