FindLaw News Law Offices of Randy R. McCalla, P.A. Attorneys Olathe Kansas

News

Crime Sports Supreme Court Top Headlines

Case Summaries

Criminal Law & Procedure Sports Law

Criminal Law & Procedure

[09/03] US v. Blitch
Convictions of defendants for conspiring to distribute 15 kilograms of cocaine are vacated and remanded as the court's failure to individually voir dire the second panel regarding its safety concerns, and her instructions to keep deliberating after the jury poll, when the jury had specifically requested to leave for the day, leads to the conclusion that the defendants should receive a new trial.

[09/03] Babick v. Berghuis
District court's denial of defendant's petition for habeas relief from his convictions for arson and first-degree felony murder, as well as a sentence of two terms of life imprisonment without possibility of parole, is affirmed where: 1) defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim is without merit as he has shown no prejudice as a result of his trial counsel's failure to produce an arson expert in support of his not-arson defense; 2) district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's request for an evidentiary hearing; 3) defendant's claim, that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate the basis of a witness's testimony regarding the time of defendant's visit to the house that burned down, is rejected; and 4) defendant's claims of prosecutorial misconduct are rejected.

[09/03] Socha v. Pollard
District court's dismissal of defendant's petition for habeas corpus as untimely, in concluding that another district judge's order extending the limitations period was an impermissible advisory opinion and thus of no effect because the court issued the order before defendant had filed his petition, is vacated and remanded where: 1) an order accepting a filing after the limitations period has run is not beyond the power of the district court, and it is effective if it can meet the standards for equitable tolling that the Supreme Court described in Holland v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2549 (2010); and 2) the district court erred by focusing too closely on the fact that defendant had not already filed something that he had labeled as his petition as, not only does the motion anticipate an imminent action in which defendant and the state will be adverse, but also the parties have opposing interests on the immediate question of whether to toll the statute of limitations.

[09/03] US v. Munoz-Camarena
A sentence for attempted illegal re-entry after deportation is vacated and remanded for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 130 S. Ct. 2577 (2010), which casts doubt on the district court's calculation of the recommended Guidelines sentence in this case.

[09/03] McCormick v. Adams
A denial of a petition for habeas relief brought by a prisoner who waived his right to counsel and represented himself at trial and now claimed the waiver was not knowing and voluntary is affirmed over defendant's claims that: 1) the trial court led him to believe he could revoke his Faretta waiver at any time, and that he relied on this promise in waiving his right to counsel; and 2) he made a mid-trial request for counsel that was wrongly denied by the trial court.

[09/03] US v. Epstein
Prior terms of imprisonment for violations of supervised release do not limit the maximum sentence a district court may impose for a subsequent violation of supervised release under 18 U.S.C. section 3583(e)(3), as amended by the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003 (PROTECT Act).

More...

Sports Law

[09/02] Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens Ltd, P'Ship
In plaintiff's copyright infringement suit against the Baltimore Ravens football organization and National Football League entities for their unauthorized copying of a Ravens team logo, drawn by plaintiff, that was used for three seasons as the team's official symbol, district court's determination that defendants' depictions of the logo in season highlight films and in the Ravens corporate lobby were fair use, in entering judgment against the plaintiff is reversed in part, affirmed in part and remanded where: 1) because defendants cannot establish a fair use defense for the depictions of the logo in the highlight films, where the logo use is nontransformative and commercial, district court's judgment on this matter is reversed; 2) defendants' claim that plaintiff's request for injunctive relief against these acts of infringement is precluded is rejected and on remand, district court is directed to consider whether an injunction is appropriate; and 3) district court's finding of fair use as to the depictions of the logo in the Ravens corporate lobby, where team history is portrayed, free of charge, is affirmed.

[08/16] Adams v. Del. Harness Racing Comm'n
In an appeal from an order of the Delaware Harness Racing Commission claiming that it improperly sanctioned a horse trainer after his horses tested positive for a prohibited drug, the order is affirmed where: 1) the Commission did not deprive petitioner of a fair and impartial hearing; and 2) the Commission was lenient with petitioner because it treated all three offenses as first offenses and imposed the minimum penalties.

[07/23] Race Tires Am., Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp.
In plaintiff's antitrust suit against a tire supplier competitor and a motorsports sanctioning body, arising from the adoption of the so-called "single tire rule" by various sanctioning bodies in the sport of dirt oval track racing as well as the exclusive supply contracts between the sanctioning bodies and the defendant tire supplier, district court's grant of defendants' motions for summary judgment is affirmed where: 1) a general rule is adopted that the Sherman Act does not forbid sanctioning bodies and other sport-related organizations from freely adopting exclusive equipment requirements, so long as such organizations otherwise possess, in good faith, sufficient pro-competitive or business justifications for their actions; 2) the district court was correct to grant summary judgment in favor of the defendants because of plaintiffs' failure to meet the antitrust injury requirement; and 3) the district court did not abuse its discretion on rejecting a last minute attempt to amend a pleading for the fourth time.

[07/22] US v. Thomas
Cyclist Tammy Thomas's convictions for three counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice are affirmed where: 1) the jury could reasonably have concluded from all this testimony that defendant's grand jury testimony that she never received any "other products" was not literally true; 2) a reasonable jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant understood the question in count three of the indictment as the government understood it and that she answered falsely based on this understanding; and 3) there was sufficient evidence for the jury reasonably to conclude that defendant did not offer literally true answers in the exchange charged in count four of the indictment.

[07/16] George v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n
In plaintiffs' proposed nationwide class action against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and Ticketmaster, alleging that defendants operated illegal lotteries to sell and distribute tickets for certain Division I championship tournaments, district court's dismissal of all claims is reversed and remanded where: 1) plaintiffs have alleged all elements of a lottery as they paid a per-ticket or per-entry fee (consideration) to enter a random drawing (chance) in hopes of obtaining scarce, valuable tickets (a prize); 2) because plaintiffs have sufficiently pled that the NCAA conducted a lottery, the bona fide business transaction exception to the statutory definition of gambling has no effect; 3) the district court erred in holding that the doctrine of in pari delicto bars plaintiffs from seeking relief from court; and 4) district court's order of dismissal must be reversed as to all counts remaining in plaintiffs' second amended complaint.

[06/25] Deutscher Tennis Bund v. ATP Tour, Inc.
In plaintiffs' suit against the ATP Tour, an organizer of worldwide men's professional tennis circuit, claiming that the ATP Tour's reorganization to revitalize its popularity violated sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and constituted a breach of the directors' fiduciary duties, judgment of the district court is affirmed where: 1) the jury verdict on the Sherman Act section 1 claim is affirmed as the plaintiffs failed to prove the relevant market; and 2) district court's judgment as a matter of law dismissing the breach of duty of loyalty claim against a director is affirmed as neither he individually, nor the ATP Board of Directors as a whole, were materially self-interested when they voted in favor of the reorganization plan.

More...

Home || Firm Overview || Practice Area Overview || Attorney Profile || Resource Links || Contact Us || Legal News and Cases

The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation.

Copyright © 2010 by Law Offices of Randy R. McCalla, P.A. All rights reserved. You may reproduce materials available at this site for your own personal use and for non-commercial distribution. All copies must include this copyright statement.