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 26, 2008
"R" Best Produce, Inc. v. DiSapio, No. 070954
In a contract dispute brought under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act of 1930 (PACA) regarding the sale of fruits and vegetables, order denying reconsideration is vacated and remanded where the appellant's claim that the default judgment should have been vacated for lack of personal jurisdiction raises unresolved factual errors.

U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, August 26, 2008
Pinto-Montoya v. Mukasey, No. 05-6541
Petition to review decision affirming removal to Guatemala is denied where the petitioners' contact with plainclothes immigration officials did not constitute a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment and accordingly, their statements were properly admitted. .

U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, August 28, 2008
US v. Stein, No. 073042
Dismissal of indictment of thirteen former partners of the accounting firm KPMG for creating fraudulent tax shelters is affirmed where: 1) the government deprived defendants of their right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment by causing KPMG to place conditions on the advancement of legal fees to defendants, and to cap the fees and ultimately end them; 2) the government failed to cure the Sixth Amendment violation; and 3) no other remedy will return defendants to the status quo ante

U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, August 25, 2008
Lombardo v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Dept. of Pub. Welfare, No. 06-4628
In an employment-discrimination suit against a state agency, denial of a motion to dismiss is reversed where: 1) by voluntarily removing the matter from state to federal court, the state had waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in a federal forum; but 2) a removing state retains all defenses it would have enjoyed had the matter been litigated in state court, including immunity from liability.

U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, August 27, 2008
Ramirez v. Knoulton, No. 07-50785
In a suit alleging excessive force by defendant-police officer for shooting plaintiff during his arrest, denial of summary judgment to defendant is reversed where defendant acted reasonably in deciding to use deadly force, and no constitutional violation therefore occurred.

U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, August 29, 2008
US v. Childs, No. 071495, 071597
Convictions for conspiracy to commit murder for hire resulting death are affirmed over claims that the district court erred by: 1) denying defendant's Rule 29 motion for acquittal; 2) allowing witness to testify to an out-of-court statement made by indicted co-conspirator; 3) requiring one defendant to testify under a statutory grant of use immunity at his co-defendant's trial; 4) failing to order one defendant, over his attorney's objections, to submit to a pre-testimony interview by other defendant's attorney; and 5) denying one defendant's mistrial motion based on the government’s allegedly improper questioning of him at trial in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, August 26, 2008
Argyropoulos v. City of Alton , No. 07-1903
In a suit alleging sexual harassment, retaliation, and 42 U.S.C. section 1983 violations for city's termination of plaintiff-city employee, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's illegal eavesdropping on her supervisors was not a protected activity for purposes of her retaliation claim; 2) plaintiff produced no other evidence that she engaged in a protected activity and was terminated as a result; 3) plaintiff produced no evidence under the indirect method of proof that she was performing her job in a satisfactory manner, or that she was treated differently from similarly-situated employees; 4) plaintiff could not rebut defendant's proffered, non-discriminatory reason for terminating her; and 5) plaintiff waived her other arguments on appeal.

U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, August 26, 2008
Wisconsin Cent., Ltd. v. Shannon , No. 07-3554
In a suit by a railroad seeking a declaratory judgment that state overtime provisions were preempted by federal law, summary judgment for plaintiff and determination that federal law preempted the state statute are affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's claim that the state labor agency's investigation and enforcement of state overtime law was preempted by the federal Railway Labor Act was not ripe for consideration; and 2) field preemption applied in light of the comprehensive federal regulation of the railways.

U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, August 26, 2008
Martinez v. City of St. Louis, No. 06-3554
In a suit brought by unsuccessful white applicants for entry level firefighter positions alleging they were victims of unlawful reverse racial discrimination during the St. Louis Fire Department's hiring processes, summary judgment and awards in favor of plaintiffs are reversed and remanded where: 1) the district court ruled that the prior consent decree was constitutionally entered, thus the city had to comply with a 50% black-applicant hiring requirement until the dissolution of the decree; and 2) dissolution of the decree alone does not establish that the city's post-dissolution hiring decisions were the product of intentional race discrimination or adversely affected plaintiffs.

U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, August 27, 2008
Kozisek v. Couty of Seward, No. 07-3682
In an employment discrimination and civil rights case, summary judgment for defendants-county and county board chairman is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case under the Americans with Disability Act; 2) for purposes of a First Amendment claim, plaintiff's speech was not protected, and regardless, he failed to show a connection between his speech and his termination; and 3) a due process claim failed.

U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, August 29, 2008
Straights and Gays of Equality v. Osseo Area Schools, No. 073576
In a claim by plaintiff student organization for issuance of permanent injunction that provides plaintiff organization with the same access to meetings, avenues of communication, and other miscellaneous rights that are afforded to defendant-school's student groups classified as "curricular", grant of partial summary judgment and issuance of permanent injunction for plaintiff is affirmed where defendant does not provide equal access to available avenues of communication as provided to other noncurriculum related groups.

U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, August 29, 2008
Neighborhood Enters., Inc. v. City of St. Louis, No. 073673
In an action arising out of a municipal sign ordinance, grant of defendant's motion to dismiss is reversed and remanded where district court's summary dismissal of all the plaintiffs' claims based on the defendants' absence of authority missed the gravamen of plaintiffs' section 1983 claim, that defendants' purported exercise of authority infringed upon their constitutional rights.

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, August 25, 2008
United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., No. 05-75295, 05-76217, 05-77116
Six restrictions on expressive activity promulgated and enforced by two California shopping malls infringe on the free speech rights guaranteed by the California State Constitution, and therefore interfere with protected union activity in violation of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) when applied to union picketing and handbilling actions.

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, August 26, 2008
Torres v. City of Los Angeles, No. 06-55817
In a civil rights action against the City of Los Angeles, the LAPD, and four detectives arising from plaintiff's arrest on murder charges and 162 days of incarceration prior to his release, rulings in favor of defendants are affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) dismissal of plaintiffs' case against one detective and of plaintiffs section 1983 claim against another detective was proper; but 2) judgment as a matter of law as to two detectives was error; and 3) the district court erred in part as to its denial of plaintiffs' in limine motions.

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, August 27, 2008
Mendez v. County of San Bernardino, No. 05-56118, 06-56424, 07-56029
In a suit against a city, county, sheriff's department and various individual defendants under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 arising from the aftermath of an officer-involved shooting that resulted in the death of plaintiff's deaf-mute son, various rulings against plaintiff before and after she prevailed in a jury trial are affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) there was no error as to jury instruction on plaintiff's emotional damages; 2) reduction of the punitive damages award was proper as it was excessive as a matter of due process; 3) summary judgment on a state law negligent training claim was proper; 4) an order denying plaintiff all fees and costs required vacatur and a remand for a determination of a reasonable award; 5) a sanctions order had to be vacated where the district court did not make a requisite bad faith finding; and 6) reassignment to a different judge was not warranted.

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, August 27, 2008
Byrd v. Dressel, No. 06-35665
In an action brought by a group of homeowners and community organizations seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against a city, employees, and developers who remodel and convert private homes into student residences, a judgment against plaintiffs is affirmed where: 1) case precedent does not categorically preclude due process challenges to impermissible governmental action that deprives a person of real property; 2) however, under ordinary Due Process Clause jurisprudence, plaintiff failed to state a claim, notwithstanding it's understandable concerns about the aesthetics and ambiance of the neighborhood; and 3) claims under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and defendant-city's municipal code also failed.

U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, August 28, 2008
Turner v. Burnside , No. 0600293
In inmate-plaintiff's claim against prison officials for cruel and unusual punishment as a result of an incident in which plaintiff was deliberately exposed to electrical shock, dismissal of complaint is vacated and remanded where a prison official’s serious threats of substantial retaliation against an inmate for lodging in good faith a grievance make the administrative remedy "unavailable," and thus lift PLRA's requirement to exhaust available administrative remedies.

Supreme Court of Florida, August 28, 2008
Lawnwood Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Seeger, No. SC07-1300
On mandatory review in a declaratory judgment action, judgment that the St. Lucie Hospital Governance Law (HGL) violated the Florida Constitution is affirmed where: 1) the constitution prohibited special laws granting rights, benefits, and advantages to a corporation, and the term "privilege" was not limited to economic benefit or favoritism; 2) the HGL granted to plaintiff-hospital almost absolute power in running the affairs of the hospital, without meaningful regard for the existing medical staff bylaws, and this constituted a "privilege" under the meaning of the constitutional provision; and 3) the unconstitutional provisions of the law were not severable.

California Appellate Districts, August 26, 2008
Kreutzer v. City and County of San Francisco, No. A116389
Judgment ordering employer to reinstate a former exempt employee into a non-exempt position is reversed where: 1) a government employee hired into a position expressly classified as exempt from civil service is not entitled to the protections of the civil service system upon the employee's release from the position, even if a court finds that, based on the duties of the position, it should not have been classified as exempt; and 2) when a government employee is released from employment for reasons characterized only as non-disciplinary, and not otherwise publicly disclosed, the employee's liberty interest in reputation has not been infringed, and the employee is entitled to no relief.

California Appellate Districts, August 28, 2008
Action Apt. Assoc. v. City of Santa Monica, No. B201176
In plaintiff's challenge to Ordinance No. 2191, which modified existing requirements on multi-family housing construction, judgment dismissing plaintiff's claims is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's facial Constitutional claims are without merit; 2) the two pronged Nollan/Dolan test does not apply to plaintiff's facial challenge to the Ordinance; and 3) there is no merit to plaintiff's argument the Ordinance required state approval