Quantcast
Home / News (page 1100) /

News

01-679 Gonzaga University v. Doe

There is no question that FERPA’s confidentiality provisions create no rights enforceable under sec. 1983. The provisions entirely lack the sort of individually focused rights-creating language that is critical. FERPA’s provisions speak only to the Secretary, directing that “[n]o funds ...

Read More »

01-1318 Fyrnetics Ltd. v. Quantum Group, Inc.

“With respect to FHK, the district court correctly explained that there are several ways that a non-signatory can be bound by a contract, such as through the doctrines of assumption, agency, equitable estoppel, veil piercing, and incorporation by reference. See ...

Read More »

00-3292-CR State v. Douangmala

Defendant is a native of Laos; defense counsel requested an interpreter but none was found; at the preliminary hearing defendant said he was having difficulty understanding the proceedings; at the plea hearing he said that he was understanding “not much” ...

Read More »

01-2781 Enea v. Linn, et al.

Even though Dr. Semler was not qualified to diagnose the child’s neurological injuries, Dr. Semler was qualified to testify about the cause of what the neonatologist identified as the child’s neurological damage. Wisconsin Stat. Rule 907.03. It would be readily ...

Read More »

01-682 Barnes v. Gorman

These sections are enforceable through private causes of action, whose remedies are coextensive with those available in a private action under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. See sec. 203 of the ADA and sec. 505(a)(2) of ...

Read More »

01-2685-CR State v. Tiggs

John D. Tiggs, Jr. appeals from an order denying his motion to change a judgment of conviction to reflect his legal name, Akinbo Jihad Suru Hashim, rather than his given name. We hold that whether there is a positive right ...

Read More »

00-3091 O'Neal v. City of New Albany, et al.

“[T]he record demonstrates that Dr. Pope had concluded that O’Neal passed the baseline statewide medical examination, and the defendants knew it. Dr. Pope checked the ‘no’ box next to each baseline condition listed in O’Neal’s 1977 fund application and signed ...

Read More »

01-2126-CR State v. Konkol

Defendant was on trial for OWI; after the State rested, defendant asserted that he had consumed only one alcoholic drink at a local restaurant and therefore could not have had a blood alcohol concentration of .12. The prosecutor attempted to ...

Read More »

01-394 Christopher v. Harbury

Harbury’s complaint did not come even close to stating a constitutional denial-of-access claim upon which relief could be granted. It did not identify the underlying cause of action that the alleged disruption had compromised, leaving the District Court and the ...

Read More »

01-714 Utah v. Evans

Utah argues that the words “actual Enumeration” require the Census Bureau to seek out each individual and prohibit it from relying on imputation, but the Constitution’s text does not make the distinction that Utah seeks to draw. Rather, it uses ...

Read More »

01-1620 U.S. v. Abdulla

“[W]ithout deciding whether the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine can ever apply to a Miranda violation, we turn to whether Elstad’s underlying logic (a first confession that is voluntary, but that violates Miranda, will not bar the admission of ...

Read More »

01-463 U.S. v. Fior D'Italia

The FICA statute’s language, taken as a whole, does not prevent using an aggregate estimation method. Fior D’Italia claims that, because sec. 3121(q) speaks in the singular – “tips received by an employee in the course of his employment” – ...

Read More »

02-1315 U.S. v. Campbell

“Campbell’s motion did not request any relief from his criminal conviction or sentence-his motion requested only disclosure of what took place before the grand jury that indicted him. It was not an attack on the fact or duration of his ...

Read More »

01-2826, 01-2827 Curtis v. U.S.

“Because Apprendi is concerned with the identity of the decisionmaker, and the quantum of evidence required for a sentence, rather than with what primary conduct is unlawful, it identifies a new rule of criminal procedure that falls within the set ...

Read More »

01-301 Carey v. Saffold

A contrary reading is not consistent with the ordinary meaning of “pending,” which, in the present context, means until the completion of the collateral review process; i.e., until the application has achieved final resolution through the State’s postconviction proceedings. Petitioner’s ...

Read More »

01-3954 U.S. v. Travis

“Here the district court did not cite Mr. Travis’ obstructive conduct as the basis for denying an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. Instead, the district court denied the adjustment because Mr. Travis downplayed the illegality of his operation of Maple ...

Read More »

01-631 U.S. v. Drayton

Applying Bostick’s framework to this case demonstrates that the police did not seize respondents. The officers gave the passengers no reason to believe that they were required to answer questions. When Lang approached respondents, he did not brandish a weapon ...

Read More »