LATEST SUMMARIES
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, REMEDIES
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Rey
CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE, HABEAS CORPUS, SENTENCING
Correll v. Ryan
CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE, SENTENCING
US v. Crandall
You May FREELY Redistribute This E-Mail in Whole
To view the full-text of cases you must
sign in to FindLaw.com.
LATEST SUMMARIES
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, REMEDIES
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Rey, No. 07-16892
In a suit challenging a decision by the United States Forest Service
to permit logging in accordance with certain changes made in 2004 by
the USFS in the relevant forest, denial of a preliminary injunction
against the USFS is reversed and three projects preliminarily
enjoined where the district court abused its discretion in: 1)
concluding that the USFS complied with NEPA's requirement to
"[r]igorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable
alternatives" with regard to a Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement (SEIS); and 2) in its balancing of equities.
Read more...
CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE, HABEAS CORPUS, SENTENCING
Correll v. Ryan, No. 03-99006
Denial of petition for writ of habeas corpus is reversed and the
case remanded for a new penalty hearing where defendant was
constitutionally entitled to the presentation of a mitigation
defense, but did not have an opportunity to offer mitigating
evidence. (Amended opinion on denial of rehearing en banc)
Read more...
CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE, SENTENCING
US v. Crandall, No. 06-50592
Defendants' convictions for mail, wire, and honest services fraud
are affirmed where are affirmed where their proposed jury
instruction on "intent to defraud" was not supported by law and the
jury instructions that were given adequately covered their lack of
intent defense theory. However, their sentences and a restitution
order are vacated where: 1) the district court improperly relied on
an Application Note to calculate the loss that resulted from the
fraud; and 2) it was unclear whether the restitution amount was
based on what was actually lost by the victims of the fraud.
Read more...