password
username
Sponsored by CakeMail, an email marketing software
Newsletter preview


May 14, 2008

Table of Contents

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...


You are currently subscribed to 9th-caselaw as: kallyorama@gmail.com .
To manage your newsletter accounts go to: http://newsletters.findlaw.com/nl/sub/review-account.jsp
or to ***, send a blank email to leave-3732266-1395330.142742b52b59387d043a76a9cf820377@info.legalminds.org