News
White Collar Crime
[07/03]
Hedge fund scammer tells NY judge he tried suicide
[07/03]
Judge in Ky. gives panel 1 day in fen-phen trial
[07/02]
Charges filed against ex-Airbus chief
[07/02]
Fugitive hedge-fund swindler surrenders in Mass.
[07/02]
Judge tells jury to deliberate in fen-phen trial
Case Summaries
Criminal Law & Procedure
[07/03]
Tablada v. Thomas
In a case involving whether the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in promulgating a regulation interpreting 18 U.S.C. section 3624(b), which governs the calculation of good conduct time for federal prisoners, the court finds that: 1) the BOP concededly violated the APA by failing to articulate a rational basis for its decision to promulgate the regulation; but 2) the remedy for the violation is to interpret the federal statute in accordance with the BOP's Program Statement 5880.28; and 3) the BOP's methodology for calculating good time credits under Statement 5880.28 was both reasonable and persuasive under applicable law.
[07/03]
US v. Morriss
Denial of a motion to suppress statements made outside the presence of counsel is affirmed over defendant's claims that: 1) the district court erroneously found his Sixth Amendment right to counsel did not attach during an interview in which he provided inculpatory statements; and 2) the government violated his due process rights by interviewing him during a lapse in representation.
Evidence
[07/03]
US v. Pearce
Convictions and sentences for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition are affirmed over claims of error regarding: 1) a denial of a motion to suppress evidence based on officers' lack of either reasonable suspicion or probable cause to stop defendants; and 2) imposition of the 235 months sentence without addressing the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. section 3553(a).
[07/03]
White v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.
In an employment discrimination suit brought under federal and Michigan state law, summary judgment for defendant is reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial where: 1) plaintiff offered sufficient evidence to suggest that defendant's purported reason for not promoting him had no basis in fact, did not motivate defendant's decision, or was not sufficient to explain its hiring choice; and 2) plaintiff produced sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find in his favor on both single motive and mixed motive race discrimination claims.
Family Law
[07/01]
In re Cheyanne F.
Order terminating the parental rights of a mother pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 is affirmed over claims that the juvenile court erroneously omitted information required for notification forms under the Indian Child Welfare Act.
[06/30]
Mardardo F. v. Superior Court (Yolo County Dep't of Employment and Social Serv.)
For purpose of Welfare and Institution Code section 361.5(b)(4), the phrase "the parent or guardian of the child" refers merely to the parent's or the guardian's current status in the current dependency proceeding, and the phrase "the death of another child" in the section means the death of any other child. In this case, the juvenile court properly applied the statute in denying reunification service to a 28 year old father who murdered a 13-year old girl when he was 15.
Sentencing
[07/03]
Tablada v. Thomas
In a case involving whether the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in promulgating a regulation interpreting 18 U.S.C. section 3624(b), which governs the calculation of good conduct time for federal prisoners, the court finds that: 1) the BOP concededly violated the APA by failing to articulate a rational basis for its decision to promulgate the regulation; but 2) the remedy for the violation is to interpret the federal statute in accordance with the BOP's Program Statement 5880.28; and 3) the BOP's methodology for calculating good time credits under Statement 5880.28 was both reasonable and persuasive under applicable law.
[07/03]
US v. Dodds
Sentence for possession of child pornography is affirmed over claims that: 1) the district court failed to adequately consider relevant sentencing factors; and 2) defendant's due process rights were violated because the sentence was imposed after the government presented an inaccurate picture of relevant conduct.
