US 7th Circuit Court of Appeals

United States v. Loughry Docket: 13-1385 Opinion Date: December 18, 2013 Judge: Williams Areas of Law: Criminal Law In 2011, the Seventh Circuit reversed Loughry’ss convictions for child pornography offenses because the district court erred in admitting certain “hard core” child pornography videos found on Loughry’s computer. Following re-trial, Loughry was again convicted of 16 child pornography offenses. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that the district court erred in sending to the jury room a binder containing properly admitted evidence of child pornography collected from Loughry’s residence. Loughry claimed that the evidence was too prejudicial for jurors to examine during deliberations. There may be some special circumstances in which a court would abuse its discretion by failing to exclude properly admitted evidence from the jury room based on prejudice, but Loughry’s case does not qualify. The challenged exhibit was not unfairly prejudicial because the images and videos from his collection were highly probative of his identity as the internet user “Mayorroger” who advertised and distributed child pornography on a site called “the Cache.” http://j.st/Fvk View Case On: Justia  Google Scholar

Harrison Kishwaukee, LLC v. Rockford Acquisition, LLC Docket: 12-3133 Opinion Date: December 18, 2013 Judge: Easterbrook Areas of Law: Bankruptcy, Landlord - Tenant, Real Estate & Property Law The Debtor leased a building and, during liquidation in bankruptcy, assumed the lease, 11 U.S.C. 365, and sold the leasehold interest (and other assets) to Tenant. The bankruptcy judge approved the transaction in 2007, after Landlord did not object to the Debtor’s assertion that Landlord did not have any outstanding claim against the Debtor. The approval barred any claims based on pre‐sale events. The lease requires Tenant to maintain the roof. In 2010 the Landlord sued Tenant in state court, based on that obligation. By motion in the closed bankruptcy proceeding, Tenant asked the bankruptcy court to interpret the 2007 order as blocking the claim. The bankruptcy judge concluded that the order did not affect continuing obligations such as the duty to keep leased premises in good repair; Landlord requested a prospective remedy, not damages. The district court disagreed, ruling that Landlord can enforce the good‐repair clause only to the extent that defects in the roof first occurred after the lease’s assumption in bankruptcy. The Sixth Circuit dismissed an appeal for lack of jurisdiction, because the district court did not enter an injunction. The court expressed hope that the bankruptcy judge or the district judge will attend to several issues inherent in both opinions. http://j.st/Ft5 View Case On: Justia  Google Scholar