Northstar Fin. Advisors, Inc. v. Schwab Invs., No. 09-16347, involved an action by investors claiming that a large American investment trust operating a series of mutual funds unlawfully deviated from the investment policies set forth in its registration statement, to the detriment of the fund’s shareholders and in violation of section 13(a) of the Investment Company Act.  The court reversed the denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that nothing in section 13(a) as originally enacted or as subsequently amended either created a private cause of action or recognized one existed with the clarity and specificity required under Supreme Court precedent.

Cassirer v. Kingdom of Spain, No. 06-56325, concerned an action by an American citizen whose grandmother’s Pissarro painting was allegedly confiscated in 1939 by an agent of the Nazi government in Germany because she was a Jew.  The court affirmed the denial of defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that 1) the court lacked jurisdiction to review the district court’s decision declining to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction and a case or controversy; and 2) 28 U.S.C. section 1605(a)(3) did not require the foreign state against whom the claim was made to be the one that took the property.

In re: Silverman, No. 08-56508, involved debtors’ appeal from a bankruptcy court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the trustee, holding that the trustee could recover criminal restitution payments.  The court affirmed the order on the grounds that 1) district court decisions did not bind bankruptcy courts in other districts; and 2) criminal restitution payments were recoverable by a trustee in bankruptcy as preferences under 11 U.S.C. section 547(b).

Martinez-Medina v. Holder, No. 06-75778, involved a petition for review of the BIA’s denial of petitioners’ motion to suppress.  The court denied the petition on the grounds that 1) the initial encounter between the deputy sheriff and petitioners did not violate petitioners’ Fourth Amendment rights because it was consensual; and 2) even if a reasonable Oregon law enforcement officer should have known he lacked authority under his own state’s law to apprehend aliens based solely on a violation of federal immigration law, that cannot serve as the basis for finding an egregious Fourth Amendment violation.

Related Resources

  • Full Text of Northstar Fin. Advisors, Inc. v. Schwab Invs., No. 09-16347
  • Full Text of US v. Maddox, No. 09-30284
  • Full Text of Cassirer v. Kingdom of Spain, No. 06-56325
  • Full Text of In re: Silverman, No. 08-56508
  • Full Text of Martinez-Medina v. Holder, No. 06-75778

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Civil Rights

Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court

Criminal

Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records

Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules