News

Case Summaries

Civil Rights

[09/05] Wong v. Bush
In a case alleging First Amendment and National Environmental Protection Act violations by the U.S. Coast Guard in establishing safety zones insulating a private super-ferry from blockade by local protesters, denial of declaratory judgment is affirmed despite plaintiff's standing to sue where: 1) the safety zones established by the Coast Guard did not violate the First Amendment; and 2) the Coast Guard need not consider the secondary environmental effects of the super-ferry itself in the decision to establish safety zones.

[09/05] Carvajal v. Dominguez
In a suit alleging constitutional violations by a DEA officer in connection with the criminal prosecution of plaintiff for money laundering, denial of summary judgment for defendant on one of four claims is reversed where: 1) the denial of defendant's claim of qualified immunity was an appealable collateral order; and 2) defendant committed no Brady violation and was therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

[09/05] Woodruff v. Mason
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit alleging that state social-services employees had retaliated against plaintiff-healthcare provider by instigating the launch of a predatory enforcement campaign aimed at driving plaintiff out of business, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff did not produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate a causal link between its protected First Amendment activity and the alleged retaliation by defendants; and 2) plaintiff did not produce sufficient evidence to substantiate any of its three equal-protection claims.

More...

Injury & Tort Law

[09/05] Sindecuse v. Katsaros
In a case alleging common law fraud surrounding a stock purchase, grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant is affirmed where the allegedly fraudulent statements could not support claims of fraud because they were: 1) predictions of the future; and 2) a promise of future action not accompanied by a present intent not to perform.

[09/05] Platypus Wear, Inc. v. Goldberg
In a lawsuit by a corporation against its officers and attorneys, order granting defendant's application to file a special motion to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute, motion is reversed, vacated, and remanded with directions to deny defendant's application to file an anti-SLAPP motion where: 1) defendant failed to provide a compelling explanation for why he did not file an anti-SLAPP motion earlier in the case; 2) defendant did not articulate any extenuating circumstances justifying a late filing; and 3) under these circumstances, the trial court abused its discretion in granting defendant's application to file the anti-SLAPP motion.

[08/29] Trinity Universal Ins. Co. v. Cellular One Group
In a suit for a declaratory judgment that plaintiffs-insurers did not owe a duty to defend defendant-wireless telephone manufacturer in suits claiming biological injury caused by radiation emitted by its phones, the court relied on its simultaneously-released opinion in Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Nokia, No. 06-1030 (Tex. Aug. 29, 2008), to hold that plaintiff-insurer had a duty to defend defendant-wireless telephone manufacturer.

More...

Insurance Law

[09/05] Blue Cross Blue Shield Health Care Plan of Georgia v. Gunter
In a claim by plaintiff-Blue Cross Blue Shield Health Care Plan of Georgia seeking reimbursement of insurance benefits paid to defendant from his settlement with a third party, dismissal by district court is affirmed where: 1) Blue Cross failed to establish that this case is not governed by the general rule in Empire Health Choice Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh; and 2)the court lacks federal question jurisdiction to hear the case.

[08/29] Don's Bldg. Supply, Inc. v. OneBeacon Ins. Co.
On two certified questions from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the court answered that: 1) when not specified by the relevant policy, the time at which property damage occurs for purposes of an occurrence-based commercial general liability insurance policy is when actual physical damage occurs, not when such damage is exposed or manifested; and 2) under the eight corners rule, the insurer's duty to defend under such a policy is triggered when the pleadings allege facts that would give rise to any claim covered by the policy.

[08/29] Trinity Universal Ins. Co. v. Cellular One Group
In a suit for a declaratory judgment that plaintiffs-insurers did not owe a duty to defend defendant-wireless telephone manufacturer in suits claiming biological injury caused by radiation emitted by its phones, the court relied on its simultaneously-released opinion in Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Nokia, No. 06-1030 (Tex. Aug. 29, 2008), to hold that plaintiff-insurer had a duty to defend defendant-wireless telephone manufacturer.

More...

Criminal Law & Procedure

[09/05] US v. Bendtzen
In a case challenging an enhanced sentence under the U.S. Sentencing Guideline Manual, sentence is affirmed where use of a fake bomb during a bank robbery constitutes "a dangerous weapon. . .otherwise used" and thus a four level sentence increase under U.S.S.G. section 2B3.1(b)(2)(D) and consideration of defendant's past crimes was not unreasonable in calculating a category VI criminal history.

[09/05] US v. Nader
In prosections related to a prostitution ring, convictions for violations of the Travel Act are affirmed where: 1) the convictions were based on telephone calls within a single state; and 2) the telephone is a facility in interstate commerce even when used for in-state calling.

[09/05] US v. Medina-Beltran
In an immigration case, an enhanced sentence is affirmed where: 1) the government's decision not to move for reduced sentencing was not arbitrary; and 2) separation of powers between the judicial and executive branches is not violated by section 401(g) of the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today (PROTECT) Act of 2003, which requires the government to make a motion in order for a defendant to receive a reduced sentence under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines.

More...

Labor & Employment Law

[09/05] Pachter v. Bernard Hodes Group
In a claim brought by former employee-plaintiff challenging legality of deductions under Article 6 section 193 of the New York Labor law taken by employer-defendant, decision in favor of plaintiff is reversed and remanded after answers by New York Court of Appeals to certified questions resolved the case, where: 1) because New York Labor Law Article 6, section 193 includes executives unless otherwise excluded, plaintiff is covered; however, 2) plaintiff's cause of action fails because it is undisputed that plaintiff knowingly acquiesced over a period of years to the approach used by defendant when calculating her commissions, conduct that constituted an implied agreement between parties; and 3) as an implied agreement does not violate "section 193 nor any other provision of article 6 of the Labor Law," the deductions in question did not violate that provision.

[09/04] Smith v. US Postal Serv.
In a case alleging a violation of an employee's rights under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, a Merit Systems Protection Board order that petitioner was not entitled to a compensation award is vacated and remanded where the reemployment of petitioner after his military service in a part-time position requiring irregular shifts, rather than in the full-time position he should have been assigned to, deprived him of the benefit of working regular hours, and entitled him to compensation.

[08/29] Brookshire Grocery Co. v. Goss
In a personal-injury suit, jury finding that defendant-employer was negligent is reversed and judgment rendered that plaintiff-employee take nothing where: 1) plaintiff's injury was caused by attempting to step around a loaded cart; 2) the potential danger of doing which was commonly known; and 3) defendant therefore had no duty to warn plaintiff of any risk.

More...