FindLaw Opinion Summaries - Con Law

Stratechuk v. Bd. of Educ., S. Orange-Maplewood Sch. Dist.

Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:00:02 PDT

(U.S. 3d Cir., Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Education Law) In plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit challenging school district's prohibition on celebratory religious music at school-sponsored events for the purpose of maintaining a policy of complete religious neutrality, summary judgment for the school district is affirmed as the court did not err in concluding that December concerts are not public fora, and that the school district's interpretation of the policy was reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.

Vaqueria Tres Monjitas, Inc. v. Irizarry

Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(U.S. 1st Cir., Administrative Law, Agriculture, Civil Procedure, Commercial Law, Constitutional Law, Food & Beverages, Government Law, Manufacturing) In plaintiffs' suit against Puerto Rico's Milk Industry Regulation Administration, claiming that the Administration's regulatory scheme governing milk prices violates the Due Process, Equal Protection, Takings, and dormant Commerce Clauses, grant of a preliminary injunction enjoining the regulatory scheme is affirmed where: 1) the district court properly declined defendants' invitation to abstain from entertaining the action; 2) the Eleventh Amendment does not bar the form of relief granted by the district court in its preliminary injunction; 3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting defendants' unclean hands defense; 4) the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to dismiss the action on the basis of laches; 5) the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting defendants' estoppel defense; and 6) district court did not abuse its discretion in granting plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.

Legal Aid Servs. of Or. v. Legal Servs. Corp.

Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(U.S. 9th Cir., 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.

Hoffman St., LLC v. City of W. Hollywood

Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:00:02 PDT

(Cal. App., Constitutional Law, Construction, Environmental Law, Government Law, Property Law & Real Estate) In plaintiffs-developers' suit against the city challenging its extension of an interim ordinance restricting development in areas zoned for multifamily residential uses raising various statutory and constitutional claims, judgment denying plaintiffs' petition for a writ of mandate and denying any relief on their complaint is reversed where: 1) trial court's denial of plaintiffs' petition for a writ of mandate as to the first count was improper as the city council failed to make findings required under Gov. Code section 65858(c) upon extending the interim ordinance and the extension therefore was contrary to law and invalid; 2) although it was improper for the trial court to deny plaintiffs' petition on their first count, plaintiffs have not shown prejudicial error in the denial of relief on their Permit Streamlining Act claim, and a CEQA violation claim is moot; and 3) trial court's entry of judgment on counts four through seven is reversed as plaintiffs were not afforded an opportunity to be heard on those counts which deprived them of their right to a fair hearing.

Walton v. N.Y. State Dept. of Corr. Servs.

Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:00:02 PDT

(N.Y., Civil Rights, Communications Law, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law & Procedure, Government Contracts, Government Law) In an action alleging that the portion of a telephone charge for collect calls from inmates that was allocated as a commission to the department of corrections violated the New York Constitution, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where: 1) the collection of the commission did not constitute a tax; 2) the practice was not a "taking" in the absence of government compulsion; and 3) plaintiffs failed to establish that the commission bore no reasonable relationship to legitimate penological aims.

Godfrey v. Spano

Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:00:02 PDT

(N.Y., Constitutional Law, Family Law, Government Benefits, Government Law, Labor & Employment Law) In a state constitutional challenge to two directives by executive and county officials that recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages for purposes of public employee health insurance coverage and other benefits, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where plaintiffs failed to specify a circumstance where taxpayer funds were expended as a result of the executive order at issue that would not have been expended in the absence of the order.

Carr v. Dist. of Columbia

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(U.S. D.C. Cir., Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law & Procedure) In an action alleging that the police unlawfully arrested plaintiffs during a protest, summary judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed in part where the city did not have probable cause to believe that the protesters knew the protest at issue lacked a permit. However, the order is reversed in part where: 1) the city only needed to show that the officers had reasonable grounds to believe that everyone arrested was part of the rioting group; and 2) the city could lawfully complete the mass arrest without first ordering the crowd to disperse and giving plaintiffs an opportunity to comply.

Reed v. Gilbert

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(U.S. 9th Cir., Constitutional Law, Government Law) In a First Amendment challenge to a municipal sign regulation that prohibited all signs without a permit, subject to nineteen enumerated exemptions ranging from directional signs to ideological and political signs, a denial of a preliminary injunction is affirmed in part where the regulation was content-neutral and did not impermissibly favor commercial speech. However, the order is remanded in part where the district court did not address plaintiff's claim that the ordinance unfairly discriminates among forms of noncommercial speech.

Levine v. Vilsack

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(U.S. 9th Cir., Administrative Law, Agriculture, Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Environmental Law) In an action challenging the USDA's enunciation of its position in the Federal Register that there was no specific federal humane handling and slaughter statute for poultry, plaintiffs' appeal is remanded with instructions to dismiss the matter where plaintiffs could not satisfy the redressability requirement for Article III standing because the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act contained no statutory enforcement mechanism.

Delano Farms Co. v. Cal. Table Grape Comm'n

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(U.S. 9th Cir., Agriculture, Constitutional Law, Food & Beverages, Government Law) In a First Amendment challenge to a state statutory scheme requiring grape growers to fund generic advertising, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where the state agricultural commission's promotional activities constituted government speech that was immune to challenge under the First Amendment.

White v. Howes

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(U.S. 6th Cir., Constitutional Law, Criminal Law & Procedure, Habeas Corpus, Sentencing) District court's grant of petition for habeas relief on the ground that the trial court violated the Double Jeopardy Clause by convicting defendant for both the felon in possession statute and the felony firearm statute is reversed as current jurisprudence allows for multiple punishment for the same offense provided the legislature has clearly indicated its intent to so provide and recognizes no exception for necessarily included or overlapping offenses.

DeBurgo v. Amand

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(U.S. 1st Cir., Constitutional Law, Criminal Law & Procedure, Evidence, Habeas Corpus) Denial of defendant's request for habeas relief arising from his conviction for armed assault with intent to murder and assault and batter by means of a dangerous weapon is affirmed where: 1) a state appeals court's analysis of the sufficiency of the evidence was not an unreasonable application of the Supreme Court's standard announced in Jackson given the sufficiently suggestive circumstantial evidence presented; and 2) defendant was not deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury.

Jennings v. Jones

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(U.S. 1st Cir., Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law & Procedure, Evidence, Injury And Tort Law) In plaintiff's civil rights case against the state of Rhode Island and a State Police representative and other police officers who had executed a search warrant of his workplace at the Narrangansett Indian Tribe "smoke shop", jury's verdict in favor of defendant in the second trial is affirmed as: 1) there was no abuse of discretion in granting a new trial based on the ground that, even if the jury verdict had unambiguously rested on the increased force theory, that theory would have been contrary to the weight of the evidence; and 2) there was no waiver of the new trial motion by defendant.

Perry v. Prop. 8 Official Proponents

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(U.S. 9th Cir., Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Family Law) In an action challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8, a California ballot initiative restricting the definition of marriage to the union of a man and a woman, denial of a prospective intervenor's application to intervene is affirmed where the existing parties would adequately represent its interests.

US v. Skoien

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(U.S. 7th Cir., Constitutional Law, Criminal Law & Procedure) Defendant's conviction for possessing a firearm after having been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 922(g)(9) is vacated and remanded where: 1) intermediate scrutiny applies to defendant's Second Amendment challenge to the section 922(g)(9) prosecution; and 2) the government has done almost nothing to discharge the burden of establishing a reasonable fit between the statute's means and its end.