Source: https://lennyesq.wordpress.com/2011/04/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 12:44:07+00:00

Document:
Here below is an example of the Beta Daily Opinion Summaries service available for free from Justia.
Justia Daily Opinion Summaries is a FREE service.
Practice area emails with summaries from all reviewed courts are sent weekly.
You May FREELY Redistribute This E-Mail in Whole.
Bessemer Trust Company, N.A. v. Francis S. Branin, Jr.
Plaintiff sued a former employee after a number of the former employee’s clients left plaintiff’s wealth management and investment advisory firm for the firm that the former employee currently works at. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified the following question for the court: “What degree of participation in a new employer’s solicitation of a former employer’s client by a voluntary seller of that client’s good will constitutes improper solicitation?” In answering the certified question, the court continued to apply its precedents in Von Breman v. MacMonnies and Mohawk Maintenance Co. v. Kessler and held that the “implied covenant” barred a seller of “good will” from improperly soliciting his former clients. The court also held that, while a seller may not contact his former clients directly, he may, “in response to inquiries” made on a former client’s own initiative, answer factual questions. The court further held that the circumstances where a client exercising due diligence requested further information, a seller may assist his new employer in the “active development… of a plan” to respond to that client’s inquires. Should that plan result in meeting with a client, a seller’s “largely passive” role at such a meeting did not constitute improper solicitation in violation of the “implied covenant.” As such, a seller or his new employer may then accept the trade of a former client.
Petitioner, a New York City police officer, retired in 2004 and was awarded disability benefits. In the following years, the police department received information indicating that petitioner was not disabled; that he made false representations to the Police Pension Fund (“Fund”); and that he had ingested cocaine, thus becoming ineligible to return to duty. At issue was whether the city should continue to pay petitioner a pension. The court affirmed the Appellate Division’s order annulling the termination of petitioner’s pension benefits and held that the benefits can only be terminated by the trustee of the Fund, who has not taken necessary action.
Defendants, six individuals, sought relief upon resentencing from their statutory obligation to serve postrelease supervision (“PRS”). At issue was whether Double Jeopardy barred their resentencing to PRS; whether substantive due process barred their resentencing to PRS; whether a resentencing court may reconsider a defendant’s sentence at a resentencing to correct a People v. Sparber error; and whether the appellate division may reduce a defendant’s sentence on appeal from a resentencing to correct a Sparber error. The court rejected defendants’ Double Jeopardy argument and held that after it handed down People v. Sparber, the legislature promptly adopted legislation to allow resentencing as many defendants as possible to sentences that include PRS. The court also rejected defendants’ substantive due process argument where defendants did not give reason for the court to interpret substantive due process more broadly in these circumstances as a matter of state constitutional law. The court also held that resentencing to set right the flawed imposition of PRS at the original sentencing was not a plenary proceeding. The court further held that the Appellate Division could not reduce the prison sentence on appeal in the interest of justice when a trial court lacked discretion to reconsider the incarceratory component of a defendant’s sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the Appellate Division’s order except People v. Sharlow, where the the order should be reversed and the resentence imposed by the Supreme Court reinstated.
Have friends who like law?Forward this email.
Like Justia and enjoy legal discussions on Facebook.
Follow Justiacom for news and updates on Twitter.
The Free Law Reporter™ is where free law meets accessibility. It’s an electronic case reporter that freely publishes nearly every recent appellate and supreme court opinion, from state to federal US courts.
FLR uses the RECOP project as a starting point, making its opinions searchable online and available as ebook collections, with more features in development.
Each weekly feed contains 2 groupings of opinions: slip opinions and paginated cases. The slip opinions are individual documents that come directly from the court, are paginated by the court, and contain little or no citation information. The paginated cases are individual documents that have been added to the West reporter system, contain West pagination and full West citations.
CALI’s FLR project is processing the slip opinion portion of the archives to create a body of court opinions that is accessible to anyone including educators, librarians, students, lawyers and the public. The raw XML of the archives is processed into valid XHTML and some meta data is added to facilitate the indexing and classification of the documents. The XHTML files are saved into a web folder structure organized by weekly RECOP volume and jurisdiction for viewing with a web browser. The XHTML files are fed into a search engine powered by Apache Solr allowing for sophisticated searching and analysis of the documents. Finally the weekly volumes are gathered by state and federal jurisdiction into ebooks in the .epub format viewable on virtually any desktop, laptop, tablet, smartphone and e-reader device. All of this available now at www.freelawreporter.org. The FLR website is updated weekly as new RECOP archives are released.
Read entire article at WSJ (Tiered subscription-this article is free).
Budget cuts have made this “the saddest and most professionally challenging season of my career,” New York City Family Court Administrative Judge Edwina G. Richardson-Mendelson (See Profile) said Wednesday evening.
And the day has gotten shorter. All but emergency court proceedings are being cut off at 4:30 p.m.
Read entire article (requires free registration).
plane from Albuquerque to Baltimore, and it worked great.
This case presents the largely unresolved issue of the extent to which bullying by other students inhibits a disabled child from being educated appropriately, and what her school must do about it. A strict legal test is developed and applied. Plaintiff L.K. acting through her parents, challenges her public school placement by the New York City Department of Education (“DOE”) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. After exhausting her administrative remedies, she brings this action arguing that the placement was procedurally and substantively inappropriate, and her parents seek reimbursement for private school tuition. The DOE moves for summary judgment. The primary complaint is that L.K. was deprived of an appropriate education because her assigned public school did nothing to prevent her from being so bullied by other students as to seriously reduce the opportunity for an appropriate education. Such a contention, under the Individuals with Disability Education Act (“IDEA”) provisions that require a proper school placement and appropriate education, apparently have not yet been ruled upon by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. For the reasons stated below, the issue requires a court evidentiary hearing, and, a possible remand to the state authorities for a rehearing.
Read the full text of decision here (requires free registration).
The iPhone is not logging your location. Rather, it’s maintaining a database of Wi-Fi hotspots and cell towers around your current location, some of which may be located more than one hundred miles away from your iPhone, to help your iPhone rapidly and accurately calculate its location when requested. Calculating a phone’s location using just GPS satellite data can take up to several minutes. iPhone can reduce this time to just a few seconds by using Wi-Fi hotspot and cell tower data to quickly find GPS satellites, and even triangulate its location using just Wi-Fi hotspot and cell tower data when GPS is not available (such as indoors or in basements). These calculations are performed live on the iPhone using a crowd-sourced database of Wi-Fi hotspot and cell tower data that is generated by tens of millions ofiPhones sending the geo-tagged locations of nearby Wi-Fi hotspots and cell towers in an anonymous and encrypted form to Apple.

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