Legal News

Case Summaries

[12/03] Boim v. Holy Land Found. for Relief and Dev.
In a suit arising from the murder of an American in Israel, alleging that defendants, three organizations and one individual, had provided financial support to Hamas, whose gunmen allegedly committed the murder, and that plaintiffs were entitled to recover against defendants under 18 U.S.C. section 2333(a), judgments against all defendants, and award of treble damages, are affirmed in part and reversed in part by the court sitting en banc where: 1) section 2333 does create tort liability for the financial supporters of terrorist groups targeting Americans outside the U.S.; 2) two of the defendant organizations had not contradicted plaintiffs' evidence on the only material fact at issue, namely that Hamas was responsible for the murder, and were properly held liable under section 2333; but 3) with respect to the third defendant organization, collateral estoppel effect could not be given to a prior order freezing defendant's funds, and remand was necessary for a new determination of whether defendant was knowingly supporting terrorism; and 4) the individual defendant had not rendered material support to Hamas subsequent to the passage of a related criminal statute upon which the tort liability was based, and was not subject to liability.

[12/03] Grissom v. Mills Corp.
In an action against former employer for common law breach of contract, common law defamation per se, and violation of the whistleblower provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX), judgment awarding plaintiff-former employee $325,484.08 in attorneys' fees and costs following plaintiff's acceptance of defendant's $130,000 offer of judgment is vacated and remanded where: 1) plaintiff was a "prevailing party" with respect to his SOX whistleblower claim and thus was statutorily eligible for award of attorneys' fees and costs under SOX; 2) the district court erred in awarding plaintiff attorneys' fees and costs accrued after the date of its Rule 68 Offer of Judgment; 3) the district court abused its discretion in basing the Fee Award on the hourly rates requested by plaintiff, without reduction; and 4) the district court erred in finding that "[t]he deadlines imposed by the court required Plaintiff's counsel to work at a faster pace..."

[12/02] Brumfield v. Hollins
In a 42 U.S.C. 1983 suit brought by survivors of a man who hung himself while being held in a county jail, summary judgment for individual defendants on qualified-immunity grounds, and directed verdict in favor of defendant-county and individual defendants in their official capacity, are affirmed where: 1) defendant-sheriff was not subject to liability on theories of failure to promulgate policies on medical care or failure to supervise; 2) expert medical testimony was reasonably excluded; and 3) defendant-county was not liable as a municipality on either policy or deliberate-indifference theories.

[12/02] Greystone Homes, Inc. v. Midtec, Inc.
In an action brought by plaintiff-home builder against defendant-manufacturer for damage caused by plumbing fittings manufactured by defendant, summary judgment for defendant is reversed and remanded where: 1) a builder may recover from a product manufacturer for economic losses caused by the manufacturer's violation of the standards set forth in the Right to Repair Act through an equitable indemnity action; but 2) a builder may not recover for these losses through a direct negligence claim against the manufacturer.

More...

[12/04] Harris v. Alexander
In a conviction for possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell, grant of writ of habeas corpus is affirmed where: 1) petitioner was convicted without due process of law; and 2) the state courts unreasonably applied Supreme Court rulings in affirming petitioner's conviction where the trial court refused to charge the jury on the theory of petitioner's agency defense ? that, under state law, a defendant's intention to turn drugs over to a purchaser when the defendant acquired the drugs as the purchaser's agent, did not, absent more, constitute intent to sell the drugs.

[12/04] U.S. v. Connolly
Conviction for illegal reentry into the U.S. as a convicted felon in violation of 8 U.S.C. section 1326(b)(2) is affirmed over claim of error that the charge should have been vacated because defendant had established the requisite showing for United States citizenship under 8 U.S.C. section 1403 based on the fact that his biological father was a U.S. citizen and a member of the Army Reserves at the time of defendant's birth in Panama.

[12/04] U.S. v .Cavera
In an en banc rehearing, an above-Guidelines sentence of twenty-four months imprisonment for conspiring to deal in and to transport firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 371 is affirmed where: 1) sentencing disparities among different federal districts were warranted by the greater need for deterrence in New York, with its more profitable black market in firearms; and 2) given the deference owed to district judges, deterrence-based rationale sufficed to justify the sentence.

[12/02] Jianniney v. State of Delaware
Conviction for sexual solicitation of a child is affirmed where: 1) driving time estimates contained on Mapquest printouts were not "generally used and relied upon" metrics falling within the hearsay exception for published compilations; but 2) the court's error in admitting such evidence was harmless.

More...