Criminal Law Library BlogA Service from the ABA Criminal Justice Section, http://www.abanet.org/crimjust
Received: June 8, 2010.
· Barber v. Thomas (No. 09-5201)
ABA: U.S. Supreme Court Updates. June 8, 2010.
Articles Posted in U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Supreme Court Case Briefs (Berghuis, Carr): Professor Rory Little’s Perspective
Berghuis v. Thompkins June 2, 2010
United States v. Carr
A Service from the ABA Criminal Justice Section, http://www.abanet.org/crimjust
A U.S. Supreme Court Case Brief: Professor Rory Little’s Perspective
United States v. Marcus, No. 08-1341, 130 S.Ct. ___(may 24, 2010).
A Service from the ABA Criminal Justice Section, http://www.abanet.org/crimjust
This summary has been created by Professor Rory K. Little (littler@uchastings.edu), U.C. Hastings College of the Law, San Francisco, who has long presented “Annual Review of the Supreme Court’s Term” program at the ABA’s Annual Meetings. It represents his personal, unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
ABA: U.S. Supreme Court Update. Received: May 25, 2010.
A Service from the ABA Criminal Justice Section, http://www.abanet.org/crimjust
Received: May 25, 2010.
UNITED STATES v. O’BRIEN ET AL. No. 08–1569
Findlaw Case Summaries: U.S. Supreme Court. May 24, 2010.
To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com. All summaries are produced by Findlaw
May 24, 2010.
ANTITRUST & TRADE REGULATION, COMMERCIAL LAW, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, SPORTS LAW, TRADEMARK American Needle, Inc. v. Nat’l Football League, No. 08–661 In an antitrust action challenging the NFL’s grant to Reebok of an exclusive license to create apparel incorporating the NFL’s intellectual property, the Seventh Circuit’s affirmance of summary judgment for defendants is reversed where the alleged conduct related to licensing of intellectual property constituted concerted action that was not categorically beyond the coverage of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. ..
ATTORNEY’S FEES, CIVIL PROCEDURE, ERISA, HEALTH LAW, INSURANCE LAW, LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW Hardt v. Reliance Std. Life Ins. Co., No. 09–448 In an action alleging that defendant violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) by wrongfully denying her benefits claim, the Fourth Circuit’s order vacating the district court’s award of attorney’s fees to plaintiff is reversed where: 1) a fee claimant need not be a “prevailing party” to be eligible for an attorney’s fees award under 29 U.S.C. section 1132(g)(1); and 2) a court may award fees and costs under section 1132(g)(1), as long as the fee claimant has achieved some degree of success on the merits.
Continue reading
U.S. Supreme Court Update: Graham v. Florida No. 08-7412:
A Service from the ABA Criminal Justice Section, http://www.abanet.org/crimjust
Graham v Florida No. 08–7412.
United States Supreme Court Decision: May 17, 2010
U.S. Supreme Court Case Update: U.S. v. Comstock
A Service from the ABA Criminal Justice Section, http://www.abanet.org/crimjust
United States v. Comstock (No. 08-1224)
United States Supreme Court Decision: May 17, 2010
Professor Rory Little’s Perspective: United States v. Stevens, A Case Brief
The following is presented as a service of the ABA Criminal Justice Section http://www.abanet.org/crimjust
The ABA Section of Criminal Justice is pleased to provide Professor Rory Little’s Perspective, a Case Brief in U.S. v. Stevens which includes the Holding, Facts, and Analysis in the case.
——————————————————————————–
ABA: U.S. Supreme Court Update – U.S. v. Stevens
A Service from the ABA Criminal Justice Section, http://www.abanet.org/crimjust
United States v. Stevens (No. 08–769)
United States Supreme Court Opinion Decided: April 20, 2010
U.S. Supreme Court Update: McDaniel v. Brown
A Service from the ABA Criminal Justice Section, http://www.abanet.org/crimjust
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against a defendant convicted of the rape of a 9-year-old girl after a night of heavy drinking.
The Supreme Court said in a per curiam opinion that overstated estimates of a DNA match at trial did not warrant reversal of a conviction when there is still “convincing evidence of guilt.”