Case Summaries
Criminal Law & Procedure
Sports Law
Criminal Law & Procedure
[03/10]
Valdovinos v. McGrath
In a murder prosecution, a denial of petitioner's habeas petition is reversed in part where a reasonable probability existed that the undisclosed Brady material, which included evidence of prior photo lineups, the drugs and gun found in a government witness's possession, and the favorable treatment the witness received for his testimony, could have altered the result of the trial.
[03/10]
US v. Oglesby
In a prosecution for being a felon in possession of a firearm, district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress is affirmed as, based on the factors on the record and the totality of the circumstances, the officer clearly had articulable facts upon which he could reasonably suspect that defendant was armed or dangerous. Moreover, the pat-down search was extremely limited in scope as the officer's pat-down frisk of defendant was isolated to the right side of his waistband area.
[03/10]
Cameron v. N.Y.
In an action for false arrest and malicious prosecution, judgment for defendant-officers is reversed where: 1) prosecutors' opinions as to probable cause and complaining officers' credibility are irrelevant in virtually all cases involving claims of malicious prosecution; and 2) the introduction of such evidence was not harmless because it provided strong external validation for propositions that otherwise would have come in only from the defendants' mouths.
[03/10]
US v. Gardner
Defendants' drug and firearm possession convictions are affirmed where, when a defendant acquires a firearm using drugs as payment, he possesses the firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 924(c)(1)(A).
[03/10]
US v. Ternus
Defendant's conviction for conspiracy to transport in foreign commerce stolen goods valued at $5,000 or more, knowing the goods to have been stolen, is affirmed where: 1) defendant's guilty plea waived all non-jurisdictional defects in the proceedings against him; and 2) the district court was not required to define "foreign commerce" in order to adequately explain the nature of the charges against him.
More...
Sports Law
[03/01]
Media Techs. Licensing, LLC. v. Upper Deck Co.
In a patent infringement suit involving patents related to memorabilia cards, district court's conclusion that the patents are invalid for obviousness is affirmed where: 1) defendants have met the burden of showing that it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to attach a sports-related item instead of those items attached in the prior art references; and 2) secondary objective evidence also fails to establish non-obviousness.
[02/12]
Galveston Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Jaco
In plaintiff's action against a school district under the Texas Whistleblower Act, claiming that he was demoted from his position as a director of athletics and extracurricular activities for reporting a student's violations of the University Interscholastic League's (UIL) eligibility rules to officials, trial court's denial of defendant's motion for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is reversed and remanded as the elements of Tex. Gov Code section 554.002(a) can be considered to determine both jurisdiction and liability, and thus, whether the reporting of a violation of UIL rules and regulations to the UIL is a good-faith report of a violation of law to an appropriate law-enforcement authority is a jurisdictional question.
[02/08]
Mansourian v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal.
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 and Title IX action against a university arising after the university required women on the co-ed wrestling team to compete against men under men's rules, summary judgment for defendants is reversed where: 1) plaintiffs were not required to give the university notice of, and an opportunity to rectify, the specific violation to make out a Title IX claim; 2) the record did not contain undisputed facts showing a history and continuing practice of program expansion that was responsive to women's interests; and 3) as plaintiffs were students and therefore subject to the policy that allegedly discriminated on the basis of sex at the time they filed their complaint, their section 1983 claim was not time-barred.
[12/11]
Kentucky Speedway, LLC v. Nat'l Ass'n of Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc.
In an action against NASCAR and an affiliated company that owns multiple racetracks, alleging violation of federal antitrust laws by not sanctioning a Sprint Cup race at plaintiff's racetrack and preventing them from purchasing other racetracks that already host such a race, summary judgment in favor of defendants is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding two experts' reports and deposition testimonies as being unreliable under Daubert; 2) without expert testimony, plaintiff lacks the ability to define the relevant markets necessary to succeed on its claims; and 3) plaintiff cannot demonstrate that NASCAR and the affiliate are legally capable of conspiring with each other or that its failure to obtain a Sprint Cup race constitutes an antitrust injury.
[11/25]
Myers v. Lutsen Mountains Corp.
In a tort action arising out of injuries sustained by plaintiff while skiing on defendant's mountain, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the language of the release signed by plaintiff expressly and unambiguously excluded from its coverage claims arising from reckless or intentional acts, and the district court correctly found that the release was not ambiguous; and 2) the release did not violate public policy because the service offered by defendant was not necessary and could have been obtained elsewhere.
More...
|
