Civil Rights

Weekly Summaries Distributed April 17, 2015 In re T.S.S. Civil Rights, Government & Administrative Law  Vermont Supreme Court United States v. Stafford Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law  U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Siluk v. Merwin Civil Rights, Criminal Law  U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit United States v. Torres-Landrua Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law  U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Nigro v. Sears, Roebuck and Co. Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Labor & Employment Law  U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Lapointe v. Comm’r of Corr. Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law  Connecticut Supreme Court LSCP, LLLP v. Kay-Decker Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Tax Law  Iowa Supreme Court Makiel v. Butler Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law  U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit State v. Knox Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Criminal Law  Kansas Supreme Court State v. Seen Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law  Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia Frohnapfel v. Arcelormittal USA LLC Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Labor & Employment Law  Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia Cox v. United States Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law  U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Chavero-Linares v. Smith Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law  U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Doe v. Vill. of Arlington Heights Civil Rights, Injury Law  U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Commonwealth v. Colondres Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Criminal Law  Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court United States v. Aviles-Vega Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law  U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Rhodes v. Dittmann Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law  U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Commonwealth v. Newson Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law  Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Labrayere v. Bohr Farms, LLC Agriculture Law, Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Injury Law  Supreme Court of Missouri People v. Diaz Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law  California Court of Appeal Moore v. State Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law  Supreme Court of Missouri State v. Dupree Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law  Montana Supreme Court State v. Nofoa Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law  Supreme Court of Hawaii Wenk v. O'Reilly Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Education Law  U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Mobley v. Bronson Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law  U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Commonwealth v. Foster Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law  Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Powell v. Tompkins Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law  U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Melendres v. Arpaio Civil Rights, Constitutional Law  U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Family Serv. Ass'n v. Wells Twp Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Injury Law  U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Guardado v. State Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law  Florida Supreme Court People v. Barner Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law  Supreme Court of Illinois Commonwealth v. Jackson Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law  Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Brown v. Eddie World, Inc. Civil Rights, Juvenile Law  Supreme Court of Nevada Smith v. State Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law  Arkansas Supreme Court

Receive this and other FREE daily opinion summaries from Justia

In re T.S.S. Court: Vermont Supreme CourtCitation: 2015 VT 55 Opinion Date: April 10, 2015 Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Government & Administrative Law Respondent T.S.S. appealed a Superior Court decision granting the commissioner of the Department of Mental Health's application for a continued order of non-hospitalization (ONH) compelling T.S.S. to continue undergoing mental-health treatment. T.S.S. argued that the superior court erred in interpreting 18 V.S.A. 7101(16) and applying it to the evidence. T.S.S. suffered from paranoid schizophrenia. T.S.S. "has demonstrated a clear pattern that for a short period of time, despite denying that he has a mental illness, he, on orders of non-hospitalization, will take medications and improve significantly. But when he is off the order of non-hospitalization, he quickly goes off medications and deteriorates." Over the fifteen-year history testified to at the hearing, there was no evidence that T.S.S. exhibited assaultive behavior or posed a danger to others. There was evidence, however, that at times T.S.S. posed a danger to himself. In June 2013, the commissioner filed an application for continued treatment. T.S.S. did not contest the application and stipulated to entry of the order. On May 27, 2014, the superior court granted the commissioner's application. T.S.S. appealed. Upon review of the Superior Court's interpretation of 7101(6), the Supreme Court concluded that the superior court applied the wrong legal standard to the evidence, and that the evidence and findings did not support a continued ONH in this case. http://j.st/4dmW View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

United States v. Stafford Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Docket: 13-4188 Opinion Date: April 10, 2015 Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law Stafford was convicted of conspiring with four others to bomb a bridge near Cleveland in connection with their membership in a spinoff of Occupy Wall Street. Stafford had a history of mental illness, but, after a competency hearing, the district court found him competent to stand trial and granted his motion, supported by his appointed counsel, to represent himself at trial. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Although the district court could likely have exercised its discretion, recognized by the Supreme Court in Indiana v. Edwards, to impose counsel under the circumstances, it was not an abuse of that discretion in this case to grant Stafford’s motion and permit Stafford to defend himself. The court carefully examined Stafford’s ability to represent himself, and standby counsel was provided. The court upheld application of a Guidelines enhancement for crimes of terrorism. http://j.st/4dmn View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

Siluk v. Merwin Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Docket: 11-3996 Opinion Date: April 10, 2015 Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Criminal Law Siluk is an indigent state prisoner who was allowed to file in forma pauperis (IFP). He currently owes a filing fee of $350 to the Clerk of the District Court and $505 to the Clerk of the Third Circuit. Siluk argued that the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 28 U.S.C. 1915(b)(2), only requires a 20% deduction from his prison account each month until both fees are paid, and that the deductions should be made in the order in which they were incurred. The government argued that section 1915(b) requires that a monthly 20-percent deduction must be made concurrently for fees owed in both courts until the fees are paid, which would result in a 40-percent deduction from Siluk’s account. After noting a conflict among the circuits, the Third Circuit adopted the sequential recoupment rule: section 1915 permits the recoupment of only 20% of a prisoner’s monthly income for filing fees, regardless of how many civilactions or appeals the prisoner elects to pursue. http://j.st/4dm7 View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

United States v. Torres-Landrua Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Docket: 13-1674 Opinion Date: April 10, 2015 Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of drug-trafficking and one count of money laundering. Defendant was sentenced to a 168-month term of imprisonment, a sentence that was at the bottom of his Guidelines imprisonment range. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not violate Defendant’s due process rights where it allowed Defendant to present evidence of his alleged minor role in the crimes, allowed Defendant to testify regarding the alleged coercion he felt from his co-defendants, and cross-examined Defendant as to whether he faced retaliation after he left the conspiracy; (2) Defendant was not entitled to a minor role adjustment; (3) the district court did not err by declining to award a downward departure for coercion and duress; and (4) Defendant’s sentence was reasonable. http://j.st/4dmD View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

Nigro v. Sears, Roebuck and Co. Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Docket: 12-57262 Opinion Date: April 10, 2015 Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Labor & Employment Law Here a panel of the Ninth Circuit withdrew its opinion filed on February 25, 2015 and replaced it with this amended opinion. The panel reversed the district’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Sears, Roebuck and Co. in a suit filed by Plaintiff, a former employee of Sears. Plaintiff alleged three disability discrimination claims under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The panel concluded that Plaintiff presented triable claims under FEHA that deserved trial. The panel additionally noted (1) it was beside the point that some of Plaintiff’s evidence was self-serving because such testimony was admissible, though absent corroboration, it may have limited weight; and (2) a district court could disregard a self-serving declaration that stated only conclusions and not facts that would be admissible evidence. Remanded. http://j.st/4dmz View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

Lapointe v. Comm’r of Corr. Court: Connecticut Supreme Court Docket:SC19079 Opinion Date: April 21, 2015 Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of capital felony and arson murder, among other offenses. Petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus alleging that his due process rights were violated because the State had failed to disclose a note written by a police detective containing details concerning the length of time that the fire burned inside the victim’s apartment prior to being discovered. First habeas counsel failed to pursue the claim, and consequently, the first habeas court rejected that claim as abandoned. Petitioner subsequently filed this habeas petition, alleging that the State withheld the evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland and that his first habeas counsel had rendered ineffective assistance by failing to pursue and prove that claim. The second habeas court dismissed the claim. The Appellate Court remanded. The third habeas court rejected the petition. The Appellate Court reversed in part and remanded with direction to grant the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and for a new trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Petitioner was deprived of a fair trial because his rights under Brady were violated and that Petitioner’s first habeas counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to establish that violation. http://j.st/4dss View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

LSCP, LLLP v. Kay-Decker Court: Iowa Supreme Court Docket: 140494 Opinion Date: April 10, 2015 Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Tax Law At issue in this appeal was the constitutionality of the statutory framework under which Iowa taxes the delivery of natural gas at variable tax rates depending on volume and the taxpayer’s geographic location within the state. Plaintiff filed with the Iowa Department of Revenue a claim for a refund of replacement tax Plaintiff paid for certain tax years, asserting that the replacement tax in Iowa Code 437A.5(2) violates the federal Equal Protection Clause, Iowa Const. art. I, 6, and the dormant Commerce Clause because it is based on the natural gas competitive service area in which a taxpayer is located. An administrative law judge denied Plaintiff’s refund claims and rejected the constitutional challenges to the replacement tax. The district court also denied each of Plaintiff’s constitutional challenges. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a rational basis exists for the variable excise tax imposed on the delivery of natural gas under section 437A.5, and therefore, Plaintiff failed to establish a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment or Iowa Const. art. I, 6; and (2) the natural gas delivery tax framework does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause. http://j.st/4dsn View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

Makiel v. Butler Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Docket: 13-3777, Docket: 13-3076 Opinion Date: April 10, 2015 Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law Makiel was convicted of the 1988 murder of Hoch and the armed robbery of a gas station where she worked. After exhaustion of state remedies, the district court denied his petition for habeas corpus, The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The Illinois courts did not apply federal law unreasonably in concluding that Makiel’s counsel was not ineffective in selecting the issues to pursue on appeal: One issue she raised drew a remand, and, although the other two issues did not prevail, each drew a dissenting opinion. An evidentiary ruling preventing impeachment of a prosecution witness with a pending forgery charge was not clearly a stronger issue than those she raised, nor was the exclusion of testimony about the reputations of prosecution witnesses. The state court did not act unreasonably in finding no violation of Makiel’s constitutional right to compulsory process by exclusion of the testimony of an 11-year-old, who would have blamed another young boy for the murder. The proffered testimony was uncorroborated at the time. Its exclusion was an error and was the basis for the state court’s remand. By the time the state courts decided the constitutional issue, however, he had disavowed his proffered testimony, and there was no reason to think it would have been probative or reliable. http://j.st/4dmj View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

State v. Knox Court: Kansas Supreme Court Docket:104266 Opinion Date: April 10, 2015 Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Criminal Law After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of premeditated first-degree murder. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant was not entitled to an instruction on self-defense; (2) the district court did not commit clear error by failing to instruct on second-degree intentional murder; (3) the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing arguments by vouching for the credibility of some witnesses, discussing facts not in evidence, and disparaging the defense, but the statements did not deprive Defendant of a fair trial; (4) the district court did not err in excluding evidence suggesting that a third party might have had a motive to commit the murder; (5) Defendant did not preserve his argument that the district court violated his confrontation rights by limiting cross-examination of a state witness; and (6) the presumed instructional error and the instances of prosecutorial misconduct did not cumulatively deny Defendant a fair trial. http://j.st/4dsX View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

State v. Seen Court: Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia Docket: 14-0173 Opinion Date: April 10, 2015 Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law After a jury-waived trial, Petitioner was found guilty of battery. The court found that the battery was sexually motivated and ordered Petitioner to register as a sex offender. The Supreme Court affirmed the battery conviction but reversed the finding that the offense was sexually motivated, holding (1) Petitioner’s due process rights were violated by the State’s failure to provide pretrial notice of its intent to seek a finding of sexual motivation, and the trial court’s finding of sexual motivation and concomitant registration requirements constituted plain error requiring reversal; and (2) the evidence was sufficient to support the conclusion that Petitioner committed battery. http://j.st/4dsH View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

Frohnapfel v. Arcelormittal USA LLC Court: Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia Docket: 14-0671 Opinion Date: April 10, 2015 Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Labor & Employment Law Prior to his termination, Petitioner was employed by Respondent, a tin plate manufacturer, as a technician operator. After his termination, Petitioner and his wife (Petitioners) filed this action seeking damages for retaliatory discharge and loss of consortium, alleging that Petitioner was discharged for reporting violations of a permit issued under the West Virginia Water Pollution Control Act (WPCA) and making complaints to Respondent about those permit violations. Respondents removed the case to federal court on grounds of diversity. The federal district court then certified a question to the West Virginia supreme Court, which answered the question as follows: An employee who alleges that he was discharged for reporting violations of a permit issued under authority of the WPCA and making complaints to his employer about those permit violations has established the predicate substantial public policy required to prima facie prove that the employer’s motivation for the discharge was the contravention of public policy. http://j.st/4ds9 View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

Cox v. United States

...

[Message clipped]  View entire message