Justia Law, Technology and Legal Marketing Blog

Writer’s Picks for February 17, 2012: Mafiosos and more

Feb 17, 2012 by Courtney Minick (@caminick)

I’m from Chicago, where everyone knows someone who knows someone in the mob. That’s why I loved this case, U.S. v Ambrose, sent to me by Laurel. It’s chock full of good mafia stories and lingo involving a crooked Deputy U.S. Marshal and a made guy in the “Chicago outfit” who turned state’s evidence.

In other criminal law cases, a defendant in the 10th Circuit was convicted of selling drugs at his apartment and for selling them within 1000 feet of a playground. Defendant challenged the definition of playground, which the court did not find convincing, holding that even if there was “one apparatus…intended for recreation of children,” then the place was a playground under the statutes. US v. West. In other words, “that’s nice.”
Continue reading →

Whitey Bulger’s Defense Lawyers Want Time “to Review a Tsunami’s Worth” of Material

Feb 13, 2012 by Joel Zand (@jzand)

Whitey Bulger, the indicted and apprehended alleged ringleader of Boston’s notorious ‘Winter Hill Gang’ organized crime family, needs “a reasonable amount of time to review a tsunami’s worth of discovery,” according to Bulger’s defense lawyers J.W. Carney, Jr. and and Henry B. Brennan.

The statement was made in a filing with the Massachusetts federal court this morning (read the legal filing below).

Just how much material?
Continue reading →

Writer’s Picks

Feb 10, 2012 by Courtney Minick (@caminick)

This was kind of a slow week for our Daily Summary writers, but we did have a blockbuster from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals: Perry v. Brown. This case involved Proposition 8, which amended the California state constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. The 9th Cir. chose to address the constitutionality of Prop. 8 and declined to address the broader question of whether same-sex couples had the right to marry. As a preliminary matter, the 9th Cir. held that proponents of the ballot measure had standing. The 9th Cir. held that Prop. 8 was unconstitutional because it violated the Equal Protection Clause by targeting a minority group and withdrawing a right that the group possessed without a legitimate reason for doing so. The court also affirmed the denial of a motion to vacate former Chief Judge Walker on the basis of his purported interest in being allowed to marry his same-sex partner.

The mainstream media extensively covered this case — for more information, check out the New York Times article.
Continue reading →

Prop. 8 Unconstitutional, Federal Appeals Court Rules

Feb 07, 2012 by Joel Zand (@jzand)

Proposition 8 (‘Prop 8′), the California voter amendment that sought to ban same-sex marriages in the state is unconstitutional, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in a 128-page opinion issued this morning.

You can read the complete decision below:
Continue reading →

Writer’s Picks: The Stolen Valor Act, Sarah Palin email hacker, and more

Feb 06, 2012 by Courtney Minick (@caminick)

Here are some of last week’s highlights from our Daily Opinion Summaries writers.

US v. Strandhof, US Ct. App. 10th Cir., 1/27/12
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Stolen Valor Act (18 U.S.C. 704(b)) which makes it illegal to falsely claim to have received a military award or honor. The district court found that appellant’s false claims to a Purple Heart, Silver Star, and rank of Marine Corps captain were protected by the First Amendment, but the 10th Circuit relied on SCOTUS precedent to overturn that ruling.

Continue reading →

Writer’s Weekly Picks

Jan 27, 2012 by Courtney Minick (@caminick)

Our Daily Opinion Summaries writers chose these cases to highlight this week.

From the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, we have In Re FEMA Trailers Formaldehyde Products Liability Litigation (1/23/12). This case is about the “toxic trailers” issued by FEMA in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Plaintiffs sued under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries related to their exposure to formaldehyde in the trailers, but the Court held that the voluntary, cost-free provision of the trailers to disaster victims was immunized conduct under the FTCA, and affirmed the district court’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

From the U.S. Court of Appeal for the 10th Circuit comes SECSYS, LLC v. Vigil (1/23/12). This corruption case involves government officials in New Mexico. In it, the plaintiff sued for discrimination because they were denied a bid-rigged contract, since they would not pay the full “allegedly extortionate demand.” The Court in this case affirmed the district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s case.

Continue reading →

Retired Players Battle the NFL on Eve of Super Bowl

Jan 26, 2012 by Ken Chan

Some football players consider concussions to be part of the game, much like sprains, strains, and other common football injuries. When the San Francisco 49ers benefitted from a collision that sent New Orleans Saints running back Pierre Thomas out with a concussion, its players characterized the hit as an effective way to send a message. However, when an opposing team reportedly targeted a 49er wide receiver with a history of concussions, the perspective of the local media changed.

While some players are willing to hide their concussions, such decisions bear long-term consequences, as seen in the numerous complaints recently filed by retired NFL players.

Continue reading →

Writer’s Weekly Picks

Jan 20, 2012 by Courtney Minick (@caminick)

Here’s a round-up of interesting cases from this week, as reported by our Daily Opinion Summary writers.

From the US Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, Ochoa v. Workman, which looked at the Atkins standard of mental retardation in a capital case. In that case, the petitioner argued that the trial court erred in applying the Atkins test to his mental condition at the time of trial instead of at the time of the crime. The Court denied his petition.

From the Supreme Court of Rhode Island, we have Higgins v. R.I. Hosp.

This case offered an interesting application of the firefighter’s rule, which bars public-safety officials from “maintaining a negligence action against a tortfeasor whose alleged malfeasance is responsible for bringing the officer to the scene of [an]…emergency where the officer is injured.” The plaintiff here brought a patient to the hospital while working as an EMT/firefighter. After he delivered his patient, he assisted a nurse with a disorderly patient, who seriously injured the plaintiff. The district court and Supreme Court found the firefighter’s rule barred the plaintiff’s recovery even though the plaintiff’s injury did not arise from the same circumstances that originally brought him to the scene.
Continue reading →