LATEST SUMMARIES

CIVIL PROCEDURE, CONTRACTS, EVIDENCE, LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW, RETAIL
• Adkins v. Mireles

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE, SENTENCING
• US v. Perez

LATEST SUMMARIES

CIVIL PROCEDURE, CONTRACTS, EVIDENCE, LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW, RETAIL
Adkins v. Mireles, No. 06-56005
In an appeal arising out of a union-negotiated collective bargaining agreement governing employees of Lucky Stores' warehouse, partial summary judgment and jury trial in favor of defendants-union and officers is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err in holding that federal law preempted breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, misrepresentation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims because each implicated the duty of fair representation; 2) it did not err in finding that the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) section 301, preempted plaintiffs' fraud and deceit claim, because the claim cannot be maintained without the court interpreting the provisions of the CBA; 3) RICO claims were preempted under case precedent because plaintiffs alleged an unfair labor practice which is prohibited under the NLRA; and 4) plaintiffs failed to perfect their challenge to an evidentiary decision to exclude evidence regarding a teamster jacket-burning incident. Read more...

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE, SENTENCING
US v. Perez, No. 07-10289
A person on supervised release had a right to cross-examine the laboratory technician who tested a urine sample containing an illegal drug, where: 1) a test report itself stated the sample was "dilute"; 2) the evidence presented showed the person on supervised release did not have an opportunity herself to dilute nor add a substance to the sample; and 3) the result of the urinalysis was critical to support a finding that the person on supervised release had possessed or used illegal drugs. The circuit court emphasizes that it does not hold that a releasee always has a right to cross-examine the technician who tested a urine sample. Read more...