Quantcast
Home / News (page 1070) /

News

02-2678-CR State v. Rahoi

Mark E. Rahoi appeals from a judgment entered after he pled guilty to operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (fifth offense), contrary to Wis. Stat. sec. 346.63(1)(a) (1999-2000). He also appeals from an order denying his postconviction motion seeking sentence ...

Read More »

01-1375 U.S. v. Navajo Nation

The IMLA and its regulations do not provide the requisite ‘substantive law’ that ‘mandat[es] compensation by the Federal Government.’ Mitchell II, 463 U.S., at 218. They impose no obligations resembling the detailed fiduciary responsibilities that Mitchell II found adequate to ...

Read More »

01-3643 & 01-3644 U.S. v. Pitts

“The defendants’ subjective desire to maintain control of the package is irrelevant, however, in light of the external manifestations of their intent. At the time the warrant was issued, Alexander had expressly disavowed the package. He refused to accept its ...

Read More »

02-2084-CR State v. Mork

Gary T. Mork was convicted by jury of operating a vehicle while intoxicated. A major part of the State’s evidence was a blood test showing Mork’s blood alcohol level to have been .175%. Mork’s defense was that the blood tested ...

Read More »

02-2010 U.S. v. Rezin

“The operative language in section 2252(b)(2) is ‘a prior conviction under this chapter, chapter 109A, chapter 117, or under the laws of any State relating to aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual conduct involving a minor or ward, ...

Read More »

02-0987 State ex rel. Hubbard v. Schwarz

David Hubbard appeals from an order affirming the revocation of his parole. He claims that he was denied due process because he never had a preliminary hearing and the revocation hearing was untimely; there was insufficient evidence to support the ...

Read More »

01-1209 Boeing Co. v. U.S.

The relevant statutory text does not support Boeing’s argument that the statute and certain regulations give it an unqualified right to allocate its Company Sponsored R&D expenses to the specific products to which they are factually related and to exclude ...

Read More »

01-3393 State v. Gary M.B.

“Because the trial court did not weigh the probative value of the three oldest convictions against the danger of unfair prejudice after Gary objected to their admission, we conclude that it did not engage in a proper exercise of discretion. ...

Read More »

02-2687-CR State v. Hatcher

Jacob Hatcher appeals an order denying his motion to suppress evidence and a judgment of conviction for resisting or obstructing an officer. Hatcher contends that the officer he encountered lacked reasonable suspicion to detain and question him. We disagree and, ...

Read More »

01-1127 Lockyer v. Andrade O'Connor

The California Court of Appeal’s decision was not “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of,” the clearly established gross disproportionality principle. First, a decision is contrary to clearly established precedent if the state court applied a rule that contradicts ...

Read More »

02-1431 State v. Ramuta

As the trial court noted: “The defendant appeared before this court with fourteen prior convictions stemming from seven different counties and commencing in 1982. His record is atrocious, and the court gave considerable weight to the need to protect the ...

Read More »

02-0210-CR State v. Scott

Jerod Scott appeals from a judgment convicting him of one count of being party to the crime of armed robbery with threat of force, one count of felony bail jumping, and two counts of misdemeanor bail jumping, all as a ...

Read More »

01-6978 Ewing v. California

“In examining Ewing’s claim that his sentence is grossly disproportionate, the gravity of the offense must be compared to the harshness of the penalty. Even standing alone, his grand theft should not be taken lightly. The California Supreme Court has ...

Read More »

01-1500 Clay v. U.S.

Supporting the Seventh Circuit’s judgment, the Court’s invited amicus curiae urges a different determinant, relying on verbal differences between sec. 2255 and sec. 2244(d)(1), which governs petitions for federal habeas corpus by state prisoners. Where sec. 2255, ¶6(1), refers simply ...

Read More »

02-0669 Beaver v. Mueller, et al.

Albert and Barbara Beaver appeal a judgment dismissing their claims against Norbert Mueller. The Beavers argue the trial court erred by: (1) concluding that the evidence did not support their claims against Mueller; (2) “not going through the required exercise ...

Read More »

01-729 Smith v. Doe

Respondents cannot show, much less by the clearest proof, that the Act’s effects negate Alaska’s intention to establish a civil regulatory scheme. In analyzing the effects, the Court refers to the seven factors noted in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. ...

Read More »

02-2426 Eckelberg v. Scientific Molding, et al.

Joshua Eckelberg appeals a judgment affirming a decision of the Labor and Industry Review Commission that denied him worker’s compensation. Eckelberg fell at work after walking through a doorway where plastic drapes hung from the ceiling. Based on statements Eckelberg ...

Read More »

02-2634 Hoseman v. Weinschneider

“The express language of the release and covenant at issue here is clear and broad enough to remove any doubt as to their application to this lawsuit. The explicit language of the release covers ‘all claims, known or unknown.’ The ...

Read More »