News
Crime
[11/26]
Vick pleads guilty to state dogfighting charge
[11/25]
Reports: McNamee gave DNA samples to investigators
[11/25]
Ex-Mets OF Dykstra settles accounting firm lawsuit
Personal Injury
[11/20]
Dog hits controls, drives van into coffee house
[11/18]
Maine man sheds 140 pounds to join the Marines
[11/12]
W.Va. man beats health insurer in court over $40
Case Summaries
Constitutional Law
[12/03]
Thomas v. City of Blanchard
In action brought by former building code inspector against his former employer-city claiming his discharge was in retaliation for his reporting certain suspected illegality to the state Bureau of Investigation, summary judgment for all defendants is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) plaintiff's speech was not made pursuant to his professional duties and was therefore constitutionally protected; 2) the question of whether he was fired for that speech is a matter of disputed fact; but 3) defendant-mayor was entitled to summary judgment as he did not personally participate in the alleged violation of plaintiff's constitutional rights.
[12/03]
Swisher Int'l, Inc. v. Schafer
In action alleging that the Fair and Equitable Tobacco Reform Act of 2004 (the Act) violated Takings and Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment and plaintiff-cigar manufacturer's constitutional right to equal protection, summary judgment for defendant-Secretary of Agriculture is affirmed where: 1) the Takings Clause did not apply to plaintiff's mere obligation to pay an assessment; and 2) plaintiff's obligations under the Act did not violate the Due Process Clause or plaintiff's equal protection rights.
[12/02]
Sussman v. Crawford
In a decision related to claim by plaintiffs-individuals and the Democratic Alliance of Orange County (the Alliance) against defendants-commander and U.S. Military Academy at West Point claiming that West Point's USMA Regulation 272 violated the First Amendment by denying plaintiffs permission to protest at Commencement, decision in favor of defendants-West Point is affirmed where: 1) West Point's ban on demonstrations within the cantonment was viewpoint-neutral, given that no protesters have been allowed to protest there since the speech policy's enactment; 2) The Alliance did not establish that West Point applied the policy in a discriminatory fashion to the detriment of either the Alliance or others, nor had it adduced evidence that denial of request to demonstrate was predicated on its political views; 3) West Point's "voluntary cessation" of the conduct in question mooted the Alliance's claim relating to the lack of a deadline; and 4) the court found no support for plaintiffs' contention that defendants' denial of the demonstration request constituted an arbitrary and capricious application of West Point's speech policy.
Criminal Law & Procedure
[12/03]
US v. Wayland
Sentence for making false statements relating to health care matters is affirmed over defendant's objection that fraudulently registering a post office box and checking account, as well as filing false tax returns, to further the scheme were not "sophisticated means" for purposes of a sentence enhancement.
[12/03]
Boim v. Holy Land Found. for Relief and Dev.
In a suit arising from the murder of an American in Israel, alleging that defendants, three organizations and one individual, had provided financial support to Hamas, whose gunmen allegedly committed the murder, and that plaintiffs were entitled to recover against defendants under 18 U.S.C. section 2333(a), judgments against all defendants, and award of treble damages, are affirmed in part and reversed in part by the court sitting en banc where: 1) section 2333 does create tort liability for the financial supporters of terrorist groups targeting Americans outside the U.S.; 2) two of the defendant organizations had not contradicted plaintiffs' evidence on the only material fact at issue, namely that Hamas was responsible for the murder, and were properly held liable under section 2333; but 3) with respect to the third defendant organization, collateral estoppel effect could not be given to a prior order freezing defendant's funds, and remand was necessary for a new determination of whether defendant was knowingly supporting terrorism; and 4) the individual defendant had not rendered material support to Hamas subsequent to the passage of a related criminal statute upon which the tort liability was based, and was not subject to liability.
[12/03]
US v. Williams
In grand jury indictment for conspiracy to distribute cocaine, order suppressing evidence seized pursuant to search warrants from the residences of drug conspiracy defendants is reversed and remanded where: 1) in light of legal precedent, the district court erroneously discounted special agent's assertion of training- and experience-based knowledge to tie defendants' drug trafficking activities to their residences; 2) the district court erred in refusing to apply the US v. Leon good faith exception in the criminal activity-dwelling nexus aspect of its suppression ruling; and 3) the district court erred in refusing to apply the Leon good faith exception in the defendant-dwelling nexus aspect of its suppression ruling.
Family Law
[12/02]
County of Sacramento v. Llanes
Denial of defendant's motion to set aside a judgment of paternity as untimely is affirmed over claims of error that: 1) defendant's motion was timely; 2) plaintiff-county should have been estopped from asserting the motion was untimely because the California Department of Child Support Services (CDCSS) posted letters on its website stating that previously established fathers, such as defendant, had until December 31, 2006 to file a motion to set aside judgment of paternity; and 3) defendant relied on those letters in filing his motion on December 29, 2006.
[11/25]
Tebo v. Tebo
In a suit alleging a civil conspiracy to have plaintiff involuntarily committed for mental treatment, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff did not produce evidence to show a agreement between the private and public defendants; 2) there was no factual dispute on the elements of a malicious-prosecution claim; 3) there was no basis for a per se negligence action against defendants-stepsons; 4) no material facts were in dispute as to whether defendants-doctors deprived plaintiff of due-process rights; 5) intentional infliction of emotional distress and malicious prosecution claims against defendants-doctors were not supported by evidence; and 6) defendants-doctors were entitled to immunity on negligence claims.
[11/25]
In re I.I.
Order terminating mother's parental rights to her children under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 is affirmed over claims of error that the juvenile court's finding that the children were adoptable was not supported by substantial evidence because: 1) there was no evidence of any other approved homes that were willing to take the children or children with their characteristics; 2) the children had severe behavioral problems; and 3) the children were part of a large sibling set.