LATEST SUMMARIES

CIVIL PROCEDURE, CIVIL RIGHTS, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, INJURY AND TORT LAW, PER CURIAM, REMEDIES
• Walker v. Bowersox

CIVIL PROCEDURE, CLASS ACTIONS, CORP. GOVERNANCE, CORPORATION & ENTERPRISE LAW, SECURITIES LAW
• In re: NVE Corp. Sec. Litig

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, GOVERNMENT LAW, HABEAS CORPUS, SENTENCING
• Miller v. Whitehead

LATEST SUMMARIES

CIVIL PROCEDURE, CIVIL RIGHTS, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, INJURY AND TORT LAW, PER CURIAM, REMEDIES
Walker v. Bowersox, No. 06-3118
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action brought by a prisoner against prison official-defendants alleging excessive force claims, summary judgment for defendants is reversed in part where: 1) although plaintiff's claim for damages concerning his receipt of alternative meals instead of his special food tray was barred by the Eleventh Amendment; nevertheless 2) there were triable issues as to whether restraining plaintiff on a bench for 24 hours and using pepper spray against him constituted excessive force. Read more...

CIVIL PROCEDURE, CLASS ACTIONS, CORP. GOVERNANCE, CORPORATION & ENTERPRISE LAW, SECURITIES LAW
In re: NVE Corp. Sec. Litig, No. 07-2931
In a putative securities class action alleging that a corporation and certain of its directors and officers had made false and misleading statements concerning the development of a novel computer memory technology, judgment denying plaintiffs' request for another amendment to their complaint and granting a defense motion to dismiss is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err in finding that plaintiffs' complaint did not satisfy the applicable pleading requirements for securities actions; and 2) plaintiffs did not articulate any proposed changes to their complaint, nor did they show how revision rectify their pleading deficiencies. Read more...

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, GOVERNMENT LAW, HABEAS CORPUS, SENTENCING
Miller v. Whitehead, No. 07-1651
In consolidated habeas cases wherein prisoners alleged that the Bureau of Prisons unlawfully declared them ineligible for placement at a Residential Re-entry Center, denial of the habeas petitions is affirmed over petitioners' claim that a transfer policy, as applied to them, conflicted with 18 U.S.C. section 3621 and relevant case law because the policy automatically excludes all inmates not serving the last 11-13 months of their prison sentence. Read more...