Case Summaries
Criminal Law & Procedure
Sports Law
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.
[09/05]
US v. Moore
Sentences for unrelated crack cocaine offenses are affirmed where: 1) the courts properly determined that they lacked authority under 18 U.S.C. section 3582(c)(2) to grant the requested sentence reductions in these cases; 2) when a retroactively applicable guideline amendment reduces a defendant's base offense level, but does not alter the sentencing range upon which his or her sentence was based, section 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a reduction in sentence; and 3) although Amendment 706 to the Sentencing Guidelines would reduce the base offense levels applicable to the defendants, it would not affect their guideline ranges because they were sentenced as career offenders under U.S.S.G. section 4B1.1.
[09/05]
US v. Schwartz
Convictions for offenses committed in carrying out a fraudulent scheme to sell high-yield promissory notes issued by defendants' companies to individual investors, are affirmed in part and vacated in part where: 1) the district court committed a Bruton violation when it permitted the prosecutor to introduce into evidence an out-of-court statement by codefendant that implicated him in most, if not all, of the charged offenses; and 2) the admission of codefendant's affidavit, and the indispensable role it played in the prosecutor's closing argument to the jury, was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
More...
Sports 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.
[08/18]
Am. Needle, Inc. v. Nat'l Football League
In an antitrust case alleging that the NFL's exclusive headwear licensing agreement with Reebok International violated sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) to allow additional discovery was properly denied where plaintiff did not identify the evidence it sought to discover; 2) NFL teams are a "single entity" for purposes of licensing their intellectual property; and 3) as a single entity, the teams were free to license their intellectual property on an exclusive basis.
[08/08]
Miller v. California Speedway Corp.
In a discrimination action brought by a quadriplegic NASCAR fan under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) involving claims that when fans immediately in front of plaintiff's wheelchair area stand during the most exciting parts of a race, they blocked his view of the action, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where a Department of Justice regulation requires lines of sight over standing spectators.
[08/08]
US v. Goldberg
Convictions for crimes involving illegally dispensing prescription veterinary drugs and anabolic steroids are affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the sentence vacated and remanded, where: 1) the jury was not required to find that defendant "illegally" possessed steroids, but merely that he possessed them with intent to distribute; 2) admission of an unavailable witness's prior statement was harmless error; 3) felony convictions for misbranding drugs must be reduced to misdemeanors without proof of intent to defraud; 4) a loss calculation used in sentencing was proper; and 5) a sentence enhancement for violating a prior administrative order was improper where no government agency had specifically directed defendant to cease dispensing drugs.
[04/29]
Roman v. Liberty Univ., Inc.
In a personal injury action, an order granting defendants' motion to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction, as well as on the ground of forum non-conveniens, is affirmed where: 1) a defendant's conduct neither satisfied the "purposeful availment" nor the "relatedness" requirement to be subjected to specific jurisdiction; and 2) another suitable forum was available for plaintiff's action, and the trial court properly balanced the private and public interests for purposes of the forum non-conveniens issue.
More...
|
