FINDLAW:Daily Opinion Summaries for U.S. Supreme Court -06/18/09

BANKRUPTCY LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, INJURY AND TORT LAW, PRODUCT LIABILITY

Travelers Indemn. Co. v. Bailey, No. 08–295
In objections to a settlement of tort claims against the insurer of an asbestos manufacturer, the Court of Appeals’ order sustaining the objections is reversed where the terms of a prior injunction issued in bankruptcy proceedings regarding the manufacturer barred direct actions against Defendant, and the finality of the Bankruptcy Court’s orders generally stood in the way of challenging their enforceability.

CIVIL RIGHTS, CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE

District Attorney’s Office for the Third Judicial Circuit v. Osborne, No. 08–6
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action seeking the evidence used to convict Defendant of sexual assault for the purposes of DNA testing, summary judgment for Plaintiff is reversed where, assuming Plaintiff’s claims could be pursued using Section 1983, he had no constitutional right to obtain post-conviction access to the State’s evidence for DNA testing.

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, SECURITIES LAW, WHITE COLLAR CRIME

Yeager v. US, No. 08–67
In an appeal from the District Court’s order denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss his wire fraud indictment on Double Jeopardy grounds, the order is reversed where an apparent inconsistency between a jury’s verdict of acquittal on some counts and its failure to return a verdict on other counts does not affect the acquittals’ preclusive force under the Double Jeopardy Clause.

LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW

Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., No. 08–441
In an Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) action claiming a wrongful demotion, judgment for Plaintiff is reversed where a plaintiff bringing an ADEA disparate-treatment claim must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that age was the “but-for” cause of the challenged adverse employment action.

Leave a comment