FINDLAW:Daily Opinion Summaries for U.S. Supreme Court - 4/16/08


CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, SENTENCING

Baze v. Rees, No. 07–5439
Kentucky’s lethal injection protocol used as its method of execution does not violate the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishments. (Five concurring opinions and dissent)

 

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, SENTENCING

Burgess v. US, No. 06-11429
The term “felony drug offense” contained in the Controlled Substances Act’s (CSA), 21 U.S.C. section 841(b)(1)(A), provision for a 20-year minimum sentence, is defined exclusively by section 802(44) and does not incorporate section 802(13)’s definition of “felony.” Consequently, a state drug offense punishable by more than one year qualifies as a “felony drug offense,” even if state law classifies the offense as a misdemeanor. 

FINDLAW:Daily Opinion Summaries for U.S. Supreme Court - 4/15/08

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, GOVERNMENT LAW, TAX LAW

US v. Clintwood Elkhorn Mining Co., No. 07-308
The plain language of 26 U.S.C. sections 7422(a) and 6511 requires a taxpayer seeking a refund for a tax assessed in violation of the Export Clause, just as for any other unlawfully assessed tax, to file a timely administrative refund claim before bringing suit against the government.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CORPORATION & ENTERPRISE LAW, GOVERNMENT LAW, M&A, TAX LAW

MeadWestvaco Corp. v. Illinois Dep’t of Revenue, No. 06-1413
In a case raising the issue of whether Illinois constitutionally taxed an apportioned share of the capital gain realized by Mead, an out-of-state corporation, on the sale of one of its business divisions, Lexis/Nexis, a judgment in the state’s favor is vacated and remanded where: 1) the state courts erred in considering whether Lexis/Nexis served an “operational purpose” in Mead’s business after determining that Lexis and Mead were not unitary; and 2) an alternative ground for affirmance was neither raised nor addressed in the state courts, and thus, would not be considered.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Oral Arguments

Commonwealth v. Ora

First Amendment– The Commonwealth is appealing a District Court order allowing a defendant’s motion to dismiss a criminal complaint for open and gross lewdness where the judge ruled that the defendant’s nude dancing was protected by the First Amendment.

Enjoy commentary by Robert Ambrogi.

***

For more oral arguments before the SJC.

***

Kaye Sues State Over Judicial Salaries


By Joel Stashenko and Daniel Wise
April 11, 2008

ALBANY - Stymied for a fourth straight fiscal year in securing a pay raise for state court judges, Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye sued the Legislature and Governor David A. Paterson yesterday to force the first judicial salary increase in New York since 1999.

At about the time attorney Bernard W. Nussbaum was filing the complaint in Supreme Court in Manhattan at 60 Centre Street, Chief Judge Kaye and Chief Administrative Judge Ann Pfau (sent a message to the 1,300 judges saying that the exclusion of a pay raise in the budget adopted in Albany on Wednesday was the last straw.

“At this point, we are left with no choice but to take legal action to address this intolerable situation,” the judges said. They called the need to file a suit, first threatened by the chief judge in April 2007 but often cited by her since then as a last resort, as “regrettable.”

The complaint, Kaye v. Silver, names the chief judge and the Unified Court System as plaintiffs. The defendants are Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, Mr. Paterson and the State of New York.

***
The New York Law Journal - Kaye Sues State Over Judicial Salaries

FINDLAW: Texas ‘Pole Tax’ on Strip Club Patrons Unconstitutional

TEXAS ENTERTAINMENT ASS’N, INC., AND KARPOD, INC.V. SUSAN COMBS, ET AL.

(Travis County Dist. Ct., Texas - March 28, 200 8) - A Texas judge ruled that the state’s $5 ‘Pole Tax’ on strip club patrons is unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

Law.com - N.Y. Judge Rejects Ex-Wife’s Bid for Lifetime Maintenance


N.Y. Judge Rejects Ex-Wife’s Bid for Lifetime Maintenance

Vesselin MitevNew York Law JournalApril 3, 2008

Noting that Americans are living longer with fewer financial resources, a Long Island, N.Y., judge has refused to order a 59-year-old car salesman to pay lifetime maintenance to an ex-wife with health problems.

“[W]hile a non-durational maintenance award in this case might assuage the Court’s concerns for the wife’s future financial well being, it would do so at the expense of enslaving the historic wage earner to indefinite years of employment beyond any reasonable expected retirement,” Supreme Court Justice Anthony J. Falanga of Nassau County wrote in J.S. v. J.S.

Falanga found that Mr. S. has “no choice but to work full time” until he turns 65 and has the ability to work until he is 70 in order to provide for his ex-wife.

Thus, he ordered Mr. S. to pay a monthly stipend of $3,000 only for 10 years. The payments will stop should Ms. S. remarry or either party die during that period.

The case, according to attorneys familiar with the issues, is illustrative of a trend — Americans are living longer and in relatively good health while facing a diminishing income as they pass retirement age. This presents a unique challenge to courts in projecting what amount someone facing retirement should have to pay for maintenance of a former spouse.

***

Read entire article.

FINDLAW:Daily Opinion Summaries for U.S. Supreme Court - 3/31/08


CONTRACTS, GOVERNMENT LAW, PROPERTY LAW & REAL ESTATE, WATER LAW

New Jersey v. Delaware, No. 134In a dispute between Delaware and New Jersey over their respective regulatory authority over a portion of the Delaware River, the Court rules that Article VII of a 1905 Compact between the states did not secure to New Jersey exclusive jurisdiction over all riparian improvements commencing on its shores. New Jersey and Delaware have overlapping authority to regulate riparian structures and operations of extraordinary character extending outshore of New Jersey’s domain into territory over which Delaware is sovereign.

FINDLAW: Daily Opinion Summaries for New York Court of Appeals - 03/25/08


ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, CONSTRUCTION, GOVERNMENT LAW, PROPERTY LAW & REAL ESTATE

In the Matter of 9th & 10th Street L.L.C. v. Bd of Standards & Appeals of the City of New York, No. 40A decision reversing the New York City Department of Buildings’ denial of a building permit to construct a dormitory is reversed as: 1) the Department’s denial was not arbitrary and capricious; and 2) where there is reason to doubt that a proposed structure can be used for a lawful purpose, municipal authorities are not required to let the property owner build the building and see what happens.

COMMERCIAL LAW, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CORPORATION & ENTERPRISE LAW, MEDIA LAW, TAX LAW

In the Matter of Disney Enters., Inc. v. Tax Appeals Tribunal of the State of New York, No. 37In an action challenging the validity, under federal law, of New York’s franchise tax apportionment formula, a finding that Disney’s business activities within New York via its corporate subsidiary constituted taxable activities is affirmed over Disney’s claims that: 1) its subsidiaries were not subject to taxation under Tax Law article 9 because their New York activities did not amount to more than mere “solicitation” of orders for sales of tangible property; and 2) New York’s tax apportionment formula was unconstitutional.

COMMUNICATIONS LAW, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, INJURY AND TORT LAW, REMEDIES

Mann v. Abel, No. 24 In an action for libel arising out of an article published in an independent newspaper, jury finding that statements in the articles were defamatory and award of compensatory and punitive damages are reversed and complaint dismissed in its entirety where: 1) viewed within the context of the article as a whole, a reasonable reader would conclude that the allegedly defamatory statements at issue were opinion; and 2) thus, the statement constituted non-actionable statements as a matter of law.

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE

People v. Hall, No. 29Police may conduct a visual body inspection of an arrestee if they have a factual basis supporting a reasonable suspicion that the arrestee has evidence concealed inside a body cavity and the search is conducted in a reasonable manner. If the visual inspection reveals the presence of a suspicious object, the police must obtain a warrant authorizing the object’s removal unless there are exigent circumstances.

 

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, SENTENCING

People v. Windham, No. 42In an appeal arising from a sex offender risk level reassessment hearing, a decision adjudicating defendant a level three sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) is affirmed where defendant failed to preserve a claim that he was not subject to SORA because, although he was released on parole after SORA’s effective date (January 21, 1996), he finished serving the sex-offense portion of his concurrent sentence no later than August 2, 1994. 

FINDLAW:Daily Opinion Summaries for U.S. Supreme Court - 03/25/08


CIVIL PROCEDURE, CONTRACTS, DISPUTE RESOLUTION & ARBITRATION, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, LANDLORD TENANT LAW, MANUFACTURING, WATER LAW

Hall Street Assocs., L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., No. 06-989The statutory grounds provided by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) for expedited judicial review to confirm, vacate, or modify arbitration awards are exclusive, as opposed to mere threshold provisions open to expansion by agreement. In a dispute between a commercial landlord and tenant-manufacturer, involving arbitration of the applicability of a lease indemnification provision for failure to comply with environmental laws, the Ninth Circuit’s judgment is vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, HABEAS CORPUS, INTERNATIONAL LAW

Medellin v. Texas, No. 06-984Neither an International Court of Justice case, Case Concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mex. v. U. S.), 2004 I. C. J. 12, nor a memorandum issued by the President of the United States constitutes directly enforceable federal law that pre-empts state limitations on the filing of successive habeas petitions. Consequently, dismissal of a habeas petition in a death penalty case raising a claim that petitioner was not informed of his Vienna Convention right to notify the Mexican consulate of his detention is affirmed.

Law.com - Owner Charged With Cruelty for Failing to Treat Cat’s Ailments


Owner Charged With Cruelty for Failing to Treat Cat’s Ailments

Noeleen G. WalderNew York Law JournalMarch 24, 2008

A cat owner who did not seek treatment for his pet’s serious ailments during the cat’s last year of life can be charged with animal cruelty, a Manhattan judge has ruled.

Allegations that the defendant left a “swollen and bleeding” paw and other conditions untreated “sufficiently demonstrate that the animal was subjected to unjustifiable physical pain,” Criminal Court Judge ShawnDya L. Simpson wrote in People v. Walsh, 2007NY022001.

***

Read entire article