Posts

In US v. Mullins, No. 09-1031, the court of appeals affirmed defendants’ wire fraud convictions and sentences, on the grounds that 1) a “new or increased risk of loss” was plainly a material, detrimental effect on a financial institution, and fell squarely within the proper scope of the statute; 2) the statute of limitations did not expire as to certain offenses because the jury could find that, by using fraudulent information to obtain loans, defendant and her customers exposed the companies to a greater risk of loss that persisted at least until extinguished by the final loan payment; and 3) the use of interstate wires was integral to defendants’ fraudulent scheme....

The company formerly known as Price is breathing a sigh of relief today, as the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals took their side in a wage and hour lawsuit this week. Anyone who worked at one of the “Big 4” accounting firms could tell you about the grueling hours they likely had to put in, particularly during tax season. So is it any surprise that there would eventually be wage and hour lawsuits against those firms?...

Santiago v. Walls, No. 07-1219, involved a pro se action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 against certain officers and employees of the Illinois correctional department alleging that they had violated his constitutional rights by failing to protect him from other inmates, failing to provide him with medical care and retaliating against him for speaking out against the department. The court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal and other rulings against the plaintiff but reversed in part where the district court erred in dismissing one count of plaintiff’s complaint and abused its discretion by not recruiting counsel for plaintiff during discovery....

If you like to pass the time trying to predict the outcomes of Supreme Court decisions, and cert. petitions, and your FantastySCOTUS League is just not enough for you, then SCOTUSblog has something just for you – the Supreme Court Challenge! In its third year, the Supreme Court Challenge tests your skills at predicting how the Supreme Court will decide six certiorari petitions, and six merit cases, in April, 2014. The best part?...

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Wednesday that cop-killer Jesse Gonzales will have another day in court. Gonzales was convicted in a California state court in 1979 of first degree murder, with a special circumstance finding that he killed a law enforcement officer, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s deputy Jack Williams, engaged in the lawful pursuit of his duties. Gonzales was sentenced to death in 1981, and is one of California’s longest-serving death row inmates, reports the AP....

Most recently in the Bill Cosby legal drama, it was reported that Cosby finally filed the petition for certiorari seeking to overturn the California Supreme Court, and rather follow the federal First and Third Circuit courts of appeal. On the criminal front, Cosby will be sentenced this September, and it has been reported that he will be considered a Tier III sexual predator and listed as a sex offender for the rest of his life....

Until Copernicus, it was pretty obvious the Sun went around the Earth. In Wood v. Allergan, it also seemed clear the plaintiffs had a case against Allergan. The plaintiffs, which included half of the United States, alleged the pharmaceutical company gave kickbacks to doctors who prescribed its products. But the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals said that’s not how the False Claims Act works. The appeals court said it was pretty obvious, too....

In what must ring out as a hollow victory for Iowa State University, a federal district court has dismissed a Title IX case alleging the institution took too long to investigate a sexual assault incident back in March 2014. The delay allegedly resulted in the student victim experiencing a deprivation of educational opportunity. The University’s issued the following statement: A Failing Grade The university’s statement fails to account for the fact that the sexual assault was not investigated for several months after it was reported....

The Ninth Circuit revived a seven-year-old class action lawsuit over Google’s AdWords program on Monday. AdWords places brief, text-based ads on websites working with Google – including, between 2004 and 2008, undeveloped domains and error pages. Advertisers sued, alleging that the placement of ads of such undesirable sites violated California’s Unfair Competition and Fair Advertising Law. The putative class of advertisers was originally denied certification under the theory that there was no common method for determining how much restitution each advertiser would be due....

A federal judge handed President Trump another loss in his battle against sanctuary cities. Judge Richard Jones said Trump’s executive order to withhold funding from Seattle and Portland was unconstitutional. It was the second time in three months that a federal court has struck the president’s order. “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States” was the name of the order. “Unconstitutional” was the ruling in City of Seattle v....

Warning: Second Circuit attorneys, you may have a David Bowie problem. Sadly, we’re not talking about a problem stemming from your David Bowie obsession - as if that could be characterized as a problem - but from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals holding in David Bowie v. Maddox that criticizes a Second Circuit Court of Appeals holding in Jackler v. Byrne. David M. Bowie, a former official of the District of Columbia Office of the Inspector General (OIG), claimed he was fired in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights....

Denial of defendant’s petition for habeas relief from a conviction of rape of a child under thirteen years of age and related crimes is reversed and a conditional writ as to the indictment charging defendant with gross sexual imposition against a minor victim is granted as the admission of a videotape deposition without a proper finding that the witness was constitutionally unavailable violated defendant’s clearly established right to confrontation under the Sixth Amendment....

If you’re in the business of making Catholic-branded gifts, it seems like you wouldn’t want to irk the Vatican. But Magi XXI decided that it wasn’t getting a fair shake in a sublicensing deal with Vatican Publishing, so it actually sued the Holy See. The Vatican, however, doesn’t answer to just any higher power; it litigates in its own courts, governed by its own laws. In 2000, the Vatican entered into a Master License Agreement with Second Renaissance, granting Second Renaissance the rights to produce and market specific lines of products based on reproductions of artifacts in the Vatican Library and, subject to certain conditions, to sublicense those rights....

This month, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in the “Douchebag Case.” That is, they ruled on whether or not a highschooler who called her school administrators “douchebags” online had her First Amendment Rights violated when the “douchebags” reprimanded her. The case brings to light crucial issues of regarding the First Amendment in schools, a growing issue of concern particularly with the increasing use of social media and cyberbullying....

In a petition for review of the BIA’s order denying petitioner asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture, and ordering petitioner’s removal, the petition is granted where the IJ’s adverse credibility determination was not supported by substantial evidence because it relied on a flawed fact-finding process, impermissible speculation, and flawed reasoning. Read Hu v. Holder, No. 08-2998 Appellate Information Argued: June 23, 2009 Decided: September 3, 2009...

Remember Jared? He was just that everyday overweight American who lost more than half his body weight by eating a submarine sandwich every day. How could you forget someone that epitomized the American dream so well? He was one of the spokesmen that people were actually inspired by. Which was what made his recent conviction for child pornography all the more shocking. Many people pictured him as a wholesome individual, who, with hard work and eating a submarine sandwich a day, got skinny, then became famous....

In an appeal from an order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 sanctioning defense counsel for making factual representations that lacked evidentiary support, the order is reversed where, in light of the record evidence: 1) it was legally erroneous for the magistrate judge to conclude that the statement “there can be no doubt that the witnesses are giving testimony that counsel knows to be false” was utterly lacking in support and therefore sanctionable; and 2) counsel’s possible overstatement of the money allegedly sent by plaintiffs’ counsel to certain witnesses did not violate Rule 11....

In Girts v. Yanai, No. 08-4592, the Sixth Circuit faced a challenge to the district court’s decision to grant an unconditional writ but not to bar retrial for the third time, following two overturned convictions due to prosecutorial misconduct. As stated in the decision: “The court has noted three situations where federal courts have barred retrial of successful habeas petitioners: (1) where the act of retrial itself would violate the petitioner’s constitutional rights, for example, by subjecting him to double jeopardy; (2) where a conditional writ has issued and the petitiioner has not been retried within the time period specified by the court; and (3) where the petitioner had served extended and potentially unjustifiable periods of incarceration before the writ was granted....

The Constitution does not guarantee the right to bail. That’s not news, and the Eighth Amendment explains it. The Constitution does not guarantee the right to cash-money bail, either. That is news and probably requires some explanation. In Holland v. Rosen, the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals said a criminal defendant has no federal right to deposit money or to obtain a corporate surety to ensure future appearance in court....

In a cost recovery action under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, judgment for plaintiff U.S. is affirmed where: 1) defendant was unable to establish that the Army used the chemical at issue at the contested site; 2) the court reasonably chose not to credit the testimony of veterans who claimed the chemical was used by the Army; and 3) defendant failed to rebut the presumption that the EPA’s efforts to list the site on the National Priorities List were consistent with a national contingency plan....