All Courts 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th DC Federal Supreme Court
  
Search
From Date:
[Default]
To Date:
[Default]
Category:
Parties:
Keywords:
 
  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69
Edit Column Delete Column   
Edit Delete 11th Circuit

IMMIGRATION, SENTENCING

U.S. v. Estrella, Jul-10-2014

J. Martin finds that the lower court improperly sentenced defendant for illegal reentry. His prior conviction for throwing a "hard substance" at a vehicle does not constitute a crime of violence for sentencing purposes as the statute has no element regarding the use of force against a person. When a court looks at a conviction under a divisible statute, the main question is which version of the statute forms the basis of the conviction. The conviction itself does not clarify what defendant's intent was at the time or what sort of damage his crime caused. Reversed.

Edit Delete 11th Circuit

CONTRACT, ANTI-SLAPP, PREEMPTION

The Royalty Network v. Harris, Jul-10-2014

J. Black finds that the lower court properly declined to dismiss plaintiff's request for a declaration stating that the parties' consulting agreement had been terminated. Because this is a federal case, it is irrelevant whether the suit complies with Georgia's anti-SLAPP statute's certification. The applicable federal rule has sufficient coverage and requires that pleadings need not be verified in all cases. The federal rules are valid under the Rules Enabling Act, so any challenge to them must be constitutional instead of only based on a competing state law. Affirmed.

Edit Delete 11th Circuit

BANKRUPTCY, DEBT COLLECTION, CIVIL PROCEDURE

Crawford v. LVNV Funding, Jul-10-2014

J. Goldberg finds that the lower court improperly allowed respondent consumer debt buyers to file proofs of claim on debts earlier deemed unenforceable. This tactic violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Respondent's conduct would be subject to liability under the Act had it filed suit in state court, and there is no clear reason to treat a bankruptcy suit differently. The limitations period provides a bright line for debt collectors like respondent since a debtor's memory and records can be lost, making it difficult to defend against the claim. A proof of claim is a debt collection activity for the Act's purposes. Reversed.

Edit Delete 1st Circuit

IMMIGRATION

Lima v. Holder, Jul-10-2014

[Corrected opinion.] J. Thompson finds that the lower court properly ordered removal of appellant, a Brazilian, because appellant many not retract concessions he made about his removability in earlier proceedings. Affirmed.

Edit Delete 1st Circuit

IMMIGRATION

Constanza de Abarca v. Holder, Jul-10-2014

J. Lipez finds that the Board of Immigration Appeals properly dismissed a Salvadoran's appeal from the denial of her application for asylum. The evidence did not establish that appellant faced future persecution based upon her membership in her family. Affirmed.

Edit Delete 1st Circuit

INSURANCE

Hansen v. Sentry Insurance, Jul-10-2014

[Corrected opinion.] J. Thompson finds that the lower court properly granted summary judgment for an insurance company against appellant's suit for indemnity. The company did not owe appellant, a former employee of a company that was suing appellant, a defense or indemnification. Affirmed.

Edit Delete 1st Circuit

CIVIL PROCEDURE, JURISDICTION, EMPLOYMENT

Vazquez-Robles v. Commoloco, Jul-10-2014

[Corrected opinion.] J. Selya finds that the lower court improperly entered judgment for plaintiff in her employment discrimination complaint. Attempted service of process on appellant's former registered agent was insufficient as appellant had a new registered agent. Vacated.

Edit Delete 1st Circuit

FIREARMS

U.S. v. Guzman-Montanez, Jul-10-2014

[Corrected opinion.] J. Gelpi finds that the lower court improperly convicted appellant of possession of a firearm in a school zone because it was not shown that defendant realized he was in a school zone. While a patrol officer testified that the school was visible from Church's Chicken, he did not testify that the school's sign was visible from the restaurant. Reversed in part.

Edit Delete 1st Circuit

SECURITIES

Hidalgo-Velez v. San Juan Asset Management, Jul-10-2014

J. Selya finds that the lower court improperly dismissed appellants' class action securities complaint. Vacated.

Edit Delete 2nd Circuit

PRIVILEGE, TERRORISM, GOVERNMENT

New York Times v. U.S., Jul-10-2014

[Revised opinion.] J. Newman finds that certain documents related to targeted killings of U.S. citizens carried out by drone aircraft must be disclosed to The New York Times Company, Times reporters Charlie Savage and Scott Shane, and the ACLU, either in redacted version or to the court for in camera inspection. The documents were prepared by the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel setting forth the government's reasoning as to the lawfulness of the attacks. Considering various public statements made by government officials as to the lawfulness of the targeted killings, the government cannot claim that the legal analysis in the memorandum and white paper in question are confidential. "After senior government officials have assured the public that targeted killings are lawful and that OLC advice 'establishes the legal boundaries within which we can operate,' and the government makes public a detailed analysis of nearly all the legal reasoning contained in the OLC-DOD Memorandum, waiver of secrecy and privilege as to the legal analysis in the Memorandum has occurred." Reversed.

Edit Delete 2nd Circuit

CONSTITUTION

Holland v. Goord, Jul-10-2014

J. Livingston finds that plaintiff should be allowed to proceed with retaliation and due process claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. Plaintiff, an inmate, alleged that defendants violated his constitutional rights by making him give a urine sample while he fasted from food and drink in observance of Ramadan. Defendants did not let plaintiff give the urine sample after sunset when the fast ended. Defendants' conduct put a substantial burden on plaintiff's free exercise rights. Reversed.

Edit Delete 2nd Circuit

NEGLIGENCE

In re: World Trade Ctr. Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litig. v. , Jul-10-2014

J. Chin finds that the district court improperly found against 211 plaintiffs' claims solely because they answered "none" to an interrogatory that asked plaintiffs to identify "diagnosed" conditions, injuries, and diseases incurred during the 9-11 cleanup process for which they were seeking recovery. This was an insufficient basis for a blanket conclusion that these plaintiffs could not establish their claims. The district court must assess plaintiffs' submissions individually. Reversed.

Edit Delete 3rd Circuit

COMPETENCE, THREATS

U.S. v. Cruz, Jul-10-2014

J. Cowen finds that the lower court properly found that a sufficiently important government interest was at stake in rendering defendant competent for sentencing by forcibly medicating him. Defendant, who suffers from schizophrenia, was convicted of threatening a federal law enforcement officer. A criminal defendant has the right to object to the pre-sentence investigation, and to arguments in favor of varying from the guidelines. The government has an important interest in enabling defendant to take advantage of these rights by restoring his competency. In addition, it is uncertain whether defendant would be eligible for civil commitment after his prison sentence, bolstering the government's interest in restoring defendant's competence. The trial court's factual findings on defendant's history of mental health and violence are supported by the record, so they shall not be disturbed. Affirmed.

Edit Delete 4th Circuit

BANKING/LENDING

Petry v. Prosperity Mortgage, Jul-10-2014

J. Niemeyer finds that the lower court properly dismissed plaintiffs' claims that Prosperity Mortgage violated Maryland's finder's fee act by fees that it charged at closing, regarding the $220,000 plaintiffs had borrowed to buy a home in Baltimore. Prosperity Mortgage was named as the lender in the loan documents. Thus, Prosperity was not a "mortgage broker" and could not have violated that Act as alleged by plaintiffs. Affirmed.

Edit Delete 4th Circuit

BANKING/LENDING

Marshall v. James B. Nutter & Company, Jul-10-2014

J. Niemeyer finds that the district court of Maryland properly held that James B. Nutter & Company could not have violated the state code that prohibits a mortgage broker from charging a finder's fee in any transaction in which the mortgage broker is the lender. Plaintiff alleged that Nutter conspired with mortgage brokers to violate the finder's fee act. But it is uncontested that Nutter was functioning as the "funding lender," as was alleged in the complaint. The court did not hold that Nutter had to be a direct perpetrator in violating the act, but instead held that Nutter had to be "legally capable" of committing such a violation "before it could be held liable for conspiracy." Affirmed.

Edit Delete 6th Circuit

IMMIGRATION

Harmon v. Holder, Jul-10-2014

[Consolidated.] J. Stranch finds that the immigration judge properly denied petitioner's request for asylum under the Convention Against Torture. Petitioner entered the U.S. as an unaccompanied child in 1994, fleeing from the Liberian civil war, where her parents were both killed. Although petitioner has since moved to Canada and filed for permanent status, her appeal is not moot because she has suffered redressable injury. However, petitioner is not eligible for asylum because "conditions of rampant violence alone are insufficient to establish eligibility," and she has not proven persecution on the basis of her membership in a protected category. Petitioner's presented weak testimony that her parents were killed for political reasons, and there is no clear probability that she will be targeted for rape and female genital mutilation if she returns to Liberia. Affirmed.

Edit Delete 6th Circuit

FIREARMS, EVIDENCE, SENTENCING

U.S. v. Garcia, Jul-10-2014

J. Gibbons finds that the lower court properly convicted defendant of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Defendant fled when officers arrived at an apartment to investigate gunfire, and in the chase, they saw some objects "fall from his person." Later, officers found a gun and defendant's hat. This circumstantial evidence supports a reasonable inference that the gun was defendant's and was sufficient to sustain defendant's conviction. In addition, the lower court did not give undue weight to defendant's criminal history at sentencing. Affirmed.

Edit Delete 6th Circuit

DRUG OFFENDER, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, SENTENCING

U.S. v. Dado, Jul-10-2014

J. Clay finds that the lower court properly convicted defendant of possession 1,000 or more marijuana plants with the intent to distribute, and gave him the 20-year mandatory minimum sentence. Even if defendant did not know his offense involved 1,000 or more marijuana plants, he is still subject to the mandatory minimum. In addition, defendant's counsel was not ineffective for failing to call defendant's cousin to the witness stand, after deciding the testimony would not be helpful. Counsel's cross-examination of a witness to undermine defendant's involvement in the grow operation was a reasonable strategic risk, although it opened the door for the government to elicit testimony about a separate drug-related incident. Affirmed.

Edit Delete 6th Circuit

TAX, COMMERCE, GOVERNMENT

Boart of Commissioners of Montgomery County, Ohio v. Federal Housing Finance Agency, Jul-10-2014

J. Moore finds that the lower court properly dismissed plaintiffs' case seeking unpaid real property transfer taxes.However, defendants are exempt from state taxes under their federal chargers. Taxes on real property are not exempted, but transfer taxes are excise taxes instead, which are exempted. Congress has the power to enact these exemptions under the Commerce Clause, so they are constitutional. Affirmed.

Edit Delete 6th Circuit

CONFRONTATION, WITNESS, MURDER

McCarley v. Kelly, Jul-10-2014

J. Donald finds that the lower court improperly allowed a child psychologist to read into evidence the statements of a three-year-old, without giving defendant the opportunity to cross-examine the witness. Based on a three-year-old boy's statements, defendant was convicted of aggravated murder. There is no doubt that the child's statements to a psychologist were testimonial in nature, and their importance to the prosecution's case "cannot be overstated." Therefore, defendant's inability to cross-examine the child did not constitute harmless error, and violated his right to confront the witnesses against him. Reversed.

Edit Delete 6th Circuit

CIVIL PROCEDURE, CONTRACT

Adler v. Elk Glenn, Jul-10-2014

Per curiam, the 6th Circuit finds that the appeal must be dismissed. Appellant sought to appeal the lower court's entry of judgment for the insurer, relieving it for its duty to defend defendant against plaintiff's breach of contract claims. A certification to appeal requires two independent findings, including a finding that there is "no just reason for delay." But the court only found that defendant would suffer "real prejudice" absent a certificate of appeal. This reference, without further explanation, does not support the necessity of immediate review.

Edit Delete 7th Circuit

SOCIAL SECURITY, EXPERTS, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Beardsley v. Colvin, Jul-10-2014

J. Hamilton finds that the lower court improperly upheld respondent's denial of plaintiff's request for social security disability benefits. The administrative judge should not have discounted the opinion of respondent's own examining physician. She suffers from knee problems, osteoarthritis and obesity at the age of 49. At this age, even a finding that a person can do sedentary work qualifies her as disabled. Reversed.

Edit Delete 7th Circuit

EMPLOYMENT, CIVIL RIGHTS

Tank v. T-Mobile USA, Jul-10-2014

J. Williams finds that the lower court properly dismissed plaintiff's national origin and race-based employment discrimination and retaliation claim. He cannot claim that a racist human resources director was involved now since he did not do so below. Suspicious timing is not enough to prove discriminatory intent although defendant began investigating plaintiff for alleged misconduct shortly after he complained of racist behavior by colleagues. His pay discrimination claim fails since the other employees to which he compares himself are not sufficiently similar. Affirmed.

Edit Delete 7th Circuit

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, CIVIL PROCEDURE

E.Y. v. U.S., Jul-10-2014

J. Hamilton finds that the lower court improperly dismissed plaintiff's claim that defendants' medical malpractice caused her son's cerebral palsy. Although she filed against the defendant in question after the limitations period had ended, the original suit was filed in a timely manner, and she had no way of knowing that this defendant, a prenatal healthcare provider, was involved at all. Although a negative outcome alone does not prove negligence, plaintiff should be allowed to proceed on the new evidence that prenatal care may have caused the birth defect. Reversed.

Edit Delete 7th Circuit

WARRANTY, DAMAGES

Burzlaff v. Thoroughbred Motorsports, Jul-10-2014

J. Hamilton finds that the lower court properly found for plaintiff in his suit for breach of warranty and his Wisconsin Lemon Law claim over defects to a motorized tricycle bought from defendant. Although the federal statute under which he sued only allows recovery up to the purchase price, he was permitted to combine these damages with those available under the Lemon Law. Affirmed.

Edit Delete 7th Circuit

SOCIAL SECURITY, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Yurt v. Colvin, Jul-10-2014

J. Rovner finds that the lower court improperly upheld the denial of petitioner's social security disability benefits application. He suffers from a psychotic disorder that causes him to hallucinate, as well as chronic headaches and other health problems for which he takes a host of medications. The court should have considered both areas in which petitioner was severely limited and those in which he was moderately limited, such as memory. Reversed.

Edit Delete 7th Circuit

PRODUCT LIABILITY, CIVIL PROCEDURE

Hartman v. Ebsco Industries, Jul-10-2014

J. Flaum finds that the lower court properly dismissed plaintiff's product liability suit. In 2008, he upgraded his muzzle-loading rifle to be able to use newer propellants. However, the rifle was 14 years old at the time, and Indiana has a 10-year statute of repose for product liability actions. Modifying the gun did not reset the limitations period. The only sort of reconditioning that can do so is the type that extends the product's useful life. For example, changing a computer's processor would not suffice, but adding a new battery would. Affirmed.

Edit Delete 7th Circuit

WRONGFUL DEATH, EXPERTS

King v. Kramer, Jul-10-2014

J. Tinder finds that the lower court improperly declined to apply an objective reasonableness standard in plaintiff's wrongful death suit. She is the administrator of the estate of a man who, while awaiting a probable cause determination in jail, was rapidly tapered off of his psychotropic medication before complaining of seizure-like symptoms and then dying in his cell. Given the suit's age, plaintiff should have requested the application of this standard instead of the usual deliberate indifference one earlier, but the court was still required to explain its decision and how it avoided prejudice. Nothing shows that defendant will have to depose experts again or elicit further trial testimony. Reversed.

Edit Delete 7th Circuit

EMPLOYMENT, CIVIL RIGHTS

Carlson v. CSX Transportation, Jul-10-2014

J. Hamilton finds that the lower court improperly dismissed plaintiff's sex-based employment discrimination suit. Although no one said anything overtly sexist to plaintiff, she specified examples of poor treatment. Her related contract claim was unusually vague, but only because she is bound by a confidentiality clause. Reversed.

Edit Delete 7th Circuit

CONSPIRACY, FRAUD, RESTITUTION

U.S. v. Moeser, Jul-10-2014

J. Flaum finds that the lower court properly held defendant jointly and severally liable for damage that he and his co-defendants caused in a conspiracy to commit bank fraud. Defendant was a loan officer at a bank who lied to his employer to allow a real estate developer to obtain a loan that it could not repay. Co-conspirators are held jointly and severally liable for all foreseeable losses, even if a specific loss can be attributed to just one member of the conspiracy. There is no reason to separately treat the different parts of this conspiracy, which is the only way defendant could be held less liable. Affirmed.

Edit Delete 8th Circuit

DRUG OFFENDER, EVIDENCE

U.S. v. Dukes, Jul-10-2014

J. Kelly finds that the lower court properly convicted defendant of conspiracy to distribute cocaine base. The affidavit supporting the use of a confidential informant was substantive and proved that surveillance personnel were unable to maintain a view of the drug transaction themselves. The affidavit from the informant himself only raised questions of credibility. Affirmed.

Edit Delete 8th Circuit

CONTRACT, ENERGY

enXco Development v. Northern States Power, Jul-10-2014

J. Smith finds that the lower court properly dismissed plaintiff's suit for breach of a wind-energy construction project contract. The contract contained conditions precedent that clearly allowed defendant to terminate. The doctrine of temporary impracticability only protects actions taken pursuant to the main contract, not conditions precedent. Courts are not required to consider the materiality of conditions precedent as they would typical contract terms. Plaintiff kept all of the real estate and assets associated with the project, so there was no unfairly disproportionate forfeiture. Its position is not very different from prior to formation. Affirmed.

Edit Delete 8th Circuit

EMPLOYMENT

Ebersole v. Novo Nordisk, Jul-10-2014

J. Smith finds that the lower court properly dismissed plaintiff's Family and Medical Leave Act suit. The mere fact that supervisors discussed plaintiff's health does not show discriminatory intent. An employer can take health into account in a non-discriminatory way to determine issues such as availability. Plaintiff's claims regarding similarly situated employees all fail since these employees worked for different supervisors in different departments. Affirmed.

Edit Delete 8th Circuit

ESCAPE, SENTENCING

U.S. v. Batts, Jul-10-2014

Per curiam, the circuit finds that the lower court properly sentenced defendant for escaping from a prison camp. A prison camp is not considered a non-secure facility like a halfway house, to which the relevant statute section does not apply. Although the camp lacked perimeter barriers, it was within the punitive corrections system. Affirmed.

Edit Delete 8th Circuit

SMUGGLING, FIREARMS, INTENT

U.S. v. Galimah, Jul-10-2014

J. Kelly finds that the lower court properly convicted defendant of smuggling firearms out of the country. The court reasonably instructed the jury that deliberate ignorance could meet the intent requirement. Such instructions do not unfairly imply that every defendant must learn all of the applicable law. Deliberate ignorance instructions are common in import and tax cases. Affirmed.

Edit Delete 9th Circuit

EMPLOYMENT, EVIDENCE, CIVIL PROCEDURE

Avila v. Los Angeles Police Department, Jul-10-2014

J. Hurwitz finds that the district court properly ruled for plaintiff in a Fair Labor Standards Act lawsuit where plaintiff claims defendant retaliated against him for testifying in a separate lawsuit brought by a fellow police officer. Defendant failed to provide evidence for its argument that it would have fired plaintiff even in the absence of his testimony. Affirmed.

Edit Delete 9th Circuit

CONSPIRACY, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

U.S. v. Hui Hsiung, Jul-10-2014

J. McKeown finds that the district court properly convicted two foreign executives and a Taiwanese corporation for violating the Sherman Act with a conspiracy to fix prices for liquid crystal display panels. Among several issues on appeal, defendants questioned the international reach of the Sherman Act, and argued that a $500 million fine was excessive. Plaintiffs showed a clear relation to the U.S. market, and the fine was properly "based on the gross gains to all the co-conspirators." Affirmed.

Edit Delete Arizona Court Of Appeals Division One

FAMILY LAW

Swain v. Hicks, Jul-10-2014

J. Jones finds that the family court improperly calculated a husband's spousal support in this divorce proceeding. The husband's Title 38 service-connected disability benefits should not have been included in calculating the spousal maintenance award, as Arizona statute clearly states that "the court shall not take into account, regard, or consider the portion of that spouse's income derived from title 38 benefits."

Edit Delete Armed Services Board Of Contract Appeals

CONTRACT, DAMAGES

Classic Site Solutions v. , Jul-10-2014

J. Clarke finds that appellant failed to present adequate evidence on certain claims for damages caused by an allegedly late NTP. The parties' contract indicates that appellant was required to produce a schedule for approval after award and a preliminary summary pre-award.

Edit Delete California Courts Of Appeal

GOVERNMENT

Service Employees International Union Local 1021 v. County of Sonoma, Jul-10-2014

J. Ruvolo finds that the trial court properly dismissed appellant's Health and Safety Code violation claim after respondent hired a private corporation to conduct its housing inspections rather than using public employees. Appellant argues that respondent did not have the authority to outsource its housing inspections. However, respondent is given unrestricted authority to hire any necessary staff services from sources it finds competent. Affirmed.

Edit Delete California Courts Of Appeal

SENTENCING

Jernigan v. California, Jul-10-2014

J. Turner finds that the lower court improperly found that defendant's prior conviction for attempting to force oral copulation disqualified him from requesting re-sentencing after he was convicted of grand theft of an automobile, cocaine possession and giving false information to a police officer. Defendant argues that it was erroneous to find that his prior conviction prevented him from requesting to be resentenced. Defendant was convicted of attempting to force copulation which does not qualify as a sexually violent offense. Therefore, his resentencing request should be considered. Reversed.

Edit Delete California Courts Of Appeal

FAMILY LAW

In re G.P. v. , Jul-10-2014

J. Huffman finds that the lower court properly terminated the parental rights of the mother and father. The mother argues that it was erroneous to put her children in foster care instead of leaving them in the care of a relative. However, the children's relatives did not offer a long-term solution. Additionally, the mother argues that there was not sufficient evidence to support that the beneficial relationship exception to adoption was not applicable. However, evidence was provided to show that it was extremely likely that the children would be adopted if the parent's rights were terminated. Furthermore, the parents did not provided evidence to show that it would be detrimental to the children if their rights were terminated. Affirmed.

Edit Delete California Supreme Court

SENTENCING

Eid v. California, Jul-10-2014

J. Liu finds that the lower court improperly modified defendants' two lesser-offense convictions of extortion and false imprisonment to only one lesser-offense of extortion. Plaintiff argues that it was erroneous to find that defendants can only be charged with one lesser-offense for a single greater offense. However, both of the less-offense charges defendants were initially convicted of were committed during a single, greater crime. Furthermore, the two lesser-offense charges allowed the jury to properly determine defendants' guilt. Reversed.

Edit Delete California Supreme Court

SENTENCING

Vargas v. California, Jul-10-2014

J. Werdegar finds that the lower court improperly affirmed defendant's sentence as a two-strike offender after she was convicted for carjacking and robbery. Defendant argues that it was erroneous to deny her request to dismiss one of her prior felony convictions. Defendant's two-strikes resulted from a single incident. Therefore, it was erroneous to punish her twice for the same act. Vacated.

Edit Delete Federal Circuit

PATENT

Stauffer v. Brooks Brothers, Jul-10-2014

J. Schall holds that plaintiff lacks standing to assert a qui tam patent action for false marking, alleging that defendant marked its bow ties with expired patent numbers. The America Invents Act eliminated the false marking statute's qui tam provision, changing the law so that only a "person who has suffered a competitive injury" may bring a claim. Affirmed.

Edit Delete Florida Supreme Court

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, JURY

In re: Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases—Report no. 2013-07 v. , Jul-10-2014

Per curiam, the Florida Supreme Court finds that it should adopt, with modifications, amendments to criminal case jury instructions including 2.7, Closing Argument; 3.6(k), Duress or Necessity; 21.1, Resisting Officer with Violence; 21.2, Resisting Officer Without Violence; 21.4, False Report of Commission of a Crime; 21.5, Giving False Information Concerning Commission of a Crime; 21.6, Giving False Information Concerning Commission of a Capital Felony and more. New instructions regarding extortion and retail drug sale are also adopted.

Edit Delete Florida Supreme Court

CONTRACT

MDS (Canada) v. Rad Source Technologies, Jul-10-2014

J. Pariente finds that Florida does not recognize a "bright line rule" to distinguish an assignment of a sublicense agreement from a sublicense. "Under Florida law, whether an agreement transferring the licensee's interest in the license agreement constitutes an assignment or a sublicense is not determined by the mere application of a 'bright-line rule.' Instead, this legal determination depends on a multitude of factors, including the language of the license agreement and its subject matter, the substance of the interest that was actually transferred by the licensee, and whether the licensee retained any substantial rights in the license agreement."

Edit Delete Florida Supreme Court

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE

Saunders v. Dickens, Jul-10-2014

J. Lewis finds that testimony from a subsequent treating physician to disprove defendant's negligence was inadmissible. "Testimony that a subsequent treating physician would not have treated the patient plaintiff differently had the defendant physician acted within the applicable standard of care is irrelevant and inadmissible and will not insulate a defendant physician from liability for his or her own negligence."

Edit Delete Florida Supreme Court

CIVIL PROCEDURE, EXPERTS

In re: Amendments to the Florida Evidence Code v. , Jul-10-2014

[Revised opinion.] Per curiam, the Florida Supreme Court finds that it should decline to adopts certain provisions presented by the Florida Bar to Florida Evidence Code. One proposed provision, for example, "will have a chilling effect on the ability to obtain expert witnesses, and is prejudicial to the administration of justice."

Edit Delete Florida Supreme Court

MURDER, WITNESS

Wilcox v. State, Jul-10-2014

Per curiam, the Florida Supreme Court holds that evidence supports defendant's first-degree murder conviction and death sentence. Although the lower court improperly prevented defense counsel from attempting to refresh a witnesses' recollection of who she saw near her apartment at the time of the murder, the error was harmless. There was "no probability" that the error contributed to defendant's guilty verdict. Affirmed.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69