News

Case Summaries

Constitutional Law

[03/09] Zia Trust Co. v. Montoya
In an action for excessive force brought by family members of a man defendant-officer shot and killed while responding to a domestic disturbance, denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is affirmed where the court could not say that a van fifteen feet away, which according to the plaintiffs was clearly stuck on a pile of rocks, gave defendant probable cause to believe that there was a threat of serious physical harm to himself or others that would justify his use of force.

[03/09] Espinosa v. City & County of San Francisco
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action claiming excessive force by defendants-officers, denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is affirmed where: 1) defendants failed to show as a matter of law that plaintiff's decedent did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy; 2) the district court properly found that defendants failed to show as a matter of law that the emergency and exigency exceptions to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement applied; 3) defendants failed to show that there were no questions of fact regarding whether a security guard had apparent authority to consent and implied consent; and 4) the district court did not err in finding that there were genuine issues of fact regarding whether the officers intentionally or recklessly provoked a confrontation.

[03/09] Redd v. Wright
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action arising out of plaintiff inmate's confinement in tuberculosis hold following his refusal to submit to tuberculosis testing, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) prior precedent did not "clearly foreshadow" a holding that the testing policy, as applied in this case, violated plaintiff's Free Exercise rights; 2) it could not reasonably be said that defendants acted in violation of clearly established Eighth Amendment law by implementing the policy; and 3) it was not clearly established that plaintiff was entitled to some kind of notice that religious objectors could be exempt from the policy.

[03/08] Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A. v. US
In an action by a law firm seeking declaratory relief, arguing that plaintiff was not bound by the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act's (BAPCPA) debt relief agency provisions and therefore could freely advise clients to incur additional debt and need not make the requisite disclosures in its advertisements, the Eighth Circuit's order rejecting the district court's conclusion that attorneys are not "debt relief agencies" under BAPCPA, upholding application of BAPCPA's disclosure requirements to attorneys, and finding BAPCPA section 526(a)(4) unconstitutional, is affirmed in part where: 1) attorneys who provided bankruptcy assistance to assisted persons were debt relief agencies under the BAPCPA; and 2) BAPCPA section 528's requirements were reasonably related to the government's interest in preventing consumer deception. However, the court of appeals' order is reversed in part where BAPCPA section 526(a)(4) prohibited a debt relief agency only from advising a debtor to incur more debt because the debtor was filing for bankruptcy, rather than for a valid purpose.

[03/05] Lanuza v. Holder
In a petition for review of the BIA's decision pretermitting petitioners' applications for special rule cancellation of removal under Section 203 of the Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act (NACARA), the petition is denied where: 1) the court lacked jurisdiction to determine petitioner's statutory eligibility for NACARA section 203 relief; and 2) the Immigration Jude did not violate petitioner's constitutional right to due process by depriving her of a full and fair hearing and a reasonable opportunity to present evidence on her behalf.

[03/05] Doe v. S. Carolina Dep't of Soc. Servs.
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action brought by a minor child and her adoptive parents against defendant, an Adoption Specialist with the South Carolina Department of Social Services (SCDSS), alleging violations of their substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and state law claims against SCDSS under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act (SCTCA), judgment is affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded where: 1) when a state involuntarily removes a child from her home, thereby taking the child into its custody and care, the state has taken an affirmative act to restrain the child's liberty, triggering the protections of the Due Process Clause and imposing "some responsibility for the child's safety and general well being"; 2) because it would not have been apparent to a reasonable social worker in defendant's position that her actions violated the Fourteenth Amendment, she is entitled to qualified immunity; 3) prospective adoptive parents have no substantive due process right to the disclosure of a child's history of sexual abuse; and 4) district court's grant of defendants' motion for summary judgment on the state law claims for gross negligence against SCDSS is vacated and remanded for consideration of the applicability of section 15-78-60(25).

[03/04] Keup v. Hopkins
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action by a prisoner claiming defendant prison personnel prevented plaintiff from sending drawings outside the prison in violation of the First Amendment, judgment for plaintiff is affirmed in part where: 1) defendants did not raise their mootness or exhaustion defenses at trial; and 2) because the district court directed a verdict for plaintiff, he was the prevailing party. However, the judgment is reversed in part where, when a prisoner plaintiff only receives nominal damages of $1.00, 42 U.S.C. section 1997e(d)(2) caps attorney fees at $1.50.

[03/04] Uphoff Figueroa v. Alejandro
In plaintiff's action against his employer, the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA) and several PREPA officials, claiming that the new Popular Democratic Party (PDP) regime discriminated against him because he was a member of the New Progressive Party (NPP), judgment in favor of the defendants is affirmed where: 1) under Branti v, Finkel, 445 U.S. 507 (1980), and its progeny, the position of administrator is not within First Amendment protection because it is a policy position; 2) political discrimination and retaliation claims under the First Amendment cannot be restated as claims under the Equal Protection Clause; and 3) plaintiff did not state a claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act because he did not allege he was involved in FLSA-protected activity.

Read More

Criminal Law & Procedure

[03/09] Zia Trust Co. v. Montoya
In an action for excessive force brought by family members of a man defendant-officer shot and killed while responding to a domestic disturbance, denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is affirmed where the court could not say that a van fifteen feet away, which according to the plaintiffs was clearly stuck on a pile of rocks, gave defendant probable cause to believe that there was a threat of serious physical harm to himself or others that would justify his use of force.

[03/09] US v. Wise
Defendant's firearm possession sentence is affirmed where: 1) defendant's prior conviction under Utah law for failure to stop at the command of a police officer was a "crime of violence" under the Sentencing Guidelines; and 2) the district court erred in not assigning criminal history points for one of defendant's prior convictions, but that error did not invalidate defendant's sentence.

[03/09] US v. Cha
In a prosecution for conspiracy, sex trafficking and coercion, and enticement to travel for the purpose of prostitution, a grant of defendants' motion to suppress evidence is affirmed where the warrantless seizure of defendants' residence, which lasted a minimum of 26.5 hours, was constitutionally unreasonable.

[03/09] Espinosa v. City & County of San Francisco
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action claiming excessive force by defendants-officers, denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is affirmed where: 1) defendants failed to show as a matter of law that plaintiff's decedent did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy; 2) the district court properly found that defendants failed to show as a matter of law that the emergency and exigency exceptions to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement applied; 3) defendants failed to show that there were no questions of fact regarding whether a security guard had apparent authority to consent and implied consent; and 4) the district court did not err in finding that there were genuine issues of fact regarding whether the officers intentionally or recklessly provoked a confrontation.

[03/09] US v. Stearn
Following a grand jury indictment of defendants for federal narcotics and weapons offenses, district court's order granting in part motions to suppress evidence in favor of defendants is, with one irrelevant exception, reversed in its entirety where: 1) the magistrate judge had a substantial basis for determining that probable cause existed to search the apparent residence of a confirmed drug dealer; 2) although closer probable cause questions are presented by the searches of other residences, each search is upheld under the Leon good faith exception as each warrant was sufficiently colored in probable cause to justify the executing officers' good faith reliance; and 3) the suppression of a defendant's saliva sample as "fruit of poisonous tree" is reversed as the defendant failed to prove a primary invasion of his own Fourth Amendment rights.

[03/09] US v. Salem
In a prosecution of defendants for wire fraud and receiving stolen funds, district court's sentences based on relevant conduct findings are remanded as the district court made findings as to the reasonableness of the co-schemers' acts only, but it made no finding as to the scope of the jointly undertaken criminal activity under U.S.S.G. section 1B1.3(a)(1)(B).

[03/09] Redd v. Wright
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action arising out of plaintiff inmate's confinement in tuberculosis hold following his refusal to submit to tuberculosis testing, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) prior precedent did not "clearly foreshadow" a holding that the testing policy, as applied in this case, violated plaintiff's Free Exercise rights; 2) it could not reasonably be said that defendants acted in violation of clearly established Eighth Amendment law by implementing the policy; and 3) it was not clearly established that plaintiff was entitled to some kind of notice that religious objectors could be exempt from the policy.

[03/08] US v. Miller
Dismissal of defendant's petition for a writ of audita querela challenging a restitution order, arising from his conviction for conducting a monetary transaction with criminally-derived funds and evading income tax, is affirmed where: 1) if it still exists, the writ of audita querela can only be applied to rectify a judgment which, though correct when rendered, has since become infirm; and 2) since all parties to this case agree that the district court's restitution order was initially correct, and because the statute does not require the order to be modified every time a subsequent payment is made on a restitution obligation, there is no infirmity in defendant's judgment for a writ of audita querela to rectify.

Read More

Evidence

[03/09] US v. Cha
In a prosecution for conspiracy, sex trafficking and coercion, and enticement to travel for the purpose of prostitution, a grant of defendants' motion to suppress evidence is affirmed where the warrantless seizure of defendants' residence, which lasted a minimum of 26.5 hours, was constitutionally unreasonable.

[03/09] Thu v. Holder
In a petition for review of the BIA's order dismissing his appeal from a denial of petitioner's asylum application and related relief, the petition is denied where: 1) the Immigration Judge's credibility finding was supported by specific, cogent reasons for disbelief; and 2) the evidence in the record was not so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.

[03/09] US v. Stearn
Following a grand jury indictment of defendants for federal narcotics and weapons offenses, district court's order granting in part motions to suppress evidence in favor of defendants is, with one irrelevant exception, reversed in its entirety where: 1) the magistrate judge had a substantial basis for determining that probable cause existed to search the apparent residence of a confirmed drug dealer; 2) although closer probable cause questions are presented by the searches of other residences, each search is upheld under the Leon good faith exception as each warrant was sufficiently colored in probable cause to justify the executing officers' good faith reliance; and 3) the suppression of a defendant's saliva sample as "fruit of poisonous tree" is reversed as the defendant failed to prove a primary invasion of his own Fourth Amendment rights.

[03/09] US v. Salem
In a prosecution of defendants for wire fraud and receiving stolen funds, district court's sentences based on relevant conduct findings are remanded as the district court made findings as to the reasonableness of the co-schemers' acts only, but it made no finding as to the scope of the jointly undertaken criminal activity under U.S.S.G. section 1B1.3(a)(1)(B).

[03/09] In re: Omnicom Group, Inc. Secs. Litig.
In a securities class action alleging that defendants fraudulently accounted for a transaction, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs failed to prove loss causation because their expert's testimony did not suffice to draw the requisite causal connection between the information in the article at issue and the fraud alleged in the complaint; and 2) the generalized investor reaction of concern causing a temporary share price decline was far too tenuously connected -- indeed, by a metaphoric thread -- to the transaction to support liability.

[03/05] Smith v. Mahoney
In a capital habeas matter, the denial of the petition is affirmed where: 1) although defense counsel inadequately investigated the facts of the case before allowing petitioner to plead guilty, petitioner did not establish that he was prejudiced by his lawyer's representation; 2) non-character, non-circumstance evidence need not factor into the constitutionality of a death sentence; and 3) petitioner failed to develop his claim of judicial bias sufficiently to warrant an evidentiary hearing.

[03/05] People v. Memory
Conviction of defendants for murder arising from a fight in a parking lot outside a bar between two groups of men, the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the Jus Brothers Motorcycle Club as a gang, as there was no foundation that the Jus Brothers were a gang or a criminal enterprise, the evidence was not probative but was used as inadmissible character evidence.

[03/05] US v. Brown
Defendant's bank fraud conviction is affirmed where: 1) the extrinsic evidence of defendant's other uses of fictitious financial documents was substantively and temporally tied to the charged offenses, and those other uses were distinct enough not to be the "needless presentation of cumulative evidence" under Fed. R. Evid. 403; and 2) the extrinsic evidence that defendant had failed to pay for a house inspection was not probative of his intent to defraud the victim and therefore inadmissible under Rule 404(b), but this evidence was quite limited in length, not inflammatory, and was not mentioned during the government's closing arguments.

Read More