LATEST SUMMARIES

CIVIL RIGHTS, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE
• El Bey v. Roop

CIVIL RIGHTS, HEALTH LAW, LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW
• Doe v. Salvation Army in the US

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

LATEST SUMMARIES

CIVIL RIGHTS, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE
El Bey v. Roop, No. 07-3133
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit arising from events surrounding police's entry into and search of a residence in Ohio, and plaintiff's subsequent arrest, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part and reversed in part and the case remanded where: 1) plaintiff did not address various claims on appeal; 2) defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on a Fourth Amendment claim since they did not act unreasonably in mistaking plaintiff for a person they had a warrant for; 3) plaintiff's rights were not violated when he was handcuffed until defendants could determine whether he was the subject of the warrant; and 4) defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity from a claim arising out of a search of defendant's desk, after he was handcuffed and they had ascertained that he was not the subject of the warrant. Read more...

CIVIL RIGHTS, HEALTH LAW, LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW
Doe v. Salvation Army in the US, No. 07-3822
In a suit alleging violations of the Rehabilitation Act and Ohio law after defendant refused to hire plaintiff after finding out during a job interview that plaintiff took psychotropic medications, summary judgment for defendant is reversed and the case remanded where there existed genuine issues of material fact as to whether: 1) plaintiff established "a record of" a disability under the Rehabilitation Act; and 2) defendant discriminated against plaintiff because of his record of a disability. Read more...

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE, SENTENCING
US v. Miller, No. 06-4583
A conviction and sentence for wire fraud, money laundering, and witness tampering is affirmed over claims of error regarding: 1) a denial of his right to a fair trial when the court forced the defendant to wear a stun belt restraint during trial; 2) a failure to sua sponte order a hearing to determine whether defendant was mentally competent to stand trial; 3) the sufficiency of the evidence as to the witness tampering conviction; and 4) the reasonableness of the sentence. Read more...