News

Case Summaries

Criminal Law & Procedure

[12/08] McAfee v. Thurmer
Denial of defendant's petition for habeas relief from a conviction and life sentence for the first degree murder of a police officer 13 years ago is affirmed as defendant's trial counsel's performance was not constitutionally ineffective, and even if deficient performance could be found, defendant cannot show that there is a reasonable probability that the result of the trial would have been different but for counsel's shortcomings.

[12/08] Cooey v. Strickland
District court's denial of defendant's request for a stay of execution by lethal injection challenging Ohio's new protocol where the state eliminated the use of a three-drug protocol and implemented a one-drug protocol is affirmed as the defendant is unable to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits on his Eighth Amendment claim by demonstrating that, facially or as applied to him, Ohio's new protocol demonstrates risk of severe pain that is substantial when compared to the known and available alternatives.

[12/08] Pierre v. Holder
In a petition for review of the BIA's order removing petitioner from the U.S. for committing an aggravated felony, the petition is granted where: 1) petitioner was not charged, either explicitly or implicitly, with an aggravated felony as defined by 8 U.S.C. section 101(a)(43)(U); 2) subsection U is not a necessarily included offense under subsection M of the same statute; and 3) petitioner therefore was denied her due process rights of notice and an opportunity to be heard when the BIA sua sponte found her removable on the basis of her conviction for an aggravated felony as defined by subsection U.

Read More

Civil Rights

[12/08] Alvarez v. Smith
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 case involving whether Illinois law provides a sufficiently speedy opportunity for an individual, whose car or cash police have seized without a warrant, to contest the lawfulness of the seizure, a circuit court's ruling reversing dismissal of the action is vacated and the case is remanded where the action was moot because all of the actual property disputes between the parties had been resolved.

[12/08] Patterson v. Indiana Newspapers, Inc.
In plaintiffs' suit against their former employer alleging employment discrimination on the basis of their religious belief that homosexual conduct is sinful and other claims, summary judgment in favor of the employer is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff cannot show that she met the newspaper's legitimate performance expectations or that a similarly situated employee who did not share her religious beliefs was treated more favorably; 2) the other plaintiff's discrimination case based on religion, race, and age, and his retaliations claim, also failed because he could not show that he was meeting the employer's legitimate performance expectations; and 3) district court properly dismissed the plaintiffs' claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress as, under the "modified impact" version of the tort, there is no evidence whatsoever to support such a claim.

[12/08] Jones v. Richards-Cantave
In an appeal from an order approving a settlement agreement in a class action challenging policies adopted by the New York City Administration for Children's Services relating to the removal of children from their homes in cases of abuse and neglect, the order is affirmed in part where: 1) the district court erred in finding that the objector had opted out and, consequently, in removing her as class representative, but the error was harmless; and 2) the agreement was fair, adequate, and reasonable. However, the order is vacated in part where the text of a release provision did not comport with the undisputed intent of the parties.

Read More

Commercial Law

[12/03] Starbucks Corp. v. Wolfe's Borough Coffee, Inc.
In a trademark infringement action by Starbucks Corp. regarding a competitor's use of the name "Charbucks," judgment for defendant is affirmed in part where: 1) the district court did not clearly err in finding that the Charbucks Marks were minimally similar to the Starbucks Marks; 2) the Charbucks line of coffee was marketed as a product of very high quality — as Starbucks also purported its coffee to be — which was inconsistent with the concept of tarnishment. However, the judgment is vacated in part where the district court needed to conduct further proceedings on the issue of whether Starbucks demonstrated a likelihood of dilution by "blurring" under federal trademark law.

[12/03] Electronic Trading Grp., LLC v. Banc of Am. Secs. LLC
In an antitrust action by a short seller against "prime brokers" in short sale transactions alleging that the prime brokers arbitrarily designated certain securities as "hard to borrow" and then fixed the price for borrowing them, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where federal securities law implicitly precluded application of the antitrust law to the alleged anticompetitive conduct.

[12/02] PrediWave Corp. v. Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
In plaintiff's suit against defendant-law firm and other attorneys who had previously represented plaintiff-company and its former president and CEO, grant of defendants' motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute is reversed as the trial court erred in determining that this was a SLAPP suit subject to a special motion to dismiss as the defendants did not satisfy their threshold burden of demonstrating that the principal thrust of any of the complaint's causes of action was activity protected by the anti-SLAPP statute.

Read More