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, May 13, 2008
Cao v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, No. 07-1394
In an action wherein plaintiff sought recovery under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 for alleged constitutional violations along with several state law causes of action after she was removed from her home, made to undergo a psychological evaluation, and placed in a state institution for the elderly, dismissal of plaintiff's complaint is affirmed where: 1) the district court properly dismissed plaintiff's section 1983 claim as untimely; and 2) with no federal cause of action remaining, the district court acted within its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims.

U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 14, 2008
Stroman Realty, Inc. v. Davi, No. 05-20803
An order enjoining California and Florida from applying their licensing and regulatory requirements on a Texas-based real estate broker is reversed and dismissed where: 1) personal jurisdiction over California did not arise from merely having sent cease and desist orders to the Texas Real Estate Commission; and 2) personal jurisdiction over Florida did not arise from the state's contact with the Texas Attorney General's Office in order to obtain information on the plaintiff for a suit in Florida.

U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 14, 2008
Cruz v. State of Louisiana, No. 07-30501
Dismissal of state and federal claims of sexual discrimination against defendants is affirmed where dismissal of a federal claim due to plaintiff's failure to timely serve defendant prevented interruption of the prescriptive period in state courts against defendants from Louisiana.

U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 12, 2008
Harden-Bey v. Rutter, No. 06-1473
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action against several employees of the Michigan Department of Corrections challenging plaintiff's placement and continued confinement in administrative segregation, dismissal pursuant to section 1997e(c) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the district court erred in dismissing a due process claim on the ground that the duration of plaintiff's prison discipline, three years and counting, does not affect whether he has a protected liberty interest; but 2) he failed to state a cognizable cruel-and-unusual-punishment claim or a cognizable equal protection claim.

U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 14, 2008
Walker v. Sheahan, No. 07-2817
In a prisoner's action claiming excessive force, deprivation of access to medical care, and retaliation for exercising his constitutional rights, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where: 1) plaintiff failed to show the widespread practice of the use of excessive force; and 2) the court properly denied additional discovery requests by defendant. However, the case is reversed and remanded in part where: 1) the two year statute of limitations did not apply to some of the claims since the period is tolled while a prisoner completes the administrative grievance process; 2) there was sufficient evidence to support a claim of excessive force and inadequate access to medical care; 3) plaintiff's state law claims were not barred by the one year statute of limitations since defendants failed to raise it as a defense; and 4) summary judgment on a retaliation claims was improperly granted since plaintiff had no notice that the adequacy of his evidence was being challe! nged.

U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 14, 2008
Purtell v. Mason, No. 06-3176
In a civil rights action against a police officer claiming violations of free speech rights and lack of probable cause to make an arrest, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) for purposes of a Fourteenth Amendment claim, officer had probable cause to arrest plaintiff since his actions qualified as disorderly conduct under Illinois law; 2) tombstone inscriptions in a Halloween display were insulting, but they could not be considered "fighting words" under that doctrine; 3) although the display was protected speech, the officer's mistake about the scope of plaintiffs' constitutional right to ridicule their neighbors was one a reasonable officer might make; and 4) thus, officer was entitled to qualified immunity on the First Amendment claim.

U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 16, 2008
General Auto Serv. Station v. City of Chicago, No. 05-2515, 06-2672
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action against the City of Chicago over the removal of an advertising sign, judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) as plaintiff's predecessor failed to obtain certain requisite permits in the 1960s and 70s, the sign was not a legal land use that gave rise to a protected property interest; 2) absent such a vested property right, a substantive due process challenge to zoning ordinance amendments failed; 3) plaintiff failed to show how the First Amendment was implicated by the content-neutral provisions of a grandfather provision; and 4) a procedural due process claim was waived.

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 12, 2008
Taylor v. Westly, No. 07-16902, 07-17223
In long-running litigation involving the constitutionality of California's statutory procedure addressing escheat, grant of a motion to dissolve an injunction preventing the operation of California's escheat process is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) on its face, the state's new procedure complies with the due process standard previously established by the Supreme Court; 2) there was no abuse of discretion in dissolving the injunction; but 3) a denial of interim attorney's fees to plaintiffs was an abuse of discretion under the circumstances. ..

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 12, 2008
Jacobs v. Clark County Sch. Dist., No. 05-16434
In a case raising constitutional challenges to a public school district's mandatory dress policies or "school uniform policies," the circuit court rules that neither the school district's regulation, which created a standard dress code for all county students, nor the individual school uniform policies implemented thereunder violated plaintiffs' free speech, free exercise, or due process rights.

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 13, 2008
N. Pacifica LLC v. City of Pacifica, No. 05-16069
In an action brought by a developer against the city of Pacifica involving a proposed condominium project, dismissal of developer's substantive due process claim is affirmed, but an order holding city liable for an equal protection violation is reversed and the resultant damages awards vacated where: 1) the developer was not entitled to judgment on an equal protection claim, as the city did not intentionally treat it differently from any other developer; and 2) a due process claim should not be resurrected because developer did not allege any irrational delay in the city's approval of its permits.

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 13, 2008
Levine v. City of Alameda, No. 06-15480, 06-15481
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action brought by a city property manager against defendants-city and city manager alleging a due process violation stemming from his lay off, partial summary judgment for plaintiff and defendants is affirmed where the district court did not err in finding that: 1) plaintiff's procedural due process rights were violated and that he was entitled to a full evidentiary hearing before a neutral third-party; and 2) the city manager was not personally liable based on qualified immunity and the city was not liable as a municipality.

U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 16, 2008
Reese v. Herbert, No. 06-14231
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action for damages wherein plaintiff alleged various claims of police misconduct in arresting him, order denying plaintiff's motion to leave to file a second amended complaint and disallowing an expert witness affidavit is affirmed, but summary judgment for defendant on basis of qualified immunity is reversed where: 1) the additional utility extracted from reviewing defendants' records and consulting an expert did not justify plaintiff's delay in seeking leave to amend; 2) the expert affidavit was properly excluded, as plaintiff's failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 26 was both unjustified and harmful to the defendants; but 3) the district court erred by failing to review the full record on summary judgment and misapplied the legal standards for summary judgment. .

U.S. Fed. Circuit Court of Appeals, May 12, 2008
Mansfield v. Peake, No. 2007-7282
A decision determining the earliest effective date for claimant's award of VA benefits under 38 U.S.C. section 1151 is affirmed over claims of error regarding: 1) a determination that an earlier Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) claim did not constitute an informal claim for section 1151 benefits; and 2) whether a delay in processing the claim amounted to a denial of due process.

U.S. Fed. Circuit Court of Appeals, May 15, 2008
Huntleigh USA Corp. v. US, No. 2007-5118
In a company's action against the government alleging, inter alia, that the Aviation and Transportation Security Act's (ATSA) transfer of responsibility for passenger and baggage screening resulted in an unconstitutional taking of its property without just compensation, a judgment against plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff could not claim a taking since the ATSA did not regulate plaintiff directly but merely "frustrated" plaintiff's business expectations by reducing the demand for plaintiff's services; and 2) plaintiff was not entitled to compensation under ATSA section 101(g)(2) since it gives the government the power to assume the contracts but does not require it to do so.

Supreme Court of California, May 15, 2008
In re Marriage Cases, No. S147999
In an action challenging California's ban on gay marriage, the state Supreme Court rules that the California Constitution must be interpreted to guarantee the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples. The laws at issue are unconstitutional to the extent each statute reserves the designation of "marriage" exclusively to opposite-sex couples and denies same-sex couples access to that designation. The purpose underlying differential treatment of opposite-sex and same-sex couples embodied in California's current marriage statutes, the interest in retaining the traditional and well-established definition of marriage, is not a compelling state interest for purposes of the equal protection clause.

California Appellate Districts, May 12, 2008
Evans v. Evans, No. D051144
In an action brought by a deputy sheriff against his former wife and former mother-in-law alleging, inter alia, harassment, defamation, and breach of privacy, a preliminary injunction enjoining defendants from publishing certain statements about plaintiff on the internet and also from contacting plaintiff's employer other than calling 911 to report criminal conduct is reversed and remanded where the preliminary injunction was overbroad, vague, and an unconstitutional prior restraint before trial.

California Appellate Districts, May 14, 2008
People v. Johnson, No. D050751
In an appeal addressing constitutional issues concerning the Sexually Violent Predator Act, an order declaring defendant a sexually violent predator (SVP) is affirmed where: 1) defendant's claims of not being lawfully in custody at the time which the district attorney filed his SVP petition were unavailing; 2) neither the imposition of an indeterminate term of commitment, nor placing some burden on the SVP individual to petition for release, violated due process; 3) individuals found to be SPVs are not similarly situated to those committed by reason of mental disorder or insanity, and thus the same treatment is not required for purposes of equal protection analysis; and 4) the current version of the SVP Act is not punitive in nature, and thus, the principles of former jeopardy and ex post facto do not apply.