Vote Trump 2016 !

Vote Trump 2016 !
Trump 2016
Showing posts with label Civil Rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Civil Rights. Show all posts

Friday, February 19, 2016

Civil Rights

Weekly Summaries Distributed February 19, 2016
Receive this and other FREE daily opinion summaries from JustiaSubscribe Now to Justia Daily Opinion Summaries

Selective Ins. Co. of Am. v. County of Rensselaer

Court: New York Court of Appeals Citation:2016 NY Slip Op 01001Opinion Date: February 11, 2016
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Class Action, Insurance Law
In 2002, Plaintiffs commenced a proposed class action civil rights suit against the County of Rensselaer. The County invoked Selective Insurance Company’s duty to provide a defense under the policies that the company sold to the County. Selective agreed to defend the County in the action, subject to the insurance policy limits and the deductible. Selective’s counsel and the County agreed to settle the actions for $1,000 per plaintiff, determined to be slightly more than 800 individuals in total, with attorney fees also being recoverable. Selective abided by the terms of the settlement. The County, however, refused to pay Selective more than a single deductible payment. Selective then commenced this action for money damages, arguing that each class member was subject to a separate deductible. Supreme Court concluded that a separate deductible payment applied to each class member and that all legal fees should be allocated to one policy. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the class action suit did not constitute one occurrence under the relevant policies’ definition of “occurrence” and that the attorney’s fees generated in defending that suit were properly allocated to the named plaintiff.
http://j.st/4hrSView Case
View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

State ex rel. Sorsaia v. Hon. Stowers

Court: Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia Docket: 15-0940Opinion Date: February 11, 2016
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
The State filed an information charging Caleb Toparis with the misdemeanor offenses of domestic assault and domestic battery. Toparis filed a motion to dismiss the information, asserting that his right to a speedy trial had been violated because he had not been tried on the charges within one year of the execution of the warrant. The circuit court granted the motion to dismiss. The State sought a writ of prohibition to prohibit the circuit court from dismissing the two misdemeanor charges against Toparis, contending that the circuit court erred in finding that Toparis’s right to a speedy trial had been violated. The Supreme Court granted the requested writ, holding that Toparis’s right to a speedy trial was not violated in this case.
http://j.st/4hrpView Case
View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

People v. Mendoza

Court: Supreme Court of California Docket:S143743Opinion Date: February 11, 2016
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of three counts of first degree premeditated murder. The trial court sentenced Defendant to death for the multiple murders. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the jury’s verdict finding Defendant competent to stand trial was supported by substantial evidence; (2) the trial court’s failure to conduct additional competency hearings at various points during the proceedings did not constitute a violation of Defendant’s federal constitutional right to due process of law; (3) assuming the trial court erred in permitting evidentiary portions of the trial to proceed in his absence, the error was harmless; (4) the prosecutor did not commit misconduct during closing argument at the guilt phase of trial; (5) Defendant’s constitutional challenges to his sentence on the basis of evidence that he was mentally ill at the time of the offenses and at trial were unavailing; and (6) Defendant’s challenges to the constitutionality of the death qualification process in jury selection and to California’s death penalty scheme failed.
http://j.st/4hrGView Case
View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

State v. Smith

Court: Tennessee Supreme Court Docket:M2013-02818-SC-R11-CDOpinion Date: February 11, 2016
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Defendant was stopped after a police officer observed Defendant cross once and touch twice the fog line marking the outer right lane boundary on an interstate highway. Defendant was subsequently charged with alternative counts of driving under the influence. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the traffic stop was unconstitutional. The trial court denied the motion to suppress. Thereafter, Defendant pleaded guilty to driving under the influence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the traffic stop of Defendant did not violate his constitutional rights because it was supported by reasonable suspicion.
http://j.st/4hrNView Case
View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

State v. Davis

Court: Tennessee Supreme Court Docket:E2013-02073-SC-R11-CDOpinion Date: February 11, 2016
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Defendant was stopped after a police officer observed him cross the double yellow center lane lines with the two left wheels of his car. Defendant was subsequently charged with driving under the influence. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the traffic stop was unconstitutional. The trial court denied the motion to suppress. Thereafter, Defendant pleaded guilty to driving under the influence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the arresting officer’s seizure of Defendant did not violate Defendant’s constitutional rights, and therefore, the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress.
http://j.st/4hrxView Case
View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

Landrum v. Anderson

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Docket: 14-3591Opinion Date: February 12, 2016
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Criminal Law
Landrum was convicted of aggravated burglary and aggravated murder for breaking into 84-year-old White’s apartment and killing him in 1985. The jury found two death penalty specifications: Landrum committed aggravated murder to escape detection for committing burglary, and Landrum was the principal offender in an aggravated murder. The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed. The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari. Landrum unsuccessfully sought state post-conviction relief in 1996. The Ohio Supreme Court denied further review. In 1998, Landrum applied to reopen his appeal under Ohio Rule 26(B). The Ohio Court of Appeals denied relief, finding that Landrum failed to show good cause for delaying his application; the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed. Landrum sought federal habeas relief, arguing that his counsel was ineffective for failing to introduce testimony that his co-defendant had confessed to cutting White’s throat. The court granted a conditional writ, finding that Landrum did not procedurally default that claim because Rule 26(B) was not firmly established and regularly followed in Ohio capital cases. The Sixth Circuit reversed. In 2012, Landrum filed an FRCP 60(b)(6) motion, arguing that ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel excused the procedural default of his claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present the confession claim. The district court denied relief. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, concluding Landrum did not present a “substantial claim” of ineffective assistance of counsel.
http://j.st/4hrgView Case
View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

Forras v. Rauf

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia CircuitDocket: 14-7070Opinion Date: February 12, 2016
Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Constitutional Law
Defendant and others in New York City sought to build an Islamic community center and mosque in lower Manhattan, a few blocks from the site of the World Trade Center attacks of September 11, 2001. Plaintiff, a former New York firefighter filed suit, against defendant alleging that the plan to build a mosque and community center near the World Trade Center site constituted a nuisance, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and assault. Larry Klayman represented plaintiff in that lawsuit. Defendant, through his attorney Adam Bailey, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was granted. Then plaintiff and his his counsel, Klayman, filed suit against Bailey, alleging infliction of emotional distress caused by the statements Bailey made in dismissal papers filed in New York Supreme Court and the reporting of one of those statements in the New York Post. Klayman and plaintiff voluntarily dismissed that suit and then filed the present action against Bailey. Bailey filed a motion to dismiss on multiple grounds. The court concluded that, under controlling circuit precedent, the complaint makes no plausible allegation of personal jurisdiction over Bailey, and the district court should have promptly dismissed the case on that basis. However, because the district court dismissed the case, the court can affirm the district court’s judgment on the alternative ground that it lacked jurisdiction.
http://j.st/4hrWView Case
View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

Wheeler v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp.

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia CircuitDocket: 14-7108Opinion Date: February 12, 2016
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Labor & Employment Law
Plaintiff filed suit alleging that she was terminated by her former employer, the Hospital, based on racial discrimination, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e. The district court granted summary judgment to the Hospital. The court concluded that, by providing evidence that similarly situated non-black nurses were treated more favorably, plaintiff has raised a genuine issue of material fact regarding her termination, which ought to be resolved by a jury. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
http://j.st/4hrmView Case
View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

State v. Prusha

Court: Iowa Supreme Court Docket: 140656Opinion Date: February 12, 2016
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Defendant was approached by law enforcement officers while walking on the side of the road at 1:10 a.m. The officers asked Defendant if he would consent to a search of his person, and Defendant consented to a search. Defendant was subsequently charged with possessing methamphetamine. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the warrantless search violated the Federal and State Constitutions. The district court denied the motion, concluding that Defendant voluntarily consented to the search. On appeal, Defendant argued that the search violated Iowa Const. art. I, section 8, which requires police to “advise an individual of his or her right to decline to consent to a search.” The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s article I, section 8 argument was not preserved for appellate review; and (2) because the totality of the circumstances indicated that Defendant voluntarily consented to the search, the search was valid under the Fourth Amendment.
http://j.st/4hrhView Case
View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

State v. Cooper

Court: Kansas Supreme Court Docket:106986Opinion Date: February 12, 2016
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated battery. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) any error by the district court in answering a jury question with a written response in violation of Defendant’s right to be present at all critical stages of his trial was harmless; (2) Defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his argument that the submission of a written answer to the jury question violated his right to an impartial judge and public trial; and (3) the district court did not commit clear error in failing to give a jury instruction on a lesser included severity level for the crime of aggravated battery.
http://j.st/4hrXView Case
View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

RGR Co., LLC v. Lincoln Comm’n on Human Rights

Court: Nebraska Supreme CourtCitation: 292 Neb. 745Opinion Date: February 12, 2016
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Government & Administrative Law, Landlord - Tenant
Lionel Simeus filed a complaint against RGR Company LLC with the Lincoln Commission on Human Rights for housing discrimination in violation of section 11.06.020(b) of the Lincoln Municipal Code and 42 U.S.C. 3604(b) of the federal Fair Housing Act. The Commission determined that RGR discriminated against Simeus on the basis of race and national origin and, on behalf of Simeus, filed a charge of discrimination against RGR. After a hearing, the Commission found in favor of Simeus. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Commission did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that RGR’s proffered reasons for its negative treatment of Simeus were a pretext for discrimination or that Simeus was the victim of intentional discrimination.
http://j.st/4hHDView Case
View Case On: 
...

[Message clipped]  View entire message
3.16 GB (2%) of 117 GB used
Manage
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:Social Media

Friday, February 05, 2016

Civil Rights

Weekly Summaries Distributed February 5, 2016
Receive this and other FREE daily opinion summaries from JustiaSubscribe Now to Justia Daily Opinion Summaries

State v. Shimkus

Court: Supreme Court of Hawaii Docket:SCWC-12-0000840Opinion Date: January 28, 2016
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Defendant was arrested for operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant (OVUII) and taken to the police station. After reading an implied consent form, Defendant elected to take a breath test. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the breath test result. The district court denied the motion. Defendant was subsequently found guilty of OVUII. The intermediate court of appeals (ICA) affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated the ICA’s judgment on appeal and the district court’s judgment, holding that, in accordance with State v. Won, the result of Defendant’s breath test was the product of a warrantless search. Remanded.
http://j.st/4nFxView Case
View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

State v. Determan

Court: Nebraska Supreme CourtCitation: 292 Neb. 557Opinion Date: January 29, 2016
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful manufacture or distribution of a controlled substance and was sentenced to eight to ten years’ imprisonment. Defendant’s direct appeal was dismissed because his poverty affidavit was untimely filed. Thereafter, Defendant filed a motion for postconviction relief alleging that his counsel provided ineffective assistance. The district court denied relief, concluding that Defendant failed to show that his counsel’s performance was deficient. Defendant appealed. The court of appeals vacated the district court’s order and remanded the cause for further proceedings after addressing the procedure the district court should follow when considering a postconviction motion that raises both an allegation that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a direct appeal and other ineffective assistance of counsel claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, while this Court adopted a slightly different procedure than the one proposed by the court of appeals, the proper disposition of the appeal in this case was that the district court’s order denying certain of Defendant’s postconviction claims should be vacated and the cause remanded.
http://j.st/4ntsView Case
View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

State v. McSwine

Court: Nebraska Supreme CourtCitation: 292 Neb. 565Opinion Date: January 29, 2016
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Defendant was convicted of terroristic threats, kidnapping, first degree sexual assault, and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. The court of appeals reversed, ruling that the State committed prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments and that Defendant’s trial counsel was ineffective for failing to timely object to the prosecutor’s improper comments. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the prosecutor’s statements, when considered in the context of all the trial proceedings, were not misconduct because they were not misleading and did not unduly influence the jury; and (2) because counsel cannot be deficient for failing to object to statements that were not misconduct, Defendant was not prejudiced by counsel’s performance.
http://j.st/4nteView Case
View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

Belleau v. Wall

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Docket: 15-3225Opinion Date: January 29, 2016
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
In 1992 plaintiff, then age 48, was convicted of having sexually assaulted a boy repeatedly for five years beginning when the boy was eight years old. Before his probation expired he was convicted of having (in 1988) sexually assaulted a nine‐year‐old girl and sentenced to 10 years in prison. He was paroled after six years. His parole was revoked a year later after he admitted that he had sexual fantasies about two girls, ages four and five. Scheduled to be released in 2005, he was, instead, civilly committed as a “sexually violent person,” Wis. Stat. ch. 980. He was released in 2010, based on the opinion of a psychologist that he was no longer more likely than not to commit further sexual assaults. A 2006 Wisconsin law required that persons released from civil commitment (after 1/1/2008) for sexual offenses wear a GPS monitoring device 24 hours a day for the rest of their lives. Wis. Stat. 301.48. The district court found the Wisconsin monitoring statute unconstitutional. The Seventh Circuit reversed, noting that a study by the National Institute of Justice found that GPS monitoring of sex criminals has a greater effect in reducing recidivism than traditional parole supervision.
http://j.st/4nFQView Case
View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

Martinez-Rivera v. Commonwealth of P.R.

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Docket: 13-1772Opinion Date: January 29, 2016
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Labor & Employment Law
After Plaintiff was terminated from her employment with Puerto Rico’s Vocational Rehabilitation Administration, she filed a federal-court suit alleging that Defendants discriminated against her because of her disability, age, and politics. Plaintiff’s complaint alleged various violations of federal and local law. The district court dismissed Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and then dismissed the remaining claims without explanation. The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in every respect, except that the Court reversed the dismissal of Plaintiff’s Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claim, holding (1) the district judge erred in concluding that Plaintiff’s section 1983 claim was barred for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, but Plaintiff’s section 1983 was time-barred; (2) because Defendants agreed that Plaintiff’s ADA claim should not have been dismissed on failure-to-exhaust grounds, the reversal is dismissed; (3) Plaintiff’s age discrimination claim was correctly dismissed for failure to exhaust; and (4) because the dismissal of the ADA claim is reversed, the judge on remand must reinstate the local-law claims as well.
http://j.st/4ntNView Case
View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

State v. Williams

Court: North Carolina Supreme Court Docket:333PA14Opinion Date: January 29, 2016
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Defendant, a registered sex offender, was found guilty of failure to provide timely written notice of his change of address. Defendant appealed, arguing that the indictment was fatally defective because it identified the date of offense as a five month span, and therefore, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear his case. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss. Defendant appealed, arguing that his constitutional right to notice was violated because the indictment failed properly to allege the time period within which he was required to file his report to the appropriate sheriff when he changed his address. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant’s indictment was valid because it adequately apprised Defendant of the conduct that was the basis of the charge against him, and therefore, the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss.
http://j.st/4nt7View Case
View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

Saylor v. Randy Kohl, M.D.

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Docket: 14-3889Opinion Date: January 29, 2016
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law
Plaintiff, an inmate with PTSD, filed suit against defendants under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights because defendants were indifferent to his medical needs, and that defendants retaliated against him by transferring him to TSCI and by reclassifying him. In this interlocutory appeal, defendants challenged the district court's denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity. In this case, the record shows that defendants met plaintiff's medical needs beyond the minimum standard required where they were aware of his medical needs and took steps to meet those needs. The court concluded that there was no deprivation of plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights because plaintiff cannot show that defendants acted with deliberate indifference; plaintiff has no First Amendment claim because none of plaintiff's activities were protected and none of defendants' actions were retaliatory; and there is no cognizable Fourteenth Amendment claim because there has been no constitutional violation. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment and dismissed the case.
http://j.st/4nFhView Case
View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

Young v. Bailey

Court: North Carolina Supreme Court Docket:355PA14-2Opinion Date: January 29, 2016
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Labor & Employment Law
Plaintiff’s employment as a deputy sheriff was terminated following the reelection of Defendant to the office of Sheriff of Mecklenburg County. Plaintiff filed suit alleging wrongful termination in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. 153A-99 and N.C. Const. art. I, 14 and 36. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants. The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that Plaintiff could not establish a claim for wrongful termination in violation of section 153A-99 and that Plaintiff’s state constitutional claims lacked merit. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiff was not a county employee as defined in section 153A-99, and therefore, Plaintiff was not entitled to the protections provided in that statute; and (2) Defendant’s actions did not violate Plaintiff’s right to freedom of speech.
http://j.st/4ntuView Case
View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

Demien Construction Co. v. O'Fallon Fire Protection Dist.

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Docket: 14-3857Opinion Date: February 1, 2016
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Construction Law
Demien, the unsuccessful bidder for the construction of a new firehouse, filed suit against the District under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the District violated federal and state constitutional rights, as well as state law, in the bidding process. The district court dismissed the complaint. The court concluded that it need only determine whether Damien has Article III standing under Federal law and not whether Damien has standing under Missouri law. Determining that Demien has Article III standing, the court concluded that Demien has abandoned its claims under the First Amendment by failing to argue them before the district court, and that Demien failed to allege that the District deprived Demien of any entitlement, and so it failed to state a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. The court concluded that, under Missouri law, there is no property right to the lowest bidder, and standing to bring a state court claim of deprivation of property rights does not establish a protected property interest. In this case, the District stated that it may accept the lowest bid, but does not need to. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
http://j.st/4nvhView Case
View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

Colon-Marrero v. Garcia-Velez

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Docket: 15-1356, Docket: 15-1722Opinion Date: February 1, 2016
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Election Law
In 2012, Plaintiffs brought this action arguing that they were unlawfully removed from the Commonwealth’s active voter registry for having failed to vote in the 2008 election for Resident Commissioner. On interlocutory appeal, the First Circuit held that the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) bars Puerto Rico from removing voters from the registry for the office of Resident Commissioners unless they fail to participate in the preceding two general federal elections. On remand, the district court found in favor of Plaintiffs and issued injunctive and declaratory relief from removing otherwise eligible voters from the active election registry unless HAVA's requirements are met. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the National Voter Registration Act does not apply to Puerto Rico and thus does not supersede the Commonwealth’s voter deactivation procedures; (2) HAVA invalidates the deactivation procedures of Article 6.021 of Puerto Rico Act No. 2011 insofar as it applies to voter eligibility for federal elections; and (3) Plaintiffs may bring a private cause of action seeking relief under HAVA pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983.
http://j.st/4nvRView Case
View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

Shue v. State

Court: Wyoming Supreme CourtCitation: 2016 WY 15Opinion Date: February 1, 2016
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pled guilty to one count of first-degree sexual abuse of a minor. Defendant later filed a motion for sentence modification or reduction under newly discovered evidence arguing that his guilty plea was involuntary and that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. The district court construed the motion as both a motion to withdraw Defendant’s guilty plea and to reduce Defendant’s sentence. The district court denied the request to withdraw Defendant’s guilty plea, concluding that Defendant failed to establish newly discovered evidence resulting in manifest injustice, and concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to consider a sentence reduction because Defendant’s motion was untimely. Defendant appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the district court did not have jurisdiction to rule on Defendant’s motion, and therefore, this Court did not have jurisdiction to consider Defendant’s appeal.
http://j.st/4nvDView Case
View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

Victory v. Pataki

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Docket: 13-3592Opinion Date: February 1, 2016
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law
Plaintiff, a former inmate of DOCCS, filed suit against New York State officials and employees for violating and conspiring to violate his right to due process in connection with the rescission of his grant of parole. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants and dismissal of his complaint. The court concluded that genuine issues of material fact remain with respect to the personal involvement of certain defendants in rescinding plaintiff's parole. Accordingly, the court vacated the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.
http://j.st/4nvBView Case
View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

...

[Message clipped]  View entire message
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:Social Media
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)