Prior convictions for violent felonies can lead to a significant sentencing enhancement under federal law, but what evidence can sentencing courts consider to determine if a felony is violent enough to trigger heightened punishment?
A federal court could reduce a $363,000 award of sanctions against an attorney based on his inability to pay, the 9th Circuit has ruled in reversing judgment.
While the Taser is probably the most common culprit when it comes to excessive force lawsuits involving less-than-lethal devices, last week the 9th Circuit gave the go ahead to a college student’s §1983 claim against police officers who shot pepperballs to disperse a crowd attending a campus party.
The decision paves the way for the case, which has been winding its way through the federal courts, to be heard by the Supreme Court as early as next year.
The federal income tax liability resulting from the sale of a farm after a Chapter 12 bankruptcy filing is not “incurred by the estate” under §503(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and thus is neither collectible nor dischargeable in the bankruptcy plan, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled.
The federal Defense of Marriage Act could not be enforced to deny a federal employee the right to have her same-sex spouse covered under her health insurance plan, a U.S. District Court in California has ruled in granting summary judgment.
Conservative critics like to point out that the federal appeals court that just declared California’s same-sex marriage ban to be unconstitutional has its decisions overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court more often than other judicial circuits, a record that could prove predictive if the high court agrees to review the gay marriage case on appeal.
Sometimes at the U.S. Supreme Court, words and labels mean everything.
In a debate that involved dueling federal statutes and immigration case law, the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court questioned whether a permanent resident may seek discretionary relief from removal based on a conviction where he did not depart and reenter the United States.
At oral arguments Tuesday, the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court expressed skepticism that a “right to sue” provision in a federal consumer credit statute prevents credit card companies from enforcing mandatory pre-dispute arbitration clauses with its customers.
The enforceability of class action waivers and mandatory arbitration clauses in consumer contracts is stuck in limbo.
