Monday, April 28, 2008

Right of Action. Under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, an alien is entitled to be informed of his right to contact his consulate in the event of arrest. The plaintiff in Mora v. People of New York was not so informed and sued under the Alien Tort Statute. The case was dismissed because the court believed that the Convention did not convey an individual right that could be enforced in domestic courts. On appeal, the plaintiff asserted that the right could be enforced not only under the Alien Tort Act, but also under section 1983 and through an implied right of action arising from the Convention itself.

The Second Circuit held that no such right of action existed. The decision can be found here.

Tuesday, April 08, 2008

Kelo redux. In an attempt to stop proposed development of downtown Brooklyn through, in part, the use of eminent domain, the plaintiffs in Goldstein v Pataki claimed that the use of that power, which they claimed, was not for a public purpose and hence violated the Public Use clause of the Fifth Amendment.

The District Court dismissed the action, and the Second Circuit, based on the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. City of New London, affirmed.

The decision can be found here.
Light cigarettes. The Second Circuit has reversed an order granting certification of a class consisting of individuals who were deceived into believing that "light" cigarettes were healthier than ordinary cigarettes. The Court found that individual issues outweighed issues susceptible to common proof.

The decision in McLaughlin v. American Tobacco Co. can be found here.

Wednesday, April 02, 2008

Inter-racial marriage. The Second Circuit has held that a white person married to a black person may sue under Title VII if his employer takes action against him because of his inter-racial marriage. The decision in Holcomb v. Iona College can be found here.

Tuesday, March 04, 2008

Congratulations. As regular readers of this blog (if there is such a thing) know, I have the practice of "adopting" a law school blogger. My current adoptee is "Butterflyfish," who blogs on life and law school. She has just been made an editor on the law review of her unnamed law school. Because she wants to be anonymous, I am not at liberty to even reveal the precise position, but, suffice it to say, it is a responsible one. Congratulations.

Monday, February 25, 2008

Absolute immunity. The Second Circuit has held that testifying witness in police disciplinary hearings have absolute immunity.

The decision in Rolon v. Henneman can be found here.
What is a person? Chemical companies were held to persons under 28 U.S.C. 1442(a)(1), allowing them to remove a case to federal action. The chemical companies were found to have acted under a federal officer performing acts under color of federal office with respect to Agent Orange.

The Second Circuit reversed the decision of the District Court finding no federal jurisdiction. The decision in Isaacson v. Dow Chemical Co. can be found here.

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Certified question. The Second Circuit has certified an interesting question to the New York State Court of Appeals. (Well, they're all interesting to me, but that 's because I'm a Second Circuit geek.) The question is whether, when an injured person brings an action against an insured by serving the party throught the Secretary of State, this service suffices to trigger the insured's obligation to notify his insured under the terms of the policy. This issue has led to divergent opinions in the district courts.

The decision in Briggs Avenue LLC v. Insurance Corporation of Hanover can be found here.

Friday, February 15, 2008

Terror Publicity. The owner of an ice cream parlor in Park Slope, Brooklyn, who had been convicted of illegally funneling money from the business to Yemen in violation of U.S. law. There had been some publicity about his terror connections, and he was convicted. On appeal, he raised the issue of the pretrial publicity. A divided Second Circuit held that he had waived the defense because, although he had raised the issue, he had not asked that the jurors be polled to see if they had seen the publicity. Without such a poll, there was no evidence that the jury had been affected by the publicity. Judge Sack dissented, in part because of the publicity issue, which he thought violated the Due Process Clause of the Constitution.

The decision in United States v. Elfgeeh can be found here.

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Suspension. The Second Circuit, in Ruis-Martinez v. Mukasey, has held that the REAL ID Act does not violate the Suspension Clause of the Constitution. The respondents had argued that relief under the Act, with its 30-day limitations period, was not an adquate substitute for relief under a writ of habeas corpus.

The decision can be found here.

Thursday, February 07, 2008

Objection. The Second Circuit has held that the objection of the Department of Homeland Security to a petition to reopen a removal proceeding, having nothing to do with the merits, is an insufficient basis to deny the petition.

The decision in Melnitsenko v. Mukasey can be found here.

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Doctor an Employee. While the Court asserted that the issue is fact specific, it held that issues of fact from which a jury could infer that a staff physician was an employee, and not just an independent contractor, and subject to statutes prohibiting sexual harassment. The decision in Salomon v. Our Lady of Victory Hospital can be found here.

Thursday, January 24, 2008

Conference. Calling all appellate attorneys. I've just been advised that the DRI Appellate Advocacy Seminar will be held on February 28-29, 2008 in Orlando Florida. The program includes:

An assessment of the Roberts Court by Supreme Court practitioner Patricia Ann Millett and law professor David Stras.

A panel discussion giving the "view from the other side of the bench" by appellate judges Theodore McKee (3d Cir.), Diane Sykes (7th Cir.) and Chief Justice Jean Hoefer Toal (S.C. Sup. Ct.)

"The Beautiful Brief -- Persuasion Through Appearances" by Professor Ruth Anne Robbins, author of Painting with Print

A panel discussion by three in-house lawyers about the contributions that appellate lawyers give to the trial team

"Judicial Use of Legal Reasoning -- Theory Versus Practice" by Professor Emily L. Sherwin

"The Impact of the Internet in Briefs and Judicial Opinions" by Professor Coleen M. Barger

"How to Bring a Cold Paper Record to Life" by Dahlia Lithwick, giving a journalist's perspective on how to convert a box of paper into a compelling story

"The Unwritten Rules of Appellate Procedure" by appellate attorney Luther Mumford

A presentation on arbitration appeals by Aaron S. Bayer

A presentation on ethical issues in appellate advocacy by Douglas R. Richmond of Aon Corp.

For more info, check out the DRI (it stands for Defendse Research Institute) website.
Overtime. The Second Circuit held that a nurse placement service had violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay its employees time and a half for working overtime without authorization, however, held that the Secretary of Labor could not find the company in contempt of a consent order, requiring the company to pay its workers overtime rates for work in excess of 40 hours. The Court held that the consent decree was ambiguous in that it did not unambiguously proscribe the challenged conduct. Judge Jacobs, concurring with the decision, found, however, that the company did not even violated the FLSA because the work was prohibited by the company, unless advanced authorization was received.

The decision in Chao v. Gothan Registry, Inc. can be found here.

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Straying. A sentence which strayed from the terms of a plea agreement warranted setting a hearing before the District Court on the issue of sentencing. The summary order issued in United States v. Leonardo can be found here. The defendant in this case was a disgraced ex-lawyer, Anthony Leonardo Jr., who had been convicted for conspiracies to commit murder, traffic cocaine and launder money. Mr. Leonardo had been a prominent defense attorney. An article on this case can be found here.

Thursday, January 10, 2008

Not following Procedures. When procedures designed to safeguard an immigrant's right to counsel were not followed by the government, the Second Circuit reversed the order of removal imposed by the Immigration Judge and affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals.

The decision in Picca v. Mukasey can be found here.

Monday, January 07, 2008

Immigration Custody. The Second Circuit has held that a person in immigration custody is not "in custody" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. 2254.

The decision in Ogunwomoju v. United States can be found here.

Monday, December 24, 2007

Outlaws. The Second Circuit affirmed the order of the district court granting summary judgment to the Connecticut Department of Corrections, dismissing the action brought against it by correctional officers who had been disciplined for being members of the Outlaws Motorcycle Club.

The decision in Piscottano v. Murphy can be found here.

Friday, December 21, 2007

No immunity. In Gilles v. Repicky, the Second Circuit reversed an order granting summary judgment based on qualified immunity grounds. The Court held that a police officer could not hold an individual after he no longer had reasonable grounds to believe that she had engaged in criminal activity, even if at the time of the stop, he had such grounds.

The decision can be found here.

Tuesday, December 18, 2007

More certified questions. The Second Circuit is putting the New York State Court of Appeals back to work by certifying some more questions. The questions submitted to the New York Court in Reddington v. Staten Island University Hospital are:

Does the institution of a time-barred claim pursuant to New York Labor Law 740 simultaneously with a claim pursuant to New York Labor Law 741 trigger section 740(7)'s waiver provision and thereby bar the section741 claim, even if the section 740 claim is subsequently withdrawn?

Does the definition of employee in New York Labor Law 741 encompass an individual who does not render medical treatment, and under what circumstances?

The decision can be found here.