News

Case Summaries

Admiralty

[02/25] Bessemer & Lake Erie R.R. Co. v. Seaway Marine Transp.
In an admiralty action seeking recovery of repair costs and lost profits against a cargo ship after it struck a land-based coal-loading machine operated by plaintiff, judgment of the district court is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) district court's grant of summary judgment as to liability is reversed as there is a genuine dispute of fact over plaintiff's comparative negligence; and 2) district court's rejection of plaintiff's lost-profits claim is affirmed as plaintiff did not adequately disclose the basis of its lost-profits claim.

[02/22] Cianbro Corp. v. George H. Dean, Inc.
In an in rem maritime lien action, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of plaintiff and an order issuing a declaratory judgment to the effect that plaintiffs' vessels were not subject to a maritime lien in favor of defendant is affirmed as defendant failed to make the factual showing that it provided necessaries to the vessels as is required by 46 U.S.C. section 31342(a).

[02/03] ProShipLine Inc. v. Aspen Infrastructures Ltd.
In an action to secure a maritime attachment, district court's order denying plaintiff's motion to compel defendant to post security in lieu of garnishment is affirmed where a district court lacks the legal capacity under the Admiralty Rules to order a party to post security in lieu of garnishment. However, the district court's order equitably vacating plaintiffs' Rule B writ and exonerating security posted for that writ is reversed where the district court abused its discretion by concluding that it was bound by res judicata to vacate the writ to conform with the Southern District of New York's decision to vacate the writ involved in a related action pending there.

Read More

Criminal Law & Procedure

[03/12] US v. McMillan
Defendant's wire and mail fraud convictions and sentences are affirmed where: 1) the superseding indictment did not broaden the charges against the defendants; 2) Cleveland's requirement that the object of the fraud be actual money or property in the hands of the victim was satisfied; 3) the district court gave an immediate curative instruction, in response to objections during the prosecutor's closing remarks, that the government bore the burden of proof and the defendants need not testify or prove anything; and 4) the district court did not clearly err by finding that defendants' business would have suffered catastrophic losses had it been closed rather then permitted to continue in operation and that the amount of loss attributable solely to the defendants could not be reasonably calculated.

[03/12] US v. Jackson
Conviction of defendant for being a felon in possession of a firearm and sentence to 120 months' imprisonment are affirmed where: 1) the officer had a reasonable basis for believing that defendant's mother had the authority to consent to the search of his computer and the computer case; 2) district court properly concluded that the officer did not exceed the scope of the mother's consent; 3) the district court did not err in denying defendant's request to raise an "innocent possession" defense; and 4) district court appropriately rejected defendant's section 5K2.11 argument and imposed a sentence that was reasonable.

[03/12] US v. Sykes
Conviction of defendant for being a felon in possession of a firearm and an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminla Act (ACCA) are affirmed as fleeing from police in a vehicle in violation of Ind. Code section 35-44-3-3(b)(1)(A) is sufficiently similar to ACCA's enumerated crimes in kind, as well as the degree of risk posed, and counts as a violent felony under the ACCA.

Read More

Injury & Tort Law

[03/12] Holschen v. Int'l. Union of Painters
In an action by a former union painter against the union alleging several violations of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), as well as a state law claim for intentional interference with a valid business expectancy, judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) this was not a situation where the circumstances themselves presented a significant danger of bias such that plaintiff was excused from presenting at least some evidence of actual bias involving one or more trial board members in order to survive summary judgment; 2) evidence of ad hoc retaliation by an individual union member did not state a cause of action for a free speech violation under the LMRDA; and 3) there was no evidence the union itself formally disciplined plaintiff in retaliation for his exercise of free speech rights.

[03/12] Alexander v. Cahill
In a First Amendment challenge to attorney advertising rules issued by the New York Appellate Division barring, inter alia, testimonials from clients relating to pending matters, portrayals of judges or fictitious law firms, attention-getting techniques unrelated to attorney competence, and trade names or nicknames that imply an ability to get results, and establishing a thirty-day moratorium for targeted solicitation following a specific incident, including targeted ads on television or in other media, summary judgment order invalidating most of the content-based restrictions and upholding the thirty-day moratorium is affirmed in part where the content-based restrictions in the disputed provisions regulated commercial speech protected by the First Amendment. However, the order is reversed in part where: 1) the prohibition on advertising mentioning fictitious firms was valid because it targeted potentially misleading advertising; and 2) as to the moratorium, there was a substantial state interest in protecting the privacy and tranquility of personal injury victims and their loved ones against intrusive, unsolicited contact by lawyers.

[03/11] Granfield v. CSX Transp., Inc.
In plaintiff's action against his employer in violations of the Federal Employer's Liability Act and the Locomotive Inspection Ac, claiming that he developed "tennis elbow" as a result of having to manipulate defective controls in the cabin of his locomotive, judgment in favor of plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) a reasonable jury could have concluded that plaintiff's claim was not time barred, had defendant chosen to contest this showing by asking the jury instruction and arguing the matter to the jury; 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a doctor as an expert on the issue of causation; 3) brief statements by a witness as to the contents of a letter was harmless error; and 4) plaintiff's counsel's statements in closing arguments were adequately dealt with by the district judge's instructions and no plain error occurred.

Read More