November 23-27, 2009.
To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com. All summaries are produced by Findlaw.
U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, November 23, 2009 Vaqueria Tres Monjitas, Inc. v. Irizarry, No. 07-2240 In plaintiffs’ suit against Puerto Rico’s Milk Industry Regulation Administration, claiming that the Administration’s regulatory scheme governing milk prices violates the Due Process, Equal Protection, Takings, and dormant Commerce Clauses, grant of a preliminary injunction enjoining the regulatory scheme is affirmed where: 1) the district court properly declined defendants’ invitation to abstain from entertaining the action; 2) the Eleventh Amendment does not bar the form of relief granted by the district court in its preliminary injunction; 3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting defendants’ unclean hands defense; 4) the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to dismiss the action on the basis of laches; 5) the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting defendants’ estoppel defense; and 6) district court did not abuse its discretion in granting plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. ..
U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, November 24, 2009 Stratechuk v. Bd. of Educ., S. Orange-Maplewood Sch. Dist. , No. 08-3826 In plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit challenging school district’s prohibition on celebratory religious music at school-sponsored events for the purpose of maintaining a policy of complete religious neutrality, summary judgment for the school district is affirmed as the court did not err in concluding that December concerts are not public fora, and that the school district’s interpretation of the policy was reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.
U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, November 25, 2009 Entm’t Prod., Inc. v. Shelby County, Tenn. , No. 08-5494 Denial of plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction in their suit against the county challenging the constitutionality of the Tennessee Adult-Oriented Establishment Registration Act is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err in denying the preliminary injunction on the basis that plaintiffs did not demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success in their challenges to the definitions of “adult cabaret,” “adult-oriented establishment,” and “adult entertainment”; 2) the district court did not err in holding that a vagueness challenge is not likely to succeed on the merits as a narrowing construction sufficiently clarifies the parts this Act allegedly contaminated by vagueness; 3) plaintiffs’ claim that the Act’s requirements will result in a drastic reduction in the quantity and accessibility of speech is rejected; and 4) the issue of balancing of equities is moot as the district court correctly determined that plaintiffs have not demonstrated a likelihood of s! uccess on the merits.