Findlaw Case Summaries: Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals 2

To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com. All summaries are produced by Findlaw.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, IMMIGRATION LAW Diallo v. US Dept. of Justice, No. 073649 Petition for review of decision denying native citizen of Guinea asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), is granted where: 1) given the presence of errors in the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision as to issues that were properly exhausted and the plausibility of other newly claimed errors, remand to the BIA would not have been futile; and 2) there were sufficient exhausted flaws in the reasoning of the Immigration Judge’s adverse credibility determination to warrant a remand, and the court could not confidently predict the same outcome if there were further agency reconsideration. Read more…

CIVIL PROCEDURE, CLASS ACTIONS, GOVERNMENT LAW, INSURANCE LAW Shady Grove Orthopedic Assoc. v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 070141 In a class action claim for statutory penalties under section 5106(a) of New York insurance law against defendant-Allstate Insurance Company, grant of motion to dismiss is affirmed where: 1) section 901(b) of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules may be applied in a federal court sitting in diversity jurisdiction and adjudicating claims under state law; and 2) section 5016(a) did not fall within the exception clause of section 901(b).

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, GOVERNMENT LAW, INTERNATIONAL LAW In re Terrorist Bombings of U.S. Embassies in East Africa (Fifth Amendment Challenges), No. 011535, 011550, 011553, 011571, 056149, 056704 Judgments of convictions for offenses arising from involvement in an international conspiracy, led by Osama Bin Laden and organized through the al Qaeda terrorist network, to kill American citizens and destroy American facilities across the globe are affirmed where: 1) the inculpatory statements of defendants that were obtained overseas by U.S. agents were properly admitted at trial; 2) the district court did not violate defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel by permitting him to withdraw his initial suppression motion on religious grounds; 3) on a motion to reopen a suppression hearing, there was no bright-line rule that necessarily and invariably required the government to provide a reasonable justification for its failure to offer relevant evidence at an earlier suppression proceeding; and 4) the district court did not abuse its discretion by reopening a suppression hearing at the government’s request, notwithstanding the government’s failure to provide a reasonable justification for not offering the evidence at an earlier proceeding because no such justification was required in all cases. .

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, INTERNATIONAL LAW, SENTENCING In reTerrorist Bombings of U.S. Embassies in East Africa, No. 011535, 011550, 011553, 011571, 056149, 056704 Judgments of convictions for offenses arising from involvement in an international conspiracy, led by Osama Bin Laden and organized through the al Qaeda terrorist network, to kill American citizens and destroy American facilities across the globe are affirmed and remanded for re-sentencing where: 1) the indictment was sufficient to support a conviction of a capital offense; 2) sufficient evidence supported the convictions; 3) the District Court’s application of the Classified Information Procedures Act did not violate the Constitution; 4) a severance motion was properly denied; 5) statements of co-defendants, co-conspirators, and certain third parties were properly admitted at trial; 6) the government withheld exculpatory evidence; 7) there was no merit in co-defendant’s suggestion that “cumulative error” deprived him of a fair trial; and 8) the application of certain enhancements to co-defendant’s sentencing guidelines calculation was not in error. Insofar as co-defendant’s sentence resulted from the mandatory application of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, he is entitled to be resentenced pursuant to U.S. v. Fagans, 406 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2005).

CIVIL PROCEDURE, DISPUTE RESOLUTION & ARBITRATION, INSURANCE LAW Life Receivables Trust v. Syndicate 102 at Lloyd’s of London, No. 071197 In a matter concerning life insurance, grant of defendant’s motion to enforce a subpoena issued by by arbitration panel is reversed where section 7 of the Federal Arbitration Act does not enable arbitrators to issue pre-hearing document subpoenas to entities not parties to the arbitration proceedings
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, MEDIA LAW Associated Press v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, No. 071384 In a matter brought by Associated Press for denial of request for any petitions seeking to reduce a twenty-two year prison sentence of John Walker Lindh, convicted of aiding the Taliban in Afghanistan, dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint under the Freedom of Information Act and grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant are affirmed where: 1) a significant privacy interest is implicated in release of Lindh’s petition; 2) plaintiff failed to show that release of the information would shed light on the workings of government; and thus 3) district court did not err in holding the petition exempt from disclosure under FOIA Exemptions 6 and 7(C).

Contact Information