Source: https://www.criminallawlibraryblog.com/findlaw_case_law_summaries_con_4/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 22:34:57+00:00

Document:
U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, June 17, 2010 Martinez v. Cui, No. 09-1471 In plaintiff’s suit against a first-year medical resident claiming that she was sexually assaulted during an examination, judgment in favor of the defendant is affirmed where: 1) the district court’s evidentiary rulings were not error; and 2) the jury was correctly instructed on the shocks-the-conscious element as this standard applies to claims that an executive official’s sexual assault violated the substantive due process clause.
U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, June 18, 2010 Elliot v. Carcieri, No. 09-1759 In a class action lawsuit on behalf of foster care children who are under the legal custody of Rhode Island’s Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF), claiming that systematic deficiencies in the state’s child welfare and foster care systems deprived the plaintiffs of their rights under the U.S. Constitution and several federal statutes, district court’s judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the Next Friends lacked capacity to sue on behalf of plaintiffs is reversed where: 1) the district court erred in finding that the state appointed guardians ad litem or CASA advocates precluded plaintiffs from filing suit by a Next Friend; 2) under the circumstances of the case, Rule 17(c) allows federal courts discretion to appoint a Next Friend to represent the children in federal court; and 3) the proposed Next Friends are suited to represent the children in this case.
U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, June 15, 2010 Weinstein v. Islamic Repub. of Iran, No. 09-3034 In proceedings involving efforts to collect on a default judgment against Iran and in favor of the family of an individual severely injured in a 1996 suicide bombing in Jerusalem, an order granting plaintiff’s motion for appointment of receiver to attach defendant’s property in satisfaction of the prior judgment is affirmed where: 1) section 201(a) of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act provided courts with subject matter jurisdiction over post-judgment execution and attachment proceedings against property held in the hands of an instrumentality of the judgment-debtor, even if the instrumentality was not itself named in the judgment; 2) Congress, by virtue of providing subject matter jurisdiction over execution and attachment proceedings based in part on the Office of Foreign Asset Control’s determination of what assets were blocked, did not unconstitutionally delegate its authority to the Executive Branch; and 3) there was no conflict between the TRIA and the Treaty of Amity, ! Economic Relations, and Consular Rights.
U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, June 16, 2010 Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. City of Alexandria, No. 09-1566 In an action for a declaratory judgment against a city, arising from an ordinance to regulate ethanol transloading at plaintiff’s facility, judgment of the district court is affirmed in part, dismissed in part, and vacated where: 1) the ordinance, as applied to plaintiff through the permit, is preempted by the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act (ICCTA); 2) district court’s judgment with respect to the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA) and Federal Rail Safety Act (FRSA) is vacated; and 3) because the disposition of the ICCTA claim renders other preemption claims moot, the HMTA claim is dismissed.
U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, June 18, 2010 Vereecke v. Huron Valley Sch. Dist., No. 08-2051 In a high school English teacher’s suit against a school district and individuals for First Amendment retaliation, claiming that certain disciplinary actions were taken against him for initiating a lawsuit against another teacher on behalf of his daughter for harassment, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff has not presented evidence sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact in support of causation element of his section 1983 claim against the individual defendants; and 2) because the individual defendants did not violate plaintiff’s constitutional rights under the First Amendment, he cannot rely on their conduct to establish a claim of municipal liability.
U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, June 15, 2010 Siefert v. Alexander, No. 09-1713 In a judge’s action for declaratory and injunctive relief against members of the Wisconsin Judicial Commission, challenging under the First Amendment certain judicial ethical rules, summary judgment for plaintiff is affirmed in part where the partisan affiliation ban at issue impermissibly acted to prohibit plaintiff’s speech on both his political views and his qualifications for office. However, the judgment is reversed in part where, unlike restrictions designed, for example, to regulate federal employees’ political activity, restrictions on judicial speech may, in some circumstances, be required by the Due Process Clause, and the solicitation ban was drawn closely enough to the state’s interest in preserving impartiality and preventing corruption to be constitutional.
U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, June 16, 2010 Judge v. Quinn , No. 09-2219 In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit against the governor of Illinois brought by two registered voters claiming that the governor’s failure to issue a writ of election to fill the senate seat vacated by President Obama violated their Seventh Amendment rights, district court’s denial of plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs have shown a strong likelihood of success on the merits and the governor has a duty to issue a writ of election to fill President Obama’s vacancy; but 2) plaintiffs failed to demonstrate they they will suffer irreparable harm if the preliminary injunction they want does not issue.
U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, June 14, 2010 Blair v. Bethel Sch. Dist., No. 08-35895 In an action alleging that plaintiff’s First Amendment rights were violated when his fellow school board members voted to remove him as their vice president because of his relentless criticism of the school district’s superintendent, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where the board’s action did not prevent plaintiff from continuing to speak out, vote his conscience, and serve his constituents as a member of the board.
U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, June 18, 2010 Hill v. Schofield, No. 08-15444 In a capital habeas matter, the denial of petitioner’s habeas petition is reversed where Georgia’s requirement of proof of mental retardation beyond a reasonable doubt necessarily would result in the execution of the mentally retarded, and thus the Georgia Supreme Court’s decision was contrary to the clearly established rule of Atkins. .

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.