Criminal Law Library Blog

March 3 - 7, 2007:

U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, March 04, 2008
Mora v. City of Gaithersburg , No. 06-2158

I"n civil rights action alleging unlawful searches and seizures and unlawful continued retention of plaintiff's weapons, dismissal with prejudice of federal claims, and dismissal without prejudice of state claims, are affirmed over plaintiff's claims that: 1) police searches of his luggage, van, and apartment violated his Fourth Amendment rights; 2) the initial seizures of his guns, ammunition, firearms accessories, and survival literature violated his Fourth Amendment rights; and 3) the retention of his guns and ammunition violates his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights."

U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, March 05, 2008
Laurel Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Wilson, No. 07-1046

"In suit brought by mining corporation challenging the constitutionality of the Maryland Surface Mine Dewatering Act, dismissal of suit is affirmed where plaintiff raised and adjudicated the same claims in a state court proceeding and failed to exhaust its administrative remedies before filing suit in federal court."

U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, March 05, 2008
Citizens for Tax Reform v. Deters, No. 07-3031

"In a constitutional challenge arising after Ohio, in order to reduce fraudulent signatures, enacted a provision making it a felony to pay anyone for gathering signatures on election-related petitions on any basis other than the time worked, summary judgment against Ohio is affirmed as the provision runs afoul of the First Amendment because it creates a significant burden on a core political speech right that is not narrowly tailored. "

U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, March 04, 2008
Executive Air Taxi Corp. v. City of Bismarck, No. 06-3586

"In an action brought by a provider of commercial aeronautical services raising equal protection and substantive due process claims related to its activities at a municipal airport, summary judgment and various discovery rulings in favor of defendants are affirmed where: 1) for purposes of an equal protection claim, any difference in "standards" applied to the various entities at issue was rationally grounded in defendant-city's legitimate interest in setting different terms for parties that served different functions at different times, or in protecting the city's sources of airport revenue; 2) a substantive due process claim failed for the same reasons; 3) there was no abuse of discretion in declining to order a forensic analysis of a computer; and 4) a discovery dispute concerning damages was moot. Rejection of defendants' counterclaim for breach of contract and a motion for sanctions is affirmed on cross-appeal as: 1) the city waived its right to object to fifteen years o! f uninterrupted behavior by plaintiff under the contract; and 2) there was no abuse of discretion in denying sanctions."

U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, March 04, 2008
Brown v. Fortner, No. 06-3743

"In a former inmate's 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit against, inter alia, defendants-correctional officers alleging they acted with deliberate indifference by failing to provide him safe transportation in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights, denial of summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) there was jurisdiction for the appeal; 2) plaintiff presented sufficient evidence that a defendant's actions, including a rejection of plaintiff's request for a seatbelt while he was restrained in a manner that prevented him from securing his own seatbelt, driving recklessly, and ignoring requests to slow down, may have violated the Eighth Amendment; 3) plaintiff's right was clearly established; but 4) other defendant who was driving a different van that caused an accident, was entitled to qualified immunity as the evidence was insufficient to establish his deliberate indifference, as opposed to simply reckless driving."

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, March 04, 2008
In re: Copley Press, Inc., No. 07-72143

"In proceedings involving the unsealing of documents relating to individuals who ran a drug cartel in Mexico, an order unsealing the transcript of a plea colloquy, a plea agreement's "cooperation addendum", and the documents supporting a motion to seal the plea proceedings is affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded where: 1) the public has no right of access to certain documents; 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in unsealing portions of the documents that describe defendant's cooperation; but 3) the district court did abuse its discretion in unsealing portions that describe other people in danger."

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, March 06, 2008
Manufactured Home Cmtys. Inc. v. County of San Diego, No. 05-56401, 05-56559

"Dismissal rulings, grant of a motion to strike under the California anti-SLAPP law, and an award of attorney's fees for defendants are reversed in part where, contrary to the ruling below, certain of county supervisor's hostile public statements directed at a company owning and managing several local mobile home parks were actionable."

U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, March 04, 2008
Bates v. Harvey, No. 07-10570

"In civil rights action alleging false arrest after entering plaintiff's home without a warrant to search for the subject of a civil commitment order, denial of summary judgment is reversed where, although defendant deprived plaintiff of her constitutional rights, he is nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity as at the time defendant acted, the law did not give a reasonable officer fair and clear warning that a civil commitment order does not present circumstances sufficiently exigent to excuse the warrantless entry and search of an unrelated third party's home."

Supreme Court of Florida, March 06, 2008
Florida Hosp. Waterman, Inc. v. Buster, No. SC06-688, SC06-912

"Article X, section 25 of the Florida Constitution, a ballot initiative passed by voters in 2004 and known as amendment 7, the Patients' Right to Know About Adverse Medical Incidents, is self-executing and retroactive and its provisions apply to records existing prior to its passage. However, various subsections of Florida Statutes section 381.028 (2005) conflict with amendment 7 and are therefore unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court of Florida severs those provisions and finds that the remainder of the statute is valid."

Supreme Court of Florida, March 06, 2008
Carrin v. State of Florida, No. SC04-1251

"The petition for review in the case at hand is granted, the decision under review is quashed, and the matter is remanded to the First District Court for reconsideration upon application of the Florida Supreme Court's decision in State v. Sigler, 967 So. 2d 835, 845 (Fla. 2007), which held Florida Statutes section 924.34 (2001) unconstitutional 'to the extent that it can be read to allow the appellate court to direct entry of judgment for a lesser-included offense when all of the elements of the lesser-included offense have not been found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.' "

California Appellate Districts, March 06, 2008
Cal. Back Specialists Med. Group v. Rand, No. B198455

"Denial of special motion to strike complaint as a SLAPP suit is affirmed over claims that: 1) the complaint arose from protected activity; 2) plaintiffs did not establish a probability of prevailing; and 3) the court's award of attorney's fees to plaintiffs was unauthorized."