Posts

The recent cases before the U.S. Supreme Court which challenge the Biden Administration’s vaccine-or-testing mandate for employers with 100 or more employees are unique in many ways. Here are some particularly striking things about the pending COVID suits. The First Vaccination Cases in 100 Years Until the coronavirus pandemic, cases addressing vaccination mandates seemed to be a thing of the past. The last time the Supreme Court pondered vaccination mandates was in 1922....

Defendant’s child pornography conviction and sentence are affirmed, where 1) intrastate possession of child pornography may affect interstate commerce; 2) the prosecution had a strong case independent of the initial portions of an improperly admitted audiotape; and 3) 18 U.S.C. section 3559(e)(2) mandates a life sentence only for that specific subset of prior convictions under 18 U.S.C. section 1591 where the victim is a minor. Read US v. Gallenardo, No. 07-30414...

Conviction of defendant for conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine and related crimes is affirmed where: 1) district court did not commit plain error in admitting officer testimony regarding firsthand knowledge; 2) there was more than enough evidence for the jury to find defendant guilty of possession with intent to distribute; 3) it was improper for a witness to mention defendant’s criminal history, but the district judge exercised proper discretion in not sua sponte declaring a mistrial; and 4) defendant’s argument that the district court miscalculated the applicable drug weight and subsequent guidelines offense level is irrelevant as the district court did not use the guidelines to arrive at the sentence but relied on credible testimony and government evidence....

When someone tells you that the food at a wedding was bad, it’s not usually that much of a surprise. But when you find out that over forty guests got food poisoning, allegedly from some bad mac and cheese, that’s a whole different story. Sadly, that’s also a true story, at least according to a recent class action lawsuit against one wedding caterer in the state of New York. Allegedly, over forty guests, including the father of the bride, got sick due to the mac and cheese served....

In a capital murder case, district court’s judgment granting a writ of habeas corpus is reversed where a state court ruling based on the post-conviction record was not contrary to nor an unreasonable application of the Strickland standard where the defendant failed to present any evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel at the state post-conviction proceeding. District court’s dismissal of the defendant’s remaining claims are affirmed where: 1) there was no error in rejecting defendant’s Batson claims; 2) a claim regarding the denial of a strike a juror for cause was properly rejected; 3) for purposes of the admission of a partially inculpatory statement, state courts’ rejection of the claim did not involve an unreasonable application of Colorado v....

The confirmation hearing went well for Judge L. Felipe Restrepo in early June. After long delays for Judge Restrepo, it shouldn’t be long before the 3rd Circuit officially welcomes their new judge to the bench. A longtime judge on the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Restrepo received President Obama’s nomination for the circuit court on November 12th. From the beginning on this process, the judge’s public supporters have included Pennsylvania senators Bob Casey and Pat Toomey....

Steve Hammond did what any red-blooded American lawyer would do when shamed in public – he sued. After all, he didn’t start the fight. His health club did. The Wall Street health club terminated his membership after a report that he had masturbated in the steam room. Hammond lost his job, his reputation, and lots of sleep. Then he did what any shamed American would do – he moved to another country....

Rejecting arguments to suppress evidence in a drug case, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the power of a judge to issue wiretap orders outside a trial court’s jurisdiction. In Dahda v. United States, a Kansas judge issued wiretap orders that were used to intercept communications in Kansas and other states. The justices held unanimously that the wiretap orders were “not insufficient” under a federal wiretap statute. The Court rejected the defendants’ argument that allowing judges extra-territorial jurisdiction produced “bizarre” results....

Title VII Discrimination Action In Estate of Paulette Hamilton v. City of N.Y., No. 09-4318, a Title VII employment discrimination action, the court affirmed summary judgment for defendant in part where 1) plaintiff could not introduce evidence of subsequent remedial measures taken by defendant in order to establish defendant’s underlying liability; 2) the decision to consider EEOC findings was left to the “sound discretion” of the district court; and 3) plaintiffs pointed to no evidence indicating that the relevant performance evaluations were biased or manifestly inaccurate....

In plaintiffs’ consolidated securities action against defendants alleging fraud in connection with a merger, the judgment of the district court is affirmed where it did not abuse its discretion: 1) in dismissing the case with prejudice as the plaintiffs had a number of opportunities to craft a complaint that complied with the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act; 2) in denying plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e); and 3) in denying the plaintiffs’ motion to file an amended complaint....

Article III courts may only hear cases or controversies. As of today, Magner v. Gallagher, a case from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals that was set for oral arguments this month before the Supreme Court, no longer meets those criteria. The City of St. Paul, Minn. withdrew its petition to the Supreme Court today, so the case will instead proceed to trial in a Minnesota federal court, reports SCOTUSblog. The Supreme Court had scheduled arguments in the case for February 29....

Defendant’s petition for a writ of mandamus arising from his indictment for various fraud-related charges involving a contract with the United States Army to provide goods and services to military locations throughout the world, including Kuwait, is granted under the three conditions set forth by the Supreme Court in Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court and the district court is ordered to rule on defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment where: 1) even though ordinary proceedings do not provide an adequate alternative, defendant is asking for relief well within the power of the district court where, as a Lebanese citizen and resident of Kuwait, defendant is under no obligation to travel to the U....

Margarita Zayas was an ultrasound technician employed at Rockford Memorial Hospital from November 1999 to April 2011. Though she received positive work evaluations as recently as 2008 and 2009, she was terminated because of repeatedly sending disrespectful emails to her direct supervisor Larry Griesman. Over the course of one year, Zayas sent a series of insubordinate emails to Griesman, despite several meetings and warnings. Even after Zayas received a formal written warning, she persisted in sending emails that “were perceived as negative, unprofessional and disrespectful towards her managers and peers....

Remember the unbelievable D.C. v. Wesby civil rights case that involved a bunch of alleged trespassers and their host Peaches that got arrested while partying in a vacant house and then won $680, 000 (actually a cool million after attorney fees)? Well, the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in this week, and those trespassing partygoers likely aren’t going to be celebrating anymore, as the High Court just reversed and remanded the case....

Scandinavians are known for having very accepting, open societies. Laid back, you might say. Well, either we dopey Americans have falsely lumped the Norwegians in with this far-north character analysis, or the citizens of that country are anything but laid back. Because, dear readers, something is truly rotten in the state of Norway. Increasing monitoring at work has become a common problem addressed both here and in other countries. But last week, according to Britain’s Daily Mail, things went a bit too far....

In Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Univ. Crop Protection Alliance, LLC, No. 09-1774, a declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that a pollution exclusion in defendant’s insurance policy relieved plaintiff of any obligation to defend or indemnify defendant, the court affirmed summary judgment for plaintiff where 1) in the insurance policy coverage context, a declaratory judgment action is ripe irrespective of whether the underlying litigation is ongoing or resolved; and 2) the underlying complaint made clear the relofted particulates at issue were toxic, and therefore, would qualify as “pollutants” under the policy....

In 1939, Lilly Cassirer Neubauer, a Jewish woman, needed to flee Germany with her husband. Nazi officials offered the couple $360 and two exit visas in exchange for the family’s prized possession: Camille Pissarro’s 1879 oil painting “Rue Saint-Honoré in the Afternoon. Effect of Rain.” The Danish-French painter was considered a forerunner of the revolutionary Impressionist movement. As such, his works were prized at the time and continue to be admired today....

Lawrence M. Stanfill El once worked with Kyle Carmin as fellow work-study interns with adjacent workspaces at the Department of Veteran Affairs in Portland, Oregon. It was a tranquil office, until one day, the two lads fell to fisticuffs. The outcome was poor for Mr. Carmin, as he was repeatedly struck by Mr. Stanfill El and required $3,468.03 in treatment at a local hospital. Because the altercation occurred on federal property, the prosecution took place in federal, rather than Oregon, courts using federal law....

Wisconsin political contributors, get ready to open your wallets. On Monday, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals struck a Wisconsin election law that caps political speech contributions. The Wisconsin Right to Life Political Action Committee (Right to Life PAC) challenged the law after learning that two contributors, Terry and Mary Kohler, could not make a planned $5,000 donation to the Right to Life PAC without exceeding their annual political contribution cap....

In Sierra Club v. Kimbell, No. 09-1639, an action claiming that the Forest Service’s Land and Resource Management Plan for the Superior National Forest violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the court affirmed summary judgment for defendants where nothing in either NEPA or its implementing regulations prevented the Forest Service from integrating consideration of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness into its analysis of the revised plan’s effects on other resources within the Superior National Forest....