Criminal Law Library Blog

March 17, 2008 - March 21, 2008

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. Supreme Court, March 18, 2008
Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, No. 06-713, 06-730
Contrary to the Ninth Circuit's holding below, a 2004 initiative passed by Washington voters changing the state's primary election system is facially constitutional. The initiative, I-872, provided that: 1) candidates must be identified on the primary ballot by their self-designated party preference; 2) voters may vote for any candidate; and 3) the two top votegetters for each office, regardless of party preference, advance to the general election.

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, March 21, 2008
Damon v. Moore, No. 07-1365
In a defamation suit against Michael Moore for non-consensual use of an interview conducted for NBC Nightly News in Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" documentary film, dismissal of plaintiff's defamation claims is affirmed where plaintiff's appearance in the documentary was not reasonably susceptible of a defamatory meaning or interpretation under Massachusetts state law.

U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, March 20, 2008
Almontaser v. NY Dep't of Educ., No. 07-5648
Denial of an application for a preliminary injunction based on constitutional claims against a city Department of Education in rejecting plaintiff's application for a NYC public school principal position is affirmed where district court did not abuse its discretion in denying application for injunctive relief.

U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, March 21, 2008
Rweyemamu v. Cote, No. 06-1041
In a Title VII suit instituted by a Catholic priest against a bishop and a diocese alleging racial discrimination in a denial of a promotion and tyhe termination of his employment, dismissal of the complaint for lack of jurisdiction is affirmed where: 1) Hankins v. Lyght, 441 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2006), is deemed inapplicable due to defendants' explicit waiver of any defense based on a violation of Religious Freedom Restoration Act; and 2) Title VII is unconstitutional as applied to the case as the nature of plaintiff's employment as an ordained priest precluded his claims against the defendant under the ministerial exception.

U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, March 17, 2008
People Against Police Violence v. City of Pittsburgh, No. 06-4457
In a lawsuit to challenging the constitutionality of Pittsburgh's ordinance regulating expressive activities in public forums, an order awarding attorneys' fees to plaintiffs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1988(b) is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs in this case were the "prevailing party" by virtue of achieving relief on the merits of their claims in the form of a preliminary injunction, even though they did not secure a final judgment in their favor; and 2) the fee awarded was reasonable. Relief on the merits achieved in the form of a preliminary injunction can, under appropriate circumstances, confer "prevailing party" status.

U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, March 18, 2008
Carter v. Burns, No. 07-5942
Dismissal of pro se prisoner's civil rights action against fourteen judges and justices of various Tennessee courts in their official capacities is affirmed in part and vacated in part where: 1) contrary to the ruling below, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not apply to plaintiff's facial constitutional challenge to Tennessee statutes governing collateral review; but 2) an as-applied challenge was barred under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.

U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, March 21, 2008
King v. Ambs, No. 06-2054
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action arising from plaintiff's arrest after he repeatedly told another individual not to talk to defendant-officer, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) because defendant had probable cause to arrest plaintiff for disorderly conduct, he did not violate plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights; 2) summary judgment was proper on a First Amendment claim that plaintiff was arrested for constitutionally protected speech, as his speech was not protected; and 3) even if a constitutional violation had been established, such right would not have been clearly established. .

U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, March 17, 2008
Entm't Software Ass'n v. Swanson , No. 06-3217
Grant of a permanent injunction against the enforcement of a Minnesota law that prohibits minors from purchasing or renting video games bearing a "Mature" or "Adult Only" rating is affirmed where, under the exacting standard of proof established for cases of this nature, there was no error in finding inadequate the state's evidence regarding a causal relationship between the exposure to such violence in video games and minors' subsequent psychological dysfunction.

U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, March 21, 2008
Dimaio v. Democratic Nat'l Comm. , No. 07-14816
In a declaratory judgment action instituted by an individual alleging that the Democratic National Committee's announced refusal to seat Florida's Democratic delegation at its National Convention would violate his Constitutional rights, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed, vacated, and remanded in part where: 1) plaintiff's complaint was properly dismissed for a lack of standing under the Lujan Test; but 2) the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the substantive questions presented by the case. .

California Appellate Districts, March 20, 2008
People v. McKey, No. D050554
An order involuntarily committing defendant after jury found him to be a sexually violate predator (SVP) within the meaning of Sexually Violent Predators Act is affirmed over claims that the order should be reversed because: 1) his indeterminate commitment pursuant to the Act violated his federal constitutional rights to due process of law, against ex post facto laws, and to equal protection under the law; 2) the evidence was insufficient to support the finding he is an SVP; and 3) the trial court erred by refusing his proposed modification of a jury instruction. .