 |
| Find dockets from Federal trial courts. |
|
|
|
|
|
Election 2008
Will There Be A Hollywood Ending To The Dramatic Story Of Clinton Vs. Obama?
by JOHN W. DEAN
Presidential Candidates vs. Hate
Why Obama And McCain Should Repudiate The Messages Of Their Extremist Religious Endorsers
by MARCI HAMILTON
|
|
|
| Real-Time SEC Edgar Filings |
| Enter all or part of the company's name or ticker symbol. You can also search for companies grouped by Standard Industrial Classification codes: |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| US Court of Appeals - Ninth Circuit |
|
- USA v. TALATONU TUPUOLA [11/24]
Criminal Law & Procedure, Sentencing
Defendants' crack cocaine distribution sentences are affirmed where defendants' sentences were not "based on a sentencing range that had subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission" under 18 U.S.C. section 3582(c)(2). - LEGAL AID SERVICES OF OREGON v. LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION [11/23]
Constitutional Law, Ethics & Professional Responsibility, Government Law
In a First Amendment challenge to restrictions on lobbying, soliciting clients, participating in class actions, and seeking attorneys' fees imposed on legal aid organizations that received federal grants through the Legal Services Corporation, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the regulations did not discriminate against any particular viewpoint or motivating ideology; and 2) plaintiffs' professed fear that their federal funding might be terminated was not sufficient to support an as-applied challenge. - BARBARA BOOSE v. TRI-COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSP [11/23]
Administrative Law, Civil Rights, Health Law, Transportation
In an action alleging that the Americans with Disabilities Act required public transit systems to make certain modifications to their programs for disabled riders, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) if the Attorney General was not permitted to make rules about scheduling paratransit trips by vehicle type, then neither could he make rules that effectively required paratransit systems to schedule trips by vehicle type; and 2) the Department of Transportation's public transportation regulations did not adopt and incorporate the Department of Justice's regulations wholesale.
|
|
| California Supreme Court* |
|
- P. v. Delgado 5/29/08 SC [5/29/2008]
Criminal Law & Procedure, Sentencing
In a prosecution for second degree robbery with a dangerous and deadly weapon and commercial burglary, the judgment is affirmed over defendant's claim that the abbreviated notation "Asslt w DWpn" on an abstract of judgment for a prior conviction was insufficient to prove that such conviction had occurred under the deadly weapon prong of Penal Code section 245(a)(1), and was thus for a serious felony. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/s141282.pdf - P. v. Miles 5/29/08 SC [5/29/2008]
Criminal Law & Procedure, Sentencing
A sentence for multiple felony offenses, enhanced under the "Three Strikes" law, is affirmed where: 1) the evidence strongly supported an inference that "armed bank robbery” and "kidnapping" notations on a 1976 federal judgment form were intended to describe a conviction for conduct which, under California law, constitutes the serious felony of bank robbery; and 2) thus, there was a sufficient evidentiary basis for a finding that the prior conviction at issue was for a "serious felony" for enhancement purposes. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/s140413.pdf - P. v. Richardson 5/22/08 SC [5/22/2008]
Criminal Law & Procedure, Evidence, Sentencing
On automatic appeal for a sentence of death, the judgment is affirmed over claims of error regarding: 1) the prosecution's use of peremptory challenges to excuse any prospective juror who expressed reservations about the death penalty and religious affiliation; 2) the excusal of jurors for cause who stated that they could not impose the death penalty; 3) a denial to excuse a potential juror who revealed she would vote automatically for death; 4) an affidavit submitted for a warrant; 5) suppression of a post-arrest statement arising from an unnecessary delay in his arraignment; 6) whether the post-arrest statement should have been excluded because it was involuntary; 7) due process and right to counsel violations arising from relieving the public defender based on a conflict; 8) application of Proposition 115 to defendant's case; 9) admission and exclusion of certain evidence; 10) a prosecutorial decision involving a witness; 11) prosecutorial misconduct in presenting inconsistent theories; 12) sufficiency of evidence regarding lewd conduct; 13) erroneous instruction on sodomy as a basis for felony murder; 14) references to innocence in CALJIC Nos. 1.01, 2.01, 2.51 and 2.52; 15) cumulative effect of guilty phase errors; 16) double counting of special circumstances and consideration of sodomy special circumstance; 17) several evidentiary rulings; 18) denial of motion for modification of death verdict; 19) intercase proportionality; 20) instructional error; 21) challenges to the death penalty statute; 22) international law; 23) prosecution delay; 24) missing transcripts; 25) cumulative error; and 26) incorporation by reference of habeas corpus petition claims. However, the case is remanded on the issue of restitution as the issue should be considered in light of the currently applicable statute. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/s029588.pdf
|
|
*PDF Format |
|
|
|
|
|
