Posts

Some East Haven cops may be reprehensible people, but it’s not the police department’s policy to be reprehensible. This isn’t a po-tay-to/po-tah-to distinction; there’s a $900,000 difference between policy and coincidence, according to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. A jury awarded Emma Jones $900,000 in damages after her son, Malik, was trailed by a police cruiser and later shot to death at close range by East Haven officer Robert Flodquist, reports Thomson Reuters News and Insight....

It might be one of the least talked about legal issues splitting our nation’s courts right now, though we’ve certainly done our share of babbling about it. It’s the resentencing of juvenile lifers, a question that has led to intra-state (federal and state courts conflicting) and interstate splits, with more courts than we can count coming down on both sides of the question since the U.S. Supreme Court’s Miller v. Alabama decision in 2012....

A recent amicus brief filed at the U.S. Supreme Court in the controversial ReDigi case spends a good chunk of the brief explaining why Netflix is no good for film buffs. The relatively brief brief, filed by OmniQ, explains that the Second Circuit Court of Appeals got it wrong when it affirmed that ReDigi’s services, which allow users to sell old digital music files on a secondary market, violated copyright law....

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), founded during the lows of the Great Depression, has traditionally aimed to protect investors. However, some SEC rules and guidance provide an incentive for good corporate citizenship—beyond shareholder returns and fraud prevention—by requiring public companies to disclose certain information that could subject them to criticism and accountability. SEC regulation along these lines serves a demand for what is known as “publicness”. In 2012, the SEC adopted a rule requiring public companies to disclose their use of conflict minerals originating in the Democratic Republic of the Congo or adjoining countries, which could damage their reputations by associating them with human rights violations....

Few among us enjoy planning for the worst-case scenario. But, lawyers do this for their clients every day, examining every possibility to determine the best course of action. Those who run their own firms need to do the same for their business by creating a succession plan. Who will take over? How will clients be notified? What bills will need to be paid? A thorough succession plan answers these questions and more....

The Supreme Court rejected two petitions for certiorari on Monday, refusing to resolve an inter-circuit dispute over government employees’ free speech rights. Appellants in both the D.C. and Second Circuit Courts of Appeals had asked the Court to clarify its 2006 Garcetti v. Ceballos decision that government employees are not protected by the First Amendment for statements made in their official capacity. The two denied petitions were David Bowie v. Maddox and Jackler v....

Suppression of Evidence Affirmed In US v. Villa-Gonzalez, No. 09-1764, a drug conspiracy, firearm possession and illegal reentry prosecution, the court affirmed the grant of defendants’ motion to suppress evidence, holding that 1) the district court did not err when it concluded defendant was seized by the time he spoke to a customs officer on the phone; and 2) the district court did not err when it concluded the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine necessitated suppression of evidence discovered during the search of defendants’ residence....

District court’s denial of defendant’s motion to suppress and motion to dismiss his indictment charging him with failure to register as a sex offender after traveling interstate commerce is affirmed where: 1) defendant’s constitutional challenge to the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) is rejected; 2) defendant lacks standing to raise a Tenth Amendment challenge to SORNA because he is a private party; 3) SORNA applies to defendant who traveled interstate after enactment of the Act but before the Attorney General issued the interim rule on the application of the Act....

Anti-immigrant rhetoric from the president may have convinced some Americans to take the law into their own hands. After all, President Trump declared a national emergency at the U.S.-Mexico border two months ago and ordered National Guard troops to the border last year. So it’s perhaps possible that the United Constitutional Patriots thought they were lending a friendly hand to Border Patrol agents by rounding up migrants at gunpoint and calling immigration officers on them....

In an appeal from a Bankruptcy Court order waiving 11 U.S.C. section 521(i)(1)’s requirement that a debtor file a list of creditors within 45 days of filing a bankruptcy petition, the District Court’s order vacating the Bankruptcy Court’s order is reversed, where the Bankruptcy Court acted within its discretion in entering the order waiving the filing requirement even though the deadline had passed. Read the full decision in Wirum v. Warren, No....

If numbers mean anything, President Trump is losing the battle against immigrants crossing the border. In recent months, more people crossed the border en masse than had entered at any time in the past decade. More than 103,000 made it across in March, alone. But if the law means anything, Trump is winning the immigration war. His latest counter-measure is to charge asylum seekers fees and to deny them work permits while they wait for immigration proceedings....

In what could turn out to be one of the most spectacular legal scandals of the past two-weeks, BigLaw firm Boies Schiller, which will likely never wash the Theranos stink off of it, was outed as the firm that narced on Avenatti to the U.S. Attorneys office for allegedly attempting to “extort” a settlement out of Nike. Apparently, as many lawyers are likely deducing, the lawyers at Boies, despite the reputation for being aggressive and using intimidation tactics to get what they want, couldn’t take the heat Avenatti was dishing out, and turned to the authorities for help....

The recent and tragic crashes of Boeing 737 Max planes has caused quite a stir in the media, and has certainly been causing the airplane maker a lot of legal trouble. And for the 346 individuals that lost their lives, whatever justice is obtained is simply too little and too late. Now, in addition to the official investigations, the company faces a new lawsuit in federal district court from the family of an American who lost their life on board the Ethiopian Air crash....

From Tennessee comes a pretty serious case of animal neglect on the part of United Pet Supply, which operates pet stores. After receiving complaints about animal neglect, Chattanooga animal welfare workers visited the store, observing lots of neglected animals in pretty bad conditions. (See pages 5-6 of the opinion for more of the details.) City workers seized the animals, revoked Pet Supply’s license to sell animals on the spot, and cited the company for various violations....

Cogswell v. CitiFinancial Mortgage Co., Inc., 08-2153, concerned a challenge to the district court’s grant of defendant’s motion for summary judgment, in plaintiff’s breach of contract suit against defendant-CitiFinancial, after an unsuccessful appeal of the trial court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s action to foreclose on a mortgage assigned to it by defendant. In reversing the judgment, the court remanded the case as, the district court based its summary judgment decision primarily on a determination that defendant never agreed to deliver the note as part of the parties’ agreement to transfer the mortgage, but whether they agreed on this term is a question of fact, and plaintiff presented enough evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could conclude that it was a part of the parties’ agreement....

In an action claiming that defendant collection agency violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by charging a usurious rate of interest, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the creditor’s assessment of finance charges was not a forbearance, and therefore there was no Washington usury law violation; and 2) the complaint correctly calculated the total debt plaintiff owed, accurately stated the principal owed, and accurately listed the total non-principal amount owed inclusive of interest and finance charges....

Justices Scalia and Kagan may have been hunting antelope over the weekend, but next week the ideological opposites will be hunting for answers. The court is set to hear two cases when it returns for the November sitting next Monday: Clapper v. Amnesty International USA and Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. The latter case involves a topic near and dear us: Selling stuff. You see, we’ve been living in small spaces with big city rent for years....

Life just got a little better for legal professionals from Wilmington to Rehoboth, as FindLaw recently unveiled its new Delaware Code and Constitution section. The legal practitioners in the First State and beyond now have access to the best, easiest-to-use Delaware codes around. So, if you have a client looking to open a microbrew in Dover or if you’re handling a worker’s comp claim in New Castle, we’ve got what you need....

Appeal from Sanctions Order Dismissed In Harmston v. City and Cty. of San Francisco, No. 09-16562, plaintiff’s appeal from the district court’s order sanctioning plaintiff and his attorney for violating the court’s discovery protective order, the court dismissed the appeal where, because the district court’s remand order constituted a final order, plaintiff’s last day to appeal came 180 days later, on April 17, 2009, and thus the appeal was untimely....

In an action brought under 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983 and the First Amendment, district court judgment is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact on a claim of municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983 as he didn’t provide any evidence that the City of Milwaukee failed to train its officers and showed deliberate indifference to the rights of individuals with whom the officers came into contact; 2) the court properly granted summary on the First Amendment claim as plaintiff offered no evidence to support his claim; 3) the court did not err during voir dire in refusing to ask the jurors plaintiff’s proposed question; 4) the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow into evidence questions concerning allegations of misconduct by one of the officers, as further questioning would have been of limited probative value; and 5) the court did not err by refusing to present the jury with plaintiff’s proposed instruction concerning the lawfulness of his arrest and the scope of the municipal ordinance that he was charged with violating....