The following is an e-mail from Emily which mentions the work of the White House open government working group and includes a request for suggestions regarding specific types of information and datasets you would like to see agencies publish. Although Emily's e-mail is directed primarily to law librarians I am posting it here because of the value of this initiative to the entire legal community.
FROM: Emily Feldman
March 10, 2010
The White House’s open government working group has held several meetings with stakeholders, including AALL, to develop criteria to measure agency open government plans, which must be published by April 7. At a meeting last Friday, I was pleased to learn that the working group adopted Mary Alice’s suggestion that Executive Branch agencies be evaluated based in part on whether they commit in their plans to publish new information (e.g., reports and publications) on their Web sites, in addition to new high-value datasets in XML on Data.gov.
We’re looking for specific types of information and datasets that you’d like to see agencies publish. The working group is also very interested in any cross-agency datasets you’d like to see added to Data.gov (e.g., crime data from DOJ/DHS, health data from EPA/HHS).
Some of the suggestions we’ve received so far include:
· All historic content that agencies have digitized (presuming that agencies followed the Paperwork Reduction Act and didn’t make exclusive deals)
· All the legislative histories that have been digitized by the Department of Justice Library
· Dataset on "charges of discrimination" filed from the EEOC
Are there other information holdings or datasets that you’d like to see added? Please email me the title and name of the publishing agency by COB next Wednesday, March 17.
Thanks,
Emily
Emily Feldman
Advocacy Communications Assistant
American Association of Law Libraries
25 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 500
Washington, D.C. 20001
202-942-4233
Fax: 202-737-0480
efeldman@aall.org
http://www.aallnet.org/aallwash
103nd Annual Meeting & Conference / Denver, CO. / July 10-13, 2010
]]>On March 2, 2010 for very different reasons the present criminal court building in Manhattan was evacuated due to smoke and water damage caused by an electrical fire in the basement.. When the last people were out, policemen, firemen and court officers took charge of the building and for a time did not permit anyone to enter the building except for business related to coping with the emergency situation..
As noted earlier there were many differences in the two events. By most accounts the old criminal courts building was in very poor condition by 1909. The present Criminal Courts buiilding is perfectly safe and in good condition with lingering smoke and other residual damage from the fire causing the building to remain closed until March 8.
We do not know how the courts, the office of district attorney, and other departments functioned during the evacuation of 1909; but by all accounts work continued quite efficiently during the present evacuation with many working in adjacent buildings and some using computers to work from their homes.
Let's hope we don't have another evacuation during the next one hundred years.
The New York Times has been doing a good job keeping concerns about helth care alive through its ongong list of articles and editorials telling us what is happening and where they think we might be going. Here are links to a few:
Editorial:
If Reform Fails
Published: March 7, 2010
"There are some basic facts Americans need to know as Congress decides whether to approve comprehensive health reform or continue with what we have."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/opinion/07sun1.html
This editorial is a part of a comprehensive examination {by the New York Times] of the debate over health care reform. You can read all of these editorials at: nytimes.com/edhealthcare2009
Recent Article:
Health
Prescriptions: A Handy Road Map for the Final Weeks
By By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
Published: March 8, 2010
With the health care debate in the home stretch, the main action is now in the House.
Oregon Law Libraries RFP Rev4_1
For more information, contact:
Laura J. Orr
Law Librarian
Washington County Law Library
111 NE Lincoln St
Hillsboro, OR 97124
Phone: 503-846-8880
Email: lawlibrary@co.washington.or.us
URL: http://www.co.washington.or.us/lawlibrary
Oregon Legal Research Blog: http://oregonlegalresearch.blogspot.com/
While we cannot provide you a copy of the actual Survey, the Deloitte whitepaper, Cyber Crime: A Clear and Present Danger reports on several of the survey findings and includes Deloitte's interpretation of key results. Quoting from the Introduction to the white papter: "By its very nature, interpretation goes beyond simple reporting of results...and may prompt disagreement and even controversy"
With that, we invite you to download the white paper from the link below, read it, and draw your own conclusions
Cyber Crime: A Clear and Present Danger
David Badertscher
Of special concern to many readers of this blog is the severe negative impact these judicial line item reductions are having on judicial law libraries in the State of Connecicut, as indicated in testimony of the Connecticut Chief Court Administrator to the Appropriations Committee included in this post and by the many expressions of concern among Connecticut citizens as reported elsewhere.
The Chief Court Administrator of Connecticut, Judge Barbara M. Quinn has argued before the Appropriations Committee on February 9 that the unilateral reduction of Other Judicial Expense line items by the Executive Branch infringes on the Separation of Powers and can be remedied by OPM simply transmitting the Judicial request unchanged to the legislature. Two sections of Judge Quinn's testimony are especially important and are highlighted below in this posting. The section on Law Libraries which highlights the importance of law libraries in Connecticut to both the Judiciary and the public has relevance both in Connecticut and throughout the nation. A second part of Judge Quinn's testimony highlighted below is her statement on "Concurrence in Allotment Reductions and Rescissions," which frames the issue nicely.
Sections of Testimony Highlighted:
Law Libraries
"The Governor's proposed budget provides no funding for law libraries. If this provision is enacted, it will be the second year in a row of zero funding. This is a critical gap; law libraries cannot function without updated research materials.
Let me explain something about law libraries that makes them different from your local library where perhaps you could curtail purchasing new books for a while and then start up again. Because the law is constantly evolving, the most up-to-date information must be made available to anyone who has cases pending before the court. Up-to-date legal research tools, in both electronic and printed form, are essential in order for judges to render rulings that are consistent with law and legal precedent because case law is only as good as the last case decided. And that case law is updated daily. This is what makes law libraries distinct from other libraries - just not buying the latest books is not an option"
Concurrence in allotment reductions and rescissions
Undoubtedly, the most critical budget reform that we seek is one that would curb the unilateral and increasingly untenable budget reductions that are imposed upon the Branch after the Legislature has adopted the budget. Virtually all of our budgetary problems over the past 2 years, and in particular this year, are the result of allotment reductions and rescissions about which neither the Branch nor the Legislature were consulted. I would respectfully propose to you that in the future, any post-budget adoption reductions that are made to the Judicial Branch should require the concurrence of the Legislature. The Branch will be submitting legislation for your consideration that would implement these vital budget reforms.
A bill, "An Act Concerning Funding For the Judicial Branch" (No. 5148) which seeks to correct the matter has recently been introduced in the Connecticut legislature.
Below are links to the full text of both the Testimony and pending legislation referred to in this posting.
Testimony of Chief Court Administrator to Appropriations Commett
]]>In the absence of a stay, misdemeanor cases will again only be assigned to judges who have been appointed to the New York Supreme Court. The plan is for judges to continue sitting in hybrid parts, with misdemeanors being heard as Criminal Court cases and felonies as Supreme Court matters.
In dissent, Justice Rolando T. Acosta warned that the majority's "unbridled judicial activism effectively upends tens of thousands of mesdemeanor convictions in Bronx County over the past five years."
Those who need additional background information are referred to the link below to the New York City Bar. Report on the Merger of the Bronx Supreme and Criminal Courts, June 2009.
ABCNY Report on the Merger of the Bronx Supreme and Criminal Courts, June 2009
Note that free DVDs of this talk are available to libraries,
educators, and other interested in running screenings - email
dvd@isoc-ny.org and ask for DVD1710.
http://www.isoc-ny.org/?p=1338
From: ISOC-NY Announcements February 23, 2010
]]>In a 5 - 1 decision the New York Court of Appeals found that the legislature and the executive branches had undermined the independence of the judicial branch by tying judges pay raises to unrelated legislation, including bills to raise legislators own salaries, thereby violating the separation of powers doctrine. The last pay raise for New York judges was in 1998.
In his dissent Judge Robert S. Smith stated that while he shares his colleagues' dismay at the Legislature's behavior in dealing with, or rather failing to deal with, judges' salaries, he "cannot agree that any of its actions or inactions are unconstitutional...."
The current Chier Judge of the Court of Appeals, Jonathan Lippman, recused himself from the deliberations because he was a plaintiff in one of the cases the ruling addresses.
Public Statement of Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman, delivered on February 23, 2010 at 1:PM.
Here are excerpts from the beginning and end of the decision:
PIGOTT, J.:
"The constitutional arguments raised in these judicial compensation appeals are premised upon, among other things, alleged violations of the New York State Constitution's Compensation Clause and the Separation of Powers Doctrine. Because the Separation of Powers doctrine is aimed at preventing one branch of government from dominating or interfering with the functioning of another co-equal branch, we conclude that the independence of the judiciary is improperly jeopardized by the current judicial pay crisis and this constitutes a violation of the Separation of Powers Doctrine."
Conclusion
It is unfortunate that this Court has been called upon to adjudicate constitutional issues relative to an underlying matter upon which all have agreed; namely, that the Judiciary is entitled to a compensation adjustment. By ensuring that any judicial salary increases will be premised on their merits, this holding aims to strike the appropriate balance between preserving the independence of the Judiciary and avoiding encroachment on the budget-making authority of the Legislature. Therefore, judicial compensation, when addressed by the Legislature in
present and future budget deliberations cannot depend on unrelated policy initiatives or legislative compensation adjustments. Of course, whether judicial compensation should be
adjusted, and by how much, is within the province of the Legislature. It should keep in mind, however, that whether the Legislature has met its constitutional obligations in that regard is within the province of this Court (see Marbury v Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 [1803]). We therefore expect appropriate and expeditious legislative consideration.
Accordingly, In Maron, the order of the Appellate Division should be modified, without costs, by remitting to Supreme Court for - 35 - No. 016; 017; 018 - 35 - further proceedings in accordance with this opinion, and as so modified, affirmed.
In Larabee, the order of Appellate Division should be modified, and in Chief Judge, the judgment of Supreme Court and the order of the Appellate Division should be modified, without costs, by granting judgment declaring that under the circumstances of these cases, as a matter of law, the State defendants' failure to consider judicial compensation on the merits violates the Separation of Powers Doctrine, and by allowing for the remedy discussed in this opinion, and, asmodified, affirmed.
SEE FULL TEXT OF DECISION AT:
New York Court of Appeals Judicial Compensation Decision February 23, 2010
v.
Sheldon Silver, as Speaker of the State Assembly, et al.,
Respondents,
et al.,
Respondent.
---------------------------------
No. 17
Hon. Susan Larabee, et al.,
Respondents-Appellants,
v.
Governor of the State of New York,
Respondent,
New York State Senate, et al.,
Appellants-Respondents.
---------------------------------
No. 18
The Chief Judge of the State of New York et al.,
Appellants-Respondents,
v.
The Governor of the State of New York, et al.,
Respondents-Appellants.
Case No. 16:
Steven Cohn, for appellants.
Richard H. Dolan, for respondents.
Association of Justices of the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, et al., amici curiae.
- 1 -
Case No. 17:
Richard H. Dolan, for appellants-respondents and
respondent.
Thomas E. Bezanson, for respondents-appellants.
Association of Justices of the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, et al.; New York County Lawyers' Association;
Atlantic Legal Foundation et al.; Zachary W. Carter; Asian
American Bar Association of New York, et al., amici curiae.
Case No. 18:
Bernard W. Nussbaum, for appellants-respondents.
Richard H. Dolan, for respondents-appellants.
Fund for Modern Courts; Association of Justices of the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, et al., amici curiae.
The President's health care proposal as released on February 22 purports to put "...American families and small business owners in control of their health care. To help those who are following this issue we are providing in this post, links to a 10+ page Summary prepared by the White House. This document provides a good overview and discussion regarding provisions in the proposed legislation.
This is a link for those who want to really explore the President Obama's Health Care Proposal through more comprehensive Section by Section analysis .
Both of the above links will lead you to very useful information. We would urge everyone to explore these documents.
]]>Family Law
Law Student Charged with Contempt for Exposing Daughter to Christianity
Feb 17, 2010, 06:46 am CST
Careers
Will Deferred Associates Idea Backfire for Law Firms?
Feb 16, 2010, 09:33 am CST
Law Practice Management
Firm Hit Over Partner's Hiring Question: How Can We Identify New Mom's Commitment?
Feb 16, 2010, 09:05 am CST
Juries
'Scary' Jurors Spur Switch to Bench Trial, Highlighting Growing Problem
Feb 16, 2010, 05:29 am CST
Solos/Small Firms
BigLaw Lawyers Jump to Small Firms, Law's Fastest Growing Sector
Feb 16, 2010, 06:00 am CST
Plus: 2 Partners of Well-Known Firm Downsize, Now Answer Own Phones at Own Shop
Attorney Fees
McGuireWoods Denied Fee in $49M BAR/BRI Settlement; Conflict Cited
Feb 18, 2010, 07:50 am CST
Careers
Tired of Law Practice? You Can Still Work at a Law Firm
Feb 17, 2010, 09:25 am CST
U.S. Supreme Court
Scalia Opines on Right to Secede in Letter to Screenwriter
Feb 17, 2010, 08:06 am CST
Law Professors
Law Prof Backs First Amendment Over Ban of R-Word
Feb 18, 2010, 05:30 am CST
Labor & Employment
EEOC Hit with $4.5M Legal Fee Award in Losing 'Pattern & Practice' Case, Plans Appeal
Feb 17, 2010, 04:56 pm CST
The following are two very informative profiles from the New York Times:
The first profile contains both information about Hon. Jonathan Lippman and emphasizes the impact he has had during his first year as Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals:
Top Judge Sets Liberal Course for New York
By WILLIAM GLABERSON
Published: February 17, 2010
Jonathan Lippman has helped turn the Court of Appeals into a scrappier, more divided and more liberal panel.
The second profile discusses various perceptions of David Paterson as Governor of the State of New York:
As Campaign Nears, Paterson Is Seen as Increasingly Remote
By DANNY HAKIM, SERGE F. KOVALESKI and NICHOLAS CONFESSORE
Published: February 18, 2010
Interviews with aides, legislators and friends reveal criticism about the management and election efforts by Gov. David A. Paterson of New York.
By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: New York Times February 9, 2010
EXCER[TS FROM ARTICLE:
While in prison, a former bank robber transformed himself into an accomplished Supreme Court practitioner....
Mr. Hopwood spent much of that time in the prison law library, and it turned out he was better at understanding the law than breaking it. He transformed himself into something rare at the top levels of the American bar, and unheard of behind bars: an accomplished Supreme Court practitioner....
He prepared his first petition for certiorari a request that the Supreme Court hear a case for a fellow inmate on a prison typewriter in 2002. Since Mr. Hopwood was not a lawyer, the only name on the brief was that of the other prisoner, John Fellers ...
Mr. Hopwood was released from prison in the fall of 2008. Mr. Fellers was out by then, and he owned a thriving car dealership in Lincoln. ...
Here, Mr. Fellers said, presenting his jailhouse lawyer with a 1989 Mercedes in pristine condition. Thank you for getting me back to my daughter....
Mr. Hopwood now works for a leading printer of Supreme Court briefs, Cockle Printing in Omaha.
MORE INFORMATION ABOUT JAIL HOUSE LAWYERS:
For those who want to read further about this topic, Numia Abu-Jamal has written a book, Jailhouse Lawyers: Prisoners Defending Prisoners in the USA which, according to Kirkus Reviews provides a series of stories based "on correspondence with two-dozen jailhouse lawyers around the country, Abu-Jamal discusses the lives and work of men and women—some educated, others barely able to read and write—who do legal research, file grievances and litigate cases, often earning reputations as troublemakers and dealt with accordingly by prison authorities. Thousands of such lawyers now work among the 2.3 million inmates of America’s prison system, 'to help, to uplift, and even to free others' "
]]>U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, February 03, 2010
Abrante v. St. Amand, No. 09-1020
Denial of defendant's petition for habeas relief following conviction of armed robbery and related crimes is affirmed where: 1) defendant has not offered clear and convincing evidence that the state established agency relationships with inmate informants who then elicited admissions from him without the presence of counsel in violation of his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights; 2) defendant's due process claim fails; 3) defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim is rejected; and 4) the issues defendant raises do not present the court with opportunity to consider his constitutional challenge to the AEDPA. .
U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, February 04, 2010
Estrada v. State of Rhode Island, No. 09-1149
In plaintiffs' action challenging the constitutionality of the actions of a police officer during a traffic stop, summary judgment in favor of defendant is affirmed where: 1) the officer is entitled to federal and state qualified immunity for any possible constitutional violations that he may have committed in asking the van's passengers questions about their immigration status and in contacting ICE; 2) the officer is entitled to qualified immunity for alleged violations of state or federal laws surrounding the seizure of plaintiffs and their subsequent escort to ICE office; 3) officer is entitled to qualified immunity for both pat down searches under federal and state law; and 4) the officer is entitled to qualified immunity for all of the challenged actions with respect to the Rhode Island Racial Profiling Prevention Act
e produced by Findlaw
U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, February 03, 2010
Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. v. City of N.Y., No. 09-1553
In a group of billboard owners' First Amendment challenge to provisions of New York City's Zoning Resolution, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the city was not required to adopt the "least restrictive means" of advancing its asserted interests; 2) the city did not violate the protections afforded commercial speech when it distinguished between plaintiffs' signs or billboards and those located on government property; and 3) the New York Constitution did not provide broader protection for commercial speech than the First Amendment.
U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, February 01, 2010
Jackson v. Danberg, No. 09-1925
In an appeal brought by a class of inmates challenging the constitutionality of Delaware's lethal injection method for capital punishment, district court's grant of summary judgment is affirmed and a stay dissolved as: 1) under Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (2008), an execution protocol that does not present a substantial risk of serious harm passes constitutional muster; and 2) on the record, Delaware's protocol presents no such risk.
U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, February 04, 2010
Layshock v. Hermitage Sch. Dist., No. 07-4465
In plaintiffs' 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action arising after defendant-school district punished their son for creating a fake internet "profile" of his high school principal on MySpace.com, district court's judgment is affirmed where: 1) district court correctly ruled that the school district's response to the student's expressive conduct violated the First Amendment guarantee of free expression as allowing the school to punish him for conduct he engaged in using his grandmother's computer while at his grandmother's house would create an unseemly and dangerous precedent; 2) the school cannot punish the student merely because his speech reached inside the school; and 3) district court correctly concluded that the parents have not shown how their liberty interest was infringed by the School District's violation of their son's First Amendment right of expression.
U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, February 04, 2010
Snyder v. Blue Mountain Sch. Dist., No. 08-4138
In plaintiffs' action against the school district for punishing their daughter for creating a internet profile of her high school principal on MySpace.com, district court's judgment in favor of the school district is affirmed where: 1) Tinker applies to student speech, whether on- or off-campus that causes or threatens to cause a substantial disruption of or material interference with school or invades the rights of other members of the school community, and here, because the student's internet profile featuring her principal alluded to his interest or engagement in sexually inappropriate behavior and illegal conduct, it threatened to substantially disrupt the Middle School regardless of whether the student's role in creating the profile was criminal or tortious; 2) school district did not violate the parents' Fourteenth Amendment rights to direct and control the upbringing of their child; 3) Pennsylvania permits school authorities to discipline students for conduct akin to ! this student's creation of the profile; and 4) the Middle School's policies under which the student was punished were not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad.
U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, February 05, 2010
Clausell v. Sherrer, No. 06-4606
District court's denial of defendant's petition for habeas relief is affirmed where: 1) defendant forfeited his right to raise a Batson claim on appeal; 2) defendant's ineffective assistance claim fails to meet the first prong of the Strickland standard; and 3) a state court reasonably applied established federal law regarding Sixth Amendment ineffective assistance claims.
U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, February 03, 2010
King v. McMillan, No. 08-1667
In plaintiff-former deputy's suit against a sheriff in his official capacity under Title VII for sexual harassment and in his individual capacity under Virginia law for battery, district court's substitution of new sheriff as the defendant in her official capacity in the Title VII claim and jury verdict in favor of plaintiff is affirmed as to accept defendant's argument that because each sheriff in Virginia is by state law a singular entity with an independent tenure, she could not be substituted in her official capacity as the successor to the former sheriff in the Title VII claim, would be to allow a state law to override Title VII in violation of the Supremacy Clause. Defendants' remaining challenges are rejected.
U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, February 03, 2010
Koubriti v. Convertino, No. 09-1016
In plaintiff's civil action against defendant, pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, for constitutional violations that defendant allegedly committed while serving as the Assistant United States Attorney who prosecuted plaintiff for conspiracy to provide material support or resources to terrorists and conspiracy to engage in fraud or misuse of visas, permits or other immigration documents, partial denial of defendant's motion to dismiss is reversed where: 1) plaintiff has pointed to no harm to himself from the investigation defendant conducted except the non-disclosure of certain exculpatory evidence at trial; and 2) defendant is shielded by prosecutorial immunity for such non-disclosures of exculpatory evidence.
U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, February 04, 2010
Jefferson v. Lewis, No. 08-2116
In plaintiff's action against a police officer under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 and state tort law for being shot by the officer on New Year's Eve while responding to reports of gunfire shots in the area, denial of defendant's motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity is affirmed where: 1) because plaintiff has produced adequate evidentiary support for her version of events and because plaintiff's version of events must be accepted as true for purposes of interlocutory appeal, the jury must decide whether plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights were violated; and 2) in light of the competing inferences one might draw from the facts and their effect on the question of whether the officer's actions were objectively reasonable, a jury should find the facts that determine whether the officer is entitled to qualified immunity.
U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, February 02, 2010
US v. Turner, No. 08-2350
District court's disqualification of defendant's retained counsel from representing him in a prosecution for conspiracy to distribute cocaine because the attorney was also representing an alleged co-conspirator in sentencing proceedings is reversed and remanded for retrial as the district court's disqualification order violated defendant's Sixth Amendment right to choose his own counsel, and, under Gonzalez-Lopez, this constitutional violation is a structural error not subject to review for harmlessness.
U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, February 03, 2010
Parish v. City of Chicago, No. 09-1385
In plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action asserting Fourth Amendment violations for malicious prosecution against the City of Chicago and detectives from the Chicago Police Department, dismissal of the action is affirmed as Seventh Circuit precedent does not permit an action for malicious prosecution under section 1983 if a state remedy exists, and plaintiff has explicitly limited his appeal to asking to overrule the precedent and there is no reason to overturn circuit precedent.
U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, February 04, 2010
Olson v. Brown, No. 09-2728
In a putative class action lawsuit filed by an inmate against a county sheriff alleging several First Amendment violations and violations of Indianan law in a county jail, dismissal of the suit as moot on the ground that plaintiff was transferred out of the county jail before class certification is reversed and remanded as this case fits within the exception to the mootness doctrine carved out for inherently transitory cases.
U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, February 05, 2010
Lopez v. Thurmer, No. 08-2110
In a prosecution for first-degree intentional murder as a party to a crime, district court's denial of defendant's petition for habeas relief is affirmed as the court did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law to the facts of defendant's case on claims that: 1) a state appellate court's application of Strickland to the facts of petitioner's case was unreasonable because the court applied the wrong standard under Wisconsin law to determine whether he was entitled to a felony-murder instruction; and 2) a state appellate court's factual determination that counsel had discussed a felony-murder instruction with him was unreasonable.
U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, February 01, 2010
Mahach-Watkins v. Depee, No. 08-15694
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action involving a deadly shooting by police, the district court's award of $136,687.35 in attorney's fees to plaintiff (following $1 nominal damages awards on two claims) is affirmed where: 1) the legality of state-sanctioned force resulting in death constituted an important legal issue; and 2) the award would likely deter the officer from future unconstitutional conduct.
U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, February 05, 2010
Mortimer v. Baca, No. 07-55393
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action alleging that plaintiffs were wrongfully detained in jail for periods of time ranging from twenty-six to twenty-nine hours after the court had authorized their releases, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the district court was not foreclosed on a prior remand from reviewing defendant's proffered evidence concerning deliberate indifference and ruling on the motion for summary judgment on its merits; and 2) given the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department's many affirmative efforts to remedy the problem, the evidence in the record did not support a finding of a policy of deliberate indifference.
U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, February 05, 2010
Waggy v. Spokane County, No. 09-35133
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action claiming that county prosecuting attorneys and a county violated plaintiff's constitutional right to be free from arrest without probable cause, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the prosecutor's motion for a bench warrant essentially constituted the initiation of new judicial proceedings against plaintiff for violating the terms of his community placement, and was not an investigative act; and 2) plaintiff pointed to no county policy or custom that caused his alleged injury.
U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, February 03, 2010
Clyma v. Sunoco, Inc., No. 08-5153
In a non-party's appeal from the district court's denial of an "Application for Permission to Interview Jurors for Instructional Purposes" pursuant to N.D. Okla. L.R. 47.2.1, the appeal is construed as a writ of mandamus and the district court is directed to vacate its denial of the application and reconsider the matter pursuant to a meaningful exercise of its discretion in support of its ultimate determination.
U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, February 04, 2010
Clark v. Riley, No. 08-11978
In an action by a member of the Board of Trustees for Alabama State University seeking a declaratory judgment that an age limit in Ala. Code section 16-50-20(a) prohibiting a board member from serving beyond September 30 following his seventieth birthday did not apply to him, dismissal of the action is affirmed where the Code section relied upon by plaintiff applied only to the initial reshuffling of the board that occurred when a 1986 amendment was passed.
U.S. Fed. Circuit Court of Appeals, February 05, 2010
Totes-Isotoner Corp. v. US, No. 09-1113
In plaintiff's claim that the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States unconstitutionally denies equal protection of the laws by imposing different rates of duty on seamed leather gloves "for men" and seamed leather gloves "for other persons", judgment of the United States Court of International Trade dismissing the claim is affirmed where: 1) the CIT's judgment concluding that it had jurisdiction under section 1581(i), that plaintiff has standing to bring its claims, and that plaintiff's equal protection claims are justiciable is affirmed; but 2) plaintiff has failed to state an equal protection claim due to its failure to plead facts sufficient to allege a claim of unconstitutional discrimination.
Supreme Court of California, February 01, 2010
In re E.J., No. S156933
In a unified habeas petition by four registered sex offenders challenging the constitutionality of a provision in the Jessica Law, that sets forth restrictions on where certain registered sex offenders subject to the lifetime registration requirement may reside, is transferred to the courts of appeal for further proceedings where: 1) the court rejects claims that Penal Code section 3003.5(b), construed as a statutory parole condition, is being impermissibly retroactively enforced as to the petitioners, and as thus enforced, constitutes an ex post facto law under the state and federal constitutions; and 2) with regard to defendants' remaining claims that section 3003.5(b) is an unreasonable, vague and overbroad parole condition that infringes on a number of their fundamental constitutional rights, evidentiary hearings will have to be conducted to establish relevant facts necessary to decide each such claim.
Supreme Court of Florida, February 04, 2010
Barnes v. State of Florida, No. SC08-63
Convictions of defendant for first degree murder and related crimes and sentnece of death are affirmed where: 1) defendant's plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, and he was made aware of the consequences of his plea, was apprised of the constitutional rights he was waiving, and pled guilty voluntarily; 2) trial court acted properly in appointing independent counsel, who did not represent defendant but was directed to assist the court by investigating and presenting mitigation; 3) defendant's claim that the trial court erred when it considered the comprehensive pre-sentence investigation report over his objection is rejected; and 4) the death sentence is proportionate when considered in light of other death sentences that has been affirmed involving similar circumstances of murder, similar aggravators, and similar mitigation.
California Appellate Districts, February 01, 2010
Catsouras v. Dep't of the California Highway Patrol, No. G039916
In an action brought against the State of California Highway Patrol and two of its officers by the family of a decedent who died in an automobile accident, judgment of the trial court in favor of the defendants is reversed where: 1) the trial court erred in sustaining the officers' demurrers as to the invasion of privacy cause of action for dissemination of the pictures of decedent's decapitated body, as family members have a common law privacy right in the death images of a decedent, subject to certain limitations; 2) the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrers as to a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress as plaintiffs' allegation that the officers had acted with the intent to cause them emotional distress, is sufficient to withstand a demurrer; 3) the trial court erred in concluding that plaintiffs had no cause of action for negligence as, applying the Rowland factors, CHP and its officers owed plaintiffs a duty of care not to place decede! nt's death images on the internet for the purposes of vulgar spectacle; 4) trial court properly sustained the demurrer of the CHP as to the section 1983 cause of action against it based on the doctrine of sovereign immunity; and 5) the section 1983 causes of action against the officers also fail as plaintiffs did not plead facts sufficient to allege that the actions of the officers violated any clearly established constitutional right.
California Appellate Districts, February 02, 2010
In re Watson, No. D055404
Petition for habeas relief by a defendant convicted of murder and related crimes is granted and his sentence is reversed in part and remanded where: 1) defendant's claim of sentencing error is timely as defendant has shown good cause for any delay in seeking habeas corpus relief based on Cunningham and Apprendi; and 2) defendant's upper term sentences for kidnapping and two firearm use enhancements violated the rule set forth in Apprendi. .
California Appellate Districts, February 02, 2010
People v. Leon, No. H034066
Trial court's imposition of various conditions on defendant's probation following conviction of drug related crimes is modified where: 1) the gang-association probation order is constitutionally defective because it lacks an explicit knowledge requirement; 2) the gang paraphernalia order is modified to include a knowledge requirement; 3) probation order with respect to the areas of gang-related activity is modified as it is constitutionally vague; and 4) the prohibition-from-court-proceedings condition is modified.
California Appellate Districts, February 04, 2010
In re A.G., No. D053991
Juvenile court's true finding that defendant violated the San Diego curfew ordinance is reversed as, although a more narrowly tailored curfew ordinance is within the legislative prerogative, the present ordinance sweeps too broadly and includes within its ambit otherwise innocent and legal conduct by minors even when they have the permission of their parents, and as such, the ordinance is unconstitutional.