Case Summaries
Criminal Law & Procedure
Government Law
Commercial Law
Criminal Law & Procedure
[08/27]
US v. Allen
A conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm and a felon in possession of ammunition is affirmed over claims that: 1) the district court erred in permitting two witnesses to be improperly impeached; and 2) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction.
[08/27]
US v. Hogan
A conviction and sentence for conspiracy to distribute meth, possession with intent to distribute meth, and distribution of meth, is affirmed over claims that the district court erred in denying his motions to suppress and for acquittal, and in sentencing him to 188 months' imprisonment.
[08/27]
US v. Espinosa
A sentence for drug- and firearm-related offenses is affirmed over defendant's claim that the district court erred when, for purposes of determining the advisory sentencing range, it grouped only conspiracy and manufacturing counts, but not firearms counts.
[08/27]
US v. Wessels
In a case wherein defendant was convicted and sentenced for unauthorized use of a credit card, and later had her supervised release revoked and was sentenced again, the judgment is affirmed over a Fifth Amendment due process challenge.
[08/27]
US v. Azure
Revocation of defendant's supervised release and imposition of a 24-month sentence are affirmed over claims that the judgment of the district court should be vacated and the case remanded because: 1) the magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction to conduct the revocation hearing; 2) the district court failed to undertake the requisite de novo review of the entire record; 3) defendant was not present at the time the district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and sentenced him; and 4) his sentence was unconstitutionally imposed to punish him for the offense underlying his revocation, rather than for his original offense.
More...
Government Law
[08/27]
Byrd v. Dressel
In an action brought by a group of homeowners and community organizations seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against a city, employees, and developers who remodel and convert private homes into student residences, a judgment against plaintiffs is affirmed where: 1) case precedent does not categorically preclude due process challenges to impermissible governmental action that deprives a person of real property; 2) however, under ordinary Due Process Clause jurisprudence, plaintiff failed to state a claim, notwithstanding it's understandable concerns about the aesthetics and ambiance of the neighborhood; and 3) claims under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and defendant-city's municipal code also failed.
[08/27]
County of Santa Clara v. Astra USA, Inc.
In a lawsuit brought by certain federally funded medical clinics claiming that they have been overcharged for certain prescription drugs in violation of pharmaceutical pricing agreements between the Secretary of Health and Human Services and drug manufacturer defendants, dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim is reversed where plaintiffs are intended direct beneficiaries of those agreements and thus had the right to enforce the agreements' discount provisions against the manufacturers and sue them for reimbursement of excess payments.
[08/27]
Mendez v. County of San Bernardino
In a suit against a city, county, sheriff's department and various individual defendants under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 arising from the aftermath of an officer-involved shooting that resulted in the death of plaintiff's deaf-mute son, various rulings against plaintiff before and after she prevailed in a jury trial are affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) there was no error as to jury instruction on plaintiff's emotional damages; 2) reduction of the punitive damages award was proper as it was excessive as a matter of due process; 3) summary judgment on a state law negligent training claim was proper; 4) an order denying plaintiff all fees and costs required vacatur and a remand for a determination of a reasonable award; 5) a sanctions order had to be vacated where the district court did not make a requisite bad faith finding; and 6) reassignment to a different judge was not warranted.
[08/27]
Khorrami v. Rolince
In a suit alleging violations of due-process rights by government agents who detained plaintiff while investigating the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, an interlocutory appeal of the denial of a grant of qualified immunity to defendants is dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction where the district court's deferral of a ruling on the government's qualified immunity motion was not equivalent to a denial of the motion.
[08/27]
Sicar v. Chertoff
In a class action claim for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging the government has systematically misclassified plaintiffs' parole status during the course of status adjustment determinations under the Haitian Refugees Immigration Fairness Act of 1998, dismissal of class action complaint is affirmed where the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
More...
Commercial Law
[08/27]
Gander Mountain Co. v. Cabela's, Inc.
In a case arising from a contract dispute involving a 1996 transaction between the parties, summary judgment for plaintiff on a counterclaim, finding that a provision at issue was unenforceable because it was merely an agreement to agree, is affirmed over claims that the district court violated the law-of-the-case doctrine and erred in granting summary judgment.
[08/27]
216 Jamaica Ave., LLC v. S & R Playhouse Realty Co.
In a case involving the enforceability of a "gold clause" contained in a 1912 lease agreement, which required payment of rents to be in gold coins, a judgment against plaintiff-owner who tried to enforce the clause is reversed and remanded where: 1) contrary to the ruling below, the clause is enforceable; and 2) a remand was necessary for the district court to interpret the clause, to determine the obligation it imposes on the lessee, and to address any other defenses in the first instance, including lessee's estoppel-by-deed and waiver defenses.
[08/27]
216 Jamaica Ave., LLC v. S & R Playhouse Realty Co.
In a case involving the enforceability of a "gold clause" contained in a 1912 lease agreement, which required payment of rents to be in gold coins, a judgment against plaintiff-owner who tried to enforce the clause is reversed and remanded where: 1) contrary to the ruling below, the clause is enforceable; and 2) a remand was necessary for the district court to interpret the clause, to determine the obligation it imposes on the lessee, and to address any other defenses in the first instance, including lessee's estoppel-by-deed and waiver defenses.
[08/26]
Grynberg v. Total S.A.
In two suits against oil companies raising tort claims for breach of fiduciary duty and equitable claims for unjust enrichment involving potential oil and gas reserves in Kazakhstan, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where the claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations and laches.
[08/26]
McKesson Corp. v. Islamic Republic of Iran
In a suit alleging that Iran unlawfully expropriated plaintiff's investment in an Iranian dairy company, judgment for plaintiffs is reversed where: 1) the Treaty of Amity between the US and Iran did not provide plaintiff a private cause of action for expropriation; and 2) a remand was necessary for determination of whether plaintiff had a cause of action under Iranian law or customary international law, and whether the act of state doctrine precluded American courts from inquiring into the public acts of a recognized foreign sovereign power in its own territory.
More...
|
