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. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, August 22, 2008
Price v. New York State Bd. of Elections, No. 07-5367
In a challenge to state law prohibiting the use of absentee ballots in elections for county committee members brought under the First Amendment, grant of summary judgment for defendant state board of elections is reversed where: 1) the arguments proffered by the State are so extraordinarily weak that they cannot justify the burdens imposed by Election Law section 7-122; and 2) the district court therefore erred in granting defendants' motion to dismiss and in denying plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.

U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, August 19, 2008
Fellner v. Tri-Union Seafoods, L.L.C., No. 07-1238
In a class-action suit alleging injury caused by methylmercury and other harmful compounds in defendant's canned tuna products, grant of a motion to dismiss is reversed and remanded where: 1) the FDA had not enacted a pervasive regulatory scheme regarding mercury in tuna that would preempt plaintiff's state-law claims; 2) the FDA's decision not to require warning labels on tuna was not a conclusive determination preempting a state failure-to-warn claim; and 3) the FDA had not expressly rejected mercury warnings as misbranding under federal law.

U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, August 21, 2008
Combs v. Homer-Center Sch. Dist. , No. 06-3090
In a suit by parents who home-school their children seeking declaratory relief and a permanent injunction to prohibit the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania from requiring plaintiffs to comply with reporting and review requirements, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the challenged statute was a neutral law of general applicability, subject to rational basis review, and was constitutional as it rationally furthered legitimate state interests; 2) plaintiffs did not assert a valid "hybrid-rights" claim under which, as a potential violation of both free-exercise rights and the parental right to direct a child's education, the law might be subject to greater scrutiny; 3) plaintiffs' claims did not fall under the narrow exception of Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), requiring heightened scrutiny when parents challenge compulsory-education laws on religious grounds; and 4) having disposed of all federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisd! iction over state-law claims under the Religious Freedom Protection Act.

U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, August 20, 2008
Barr v. Lafon, No. 07-5743
In an action brought by high school students in Tennessee desiring to express their southern heritage by wearing clothing depicting the Confederate flag at school and raising First Amendment, Equal Protection Clause, and Due Process Clause claims, summary judgment for defendants-principal and other officials is affirmed where: 1) the school reasonably forecasted that images of the Confederate flag would substantially and materially disrupt the school environment; 2) the dress code's ban on racially divisive symbols, as enforced against the Confederate flag, is narrowly tailored to a substantial government interest; and 3) plaintiffs forfeited their due process claim.

U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, August 22, 2008
Phelps-Roper v. Strickland, No. 07-3600
A provision of Ohio Rev. Code section 3767.30, which prohibits "picketing" or "other protest activities," within 300 feet of the funeral or burial service, from one hour before until one hour after the funeral or burial service, is a reasonable, content-neutral regulation of the time, place, and manner of speech.

U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, August 22, 2008
Madison v. Frazier, No. 07-1944
In a suit alleging libel and false light for defendant-author's allegedly defamatory portrayal of plaintiff-NAACP officer in a book criticizing local police and the NAACP, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) no evidence demonstrated that a "fantasy sequence" in the book was more than non-actionable rhetorical hyperbole; 2) speculations contained in one chapter were not factual assertions but constitutionally-protected opinions; 3) plaintiff's reference to defendant as a "liar" was defamatory per se, but defendant, a public figure, failed to produce evidence to demonstrate that the statement was made with actual malice; and 4) the false-light claim necessarily failed in the absence of a valid per se defamation claim. .

U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, August 18, 2008
Alternate Fuels, Inc. v. Cabanas, No. 06-3794, 07-1462
In an action against Missouri Department of Natural Resources officials claiming denial of equal protection, tortious interference with contract, and First Amendment retaliation, partial summary judgment for defendant on the First Amendment claim and judgment pursuant to jury verdict for plaintiff on the tortious-interference claim are affirmed where: 1) plaintiff had no standing to assert the First Amendment claim; 2) defendant's motions for judgment as a matter of law could not be the basis of an appeal; 3) the district court properly refused defendant's "official duties" and "official immunity" instructions; and 4) the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over the tortious-interference claim.

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, August 22, 2008
Bull v. City & County of San Francisco, No. 05-17080, 06-15566
An order denying qualified immunity in an 42 U.S.C. section 1983 class action suit is affirmed where, under the circumstances of this case, San Francisco's blanket policy of strip searching without reasonable suspicion of all individuals arrested and classified for housing in the general jail population violated the arrestees' clearly established constitutional rights.

U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, August 22, 2008
US v. Diaz, No. 06-13782
Conviction for armed bank robbery, use of a firearm during a crime of violence, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon is vacated and remanded where defendant did not knowingly waive his right to a jury trial.

U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, August 22, 2008
Danley v. Allen , No. 07-12328
In claim against jailers at county detention center for excessive force and deliberate indifference in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, denial of defendants' motions to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff has established the necessary causal connection to hold defendants liable in their supervisory capacities; and 2)"there is no room for qualified immunity" in Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment excessive force cases because they require a subjective element that is "so extreme" that no reasonable person could believe that his actions were lawful.

U.S. D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, August 22, 2008
Free Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Accounting Oversight Bd. , No. 07-5127
In a facial challenge to the constitutionality of Title I of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, asserting that it violates the Appointments Clause and separation of powers because it does not permit adequate presidential control of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) Sarbanes-Oxley does not encroach upon the appointment power because, in view of the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) comprehensive control of the Board, Board members are subject to direction and supervision of the SEC and thus are inferior officers not required to be appointed by the President; and 2) the for-cause limitations on the SEC's power to remove Board members and the President's power to remove Commissioners do not strip the President of sufficient power to influence the Board, and thus do not contravene separation of powers. ..

Supreme Court of California, August 18, 2008
N. Coast Women's Care Med. Group, Inc., No. S142892
The rights of religious freedom and free speech, as guaranteed in both the federal and the California Constitutions, do not exempt a medical clinic's physicians from complying with the California Unruh Civil Rights Act's prohibition against discrimination based on a person's sexual orientation. .

California Appellate Districts, August 19, 2008
Zumbrun Law Firm v. California Legislature, No. C054832
Denial of declaratory and injunctive relief for plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) the contract for the Capitol Park Safety and Security Improvement Project (Capitol Project) did not violate the separation of powers doctrine of article III, section 3 of the Constitution because the Legislature retains power necessary to its lawmaking functions, including the power to protect the safety and security of the Legislature; 2) the Legislature did not delegate this function to the Department of General Services when it created the Department to provide management and technical services for the state; and 3) the Legislature is not bound by the competitive bidding requirements of the State Contract Act, and the documents sought are exempt from discovery under LORA and the Constitution.