Case Summaries
Criminal Law & Procedure
Government Law
Commercial Law
Criminal Law & Procedure
[07/02]
US v. Pepper
Sentence for drug crimes is affirmed where: 1) this court's prior remand did not require the district court to grant defendant a 40 percent downward departure for substantial assistance as the remand was a general remand for resentencing and did not place any limitations on the discretion of the district court judge in resentencing; 2) the court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to grant more than a 20 percent reduction based on defendant's substantial assistance; 3) the court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's request for a downward variance based on his post-sentencing rehabilitation and the cost of his incarceration; and 4) defendant's sentence was not unreasonable.
[07/02]
US v. Davis
Conviction for firearms possession is affirmed where: 1) the search of defendant's vehicle without a warrant was permissible under the Fourth Amendment as it was lawful search incident to arrest, and thus firearm found in vehicle was admissible; and 2) the court properly ruled that the search was permissible under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement as well.
[07/02]
US v. Schmidt
Conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition is affirmed where: 1) the district court had jurisdiction over the offense as defendant's possession of a firearm manufactured out of country and ammunition manufactured out of state was sufficient to satisfy 18 U.S.C. sec. 922(g)(1)'s required nexus to interstate commerce; and 2) defendant's sentence was not unreasonable.
[07/02]
US v. Lee
Sentence for aiding and abetting assault with intent to rob a post office is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err in overruling defendant's objections to the sentencing enhancements without requiring the government to present any evidence as there was sufficient evidence in the record to support each of the enhancements; and 2) the court did not err in imposing an enhancement under Guidelines sec. 2B3.1(b)(4)(B), as one of his accomplices struck a woman attempting to leave the post office during the robbery, thereby physically restraining the victim.
[07/02]
Roubideaux v. North Dakota Dep't of Corr. and Rehabilitation
In a sex discrimination action brought by female prison inmates, district court grant of summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the female inmates had standing to challenge the constitutionality of the two challenged gender-explicit statutes; 2) the evidence in the record raises no inference of gender discrimination in the decision-making process because the statutes in question substantially relate to the important government objective of providing adequate segregated housing for female inmates, and any equal protection claim arising out the inmates' previous housing was mooted by their transfer to the Correction and Rehabilitation Center; 3) prison industry assignments were not subject to Title IX as the primary purpose of the program is employment, not education; and 4) the vocational education programs were within the scope of Title IX, and the district court did not err in finding that any differences in the programs offered men and women were a function of the location of the facilities and not gender discrimination.
More...
Government Law
[07/02]
Trentadue v. FBI
In a Freedom of Information Act action seeking FBI records regarding certain investigations, the District Court's order allowing the depositions of certain inmates is reversed where the FBI submitted declarations that provided a consistent and uncontradicted showing that it conducted an adequate search for the records requested by Plaintiff, and there was no reason why the depositions might yield additional documents.
[07/02]
Glaser v. Wound Care Consultants, Inc.
In a qui tam action brought under the False Claims Act, district court judgment dismissing plaintiff's complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is affirmed where the district court correctly concluded that the threshold jurisdictional bar of the Act against lawsuits based upon publicly disclosed allegations applied to the suit, as the allegations in the complaint about defendant's billing practices were in fact based on publicly disclosed information and plaintiff failed to show she was an original source of the information used to support the allegations.
[06/30]
City of Irvine v. Southern California Ass'n of Gov'ts
Trial court judgment sustaining demurrer filed by defendant without leave to amend and dismissing the action is affirmed where the court properly found it lacked jurisdiction to review the propriety of plaintiff's regional housing needs assessment allocation as the administrative procedure established under Government Code sect. 65584 to calculate a local government's allocation of the regional housing needs assessment is intended to be the exclusive remedy for the municipality to challenge that determination, and reflect a clear intent to preclude judicial intervention in the process.
[06/30]
Shaw v. People ex rel John Chiang
In an action related to California's state budgetary process, trial court judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the Legislature's amendment of Revenue and Taxation Code sec. 7102 is invalid and thus most of the Legislatures appropriations of Public Transportation Account spillover gas tax revenue for the 2007-08 budget year are invalid because they do not serve a transportation planning or mass transportation purpose; and 2) the court properly rejected the Legislature's transfer of $409 million from the Public Transportation Account to the General Fund for past debt service payments on Proposition 108 bonds as not being consistent with the purposes of the Public Transportation Account.
[06/30]
Mednik v. State Dept. of Health Care Serv.
Trial court order denying plaintiff's petition for writ of mandate is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's exclusion from the Medi-Cal program amounted to disbarment and he therefore has a liberty interest at stake; 2) plaintiff has not identified any aspect of the administrative appeal procedure in connection with his temporary suspension and denial of reenrollment which fell short of the demands of due process; and 3) there is no support for plaintiff's allegation that the trial court lacked the complete administrative record.
More...
Commercial Law
[07/01]
Arnold's Wines, Inc. v. Boyle
District court order granting defendants' motions to dismiss plaintiff's request for a declaratory judgment is affirmed where sections of the New York Alcoholic Beverage Control Laws banning direct sales to consumers by out-of-state liquor retailers and instituting a three-tier system for the regulation of alcoholic beverages evenhandedly regulate the importation and distribution of liquor within the state and do not discriminate against out-of-state producers in violation of the Commerce Clause, and thus are a valid exercise of the state's rights under the Twenty-first Amendment.
[06/26]
TAG/ICIB Services, Inc. v. Sedeco Servicio de Descuento en Compras
District court judgment against defendant for overdue demurrage owed to plaintiff is reversed where: 1) Puerto Rico Commerce Code Article 947's 180-day limitations period applies to plaintiff's claim for overdue demurrage charges on international shipments to Puerto Rico; and 2) the court did not err in failing to apply the laches presumption, as the parties offered scant facts relevant to such an inquiry and the parties consented to judgment based on the stipulation.
[06/26]
Keweenaw Bay Indian Comm. v. Rising
In an Indian tribe's action seeking injunctive relief from Michigan's policy of taxing transactions involving the tribe and from Michigan's reliance on an informal refund process to sort those immunities out on a case-by-case basis, judgment for Defendant is reversed, where the questions presented covered a myriad of hypothetical transactions and were too abstract and unsupported by specific facts.
[06/25]
Taco John's of Huron, Inc. v. Bix Produce Co., LLC
In a negligence class action involving the provision of contaminated lettuce to restaurant franchises, appeal following district court's Rule 54(b) certification for immediate appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction where the case does not present sufficient exigency as there is no danger or hardship in allowing it to take its ordinary course.
[06/24]
Warfield v. Bestgen
In an action by the receiver of a foundation found to have engaged in fraudulent investment sales to recover commissions paid to the foundation's salespersons, judgment for Plaintiff is affirmed, where the charitable gift annuities sold by Defendants were investment contracts under federal securities law.
More...
|
