 |
Recent Law Watch Results
Loislaw LawWatch is provided as a service of Loislaw.com, a division of Aspen Publishing. Loislaw LawWatch provides access to recent cases based on the search criteria provided by your section. The search criteria may be by area of practice, by court, and /or by date. The NYSBA also provides a basic level of free legal research to all members. You may access free legal research from Loislaw through your MyNYSBA page or through For Attorneys. Supreme Court - trial or verdict - Supreme Court - trial or verdict
SOUTHERN UNION COMPANY v. U.S., 11-94 (U.S. 6-21-2012)
No. 11-94
Argued March 19, 2012, Decided June 21, 2012 OCTOBER TERM, 2011
As I have said, the dissenters thought that the Sixth Amendment did not require a jury to find any of these sentencing facts. Why, asked the dissenters, should Congress' or a State's desire for greater sentencing uniformity achieved through statutes seeking more uniform treatment (of similar offenders committing similar offenses in similar ways) suddenly produce new Sixth Amendment jury trial requirements? Those requirements would work against greater sentencing fairness. To treat all sentencing facts (where so specified in a statute or rule) as if they were elements of the offense could lead Congress simply to set high maximum ranges for each crime, thereby avoiding Apprendi's jury trial requirement. Alternatively, Congress might enact statutes that more...
"judge" near "error" - "judge" near "error"
SNYDER v. NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, 11-1101 (2nd Cir. 6-21-2012)
No. 11-1101.
June 21, 2012.
This Court reviews a district court's denial of a Rule 59(a) motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion. See Munafo v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 381 F.3d 99, 105 (2d Cir. 2004). "A motion for a new trial ordinarily should not be granted unless the trial court is convinced that the jury has reached a seriously erroneous result or that the verdict is a miscarriage of justice." Lightfoot v. Union Carbide Corp., 110 F.3d 898, 911 (2d Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). Upon review, ... I. Jury Instructions On appeal, Appellants argue that the district court gave several erroneous jury instructions. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(d)(1), a party may assign error based on an erroneous jury instruction "if that party properly objected." If a party does not receive the...
"right to counsel" - "right to counsel"
SNYDER v. NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, 11-1101 (2nd Cir. 6-21-2012)
No. 11-1101.
June 21, 2012.
This Court reviews a district court's denial of a Rule 59(a) motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion. See Munafo v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 381 F.3d 99, 105 (2d Cir. 2004). "A motion for a new trial ordinarily should not be granted unless the trial court is convinced that the jury has reached a seriously erroneous result or that the verdict is a miscarriage of justice." Lightfoot v. Union Carbide Corp., 110 F.3d 898, 911 (2d Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). Upon review, ... I. Jury Instructions On appeal, Appellants argue that the district court gave several erroneous jury instructions. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(d)(1), a party may assign error based on an erroneous jury instruction "if that party properly objected." If a party does not receive the...
"judge" near "error" - "judge" near "error"
PEOPLE v. ELEBY, 1570-1985 (5-18-2012)
No. 1570-1985
May 18, 2012[fn1]
On January 9, 1986, a Kings County petit jury found the defendant guilty of five counts of Murder in the Second Degree, two counts of Attempted Murder in the Second Degree and assorted other charges. On January 30, 1986, the defendant was sentenced to three consecutive terms of twenty-five years to life, one for each of the felony murder convictions, and consecutive terms of imprisonment for his Attempted Murder in the Second Degree and Assault in the Second Degree convictions. The defendant's direct ... In support of his claim that trail attorney failed to provide effective assistance of counsel, based upon her failure to call two potential alibi witnesses at trial, defendant has provided what are purported to be affidavits from two individuals. Yvette Hayes's statement was signed and dated before a notary...
"professional misconduct" - "professional misconduct"
DAVIS v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, 513418 (3d Dept 6-21-2012)
513418
Calendar Date: April 23, 2012 Decided and Entered: June 21, 2012
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Petitioner filed a complaint with respondent New York State Department of Education alleging that a physical therapist from whom he had received treatment engaged in professional misconduct ? specifically, inappropriate touching. The matter was referred to respondent Office of Professional Discipline (hereinafter OPD) which, following an investigation, concluded that there was insufficient evidence to pursue petitioner's complaint. When OPD declined petitioner's subsequent request ... We affirm. Standing is a threshold legal requirement for a party seeking to challenge a governmental action, imposing upon the complaining party an obligation to demonstrate that he or she has suffered an injury in fact that is both...
Supreme Court - trial or verdict - Supreme Court - trial or verdict
MILLER v. ALABAMA, 10-9646 (U.S. 6-25-2012)
Nos. 10-9646, 10-9647
Argued March 20, 2012, Decided June 25, 2012[fn*] OCTOBER TERM, 2011
The Court long ago abandoned the original meaning of the Eighth Amendment, holding instead that the prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment" embodies the "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." Trop v. Dulles, 356 U. S. 86, 101 (1958) Page 2 (plurality opinion); see also Graham v. Florida, 560 U. S. ___, ___ (2010) (slip op., at 7); Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U. S. 407, 419 (2008); Roper v. Simmons, 543 U. S. 551, 560-561 (2005); Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U. S. ... Who says so, and how did this particular philosophy of history find its way into our fundamental law?
Supreme Court - trial or verdict - Supreme Court - trial or verdict
ARIZONA v. U.S., 11-182 (U.S. 6-25-2012)
No. 11-182
Argued April 25, 2012, Decided June 25, 2012 OCTOBER TERM, 2011
In any event, it is hard to see how state and local officers could proceed in conformity with the Federal Government's enforcement priorities without making an inquiry into a suspected alien's immigration status. For example, one of the Federal Government's highest priorities is the apprehension and removal of aliens who have failed to comply with a final order of removal. See App. 108. How can an officer identify those persons without first inquiring about their status? The United States' attack on § 2(B) is quite remarkable. The United States suggests that a state law may be preempted, not because it conflicts with a federal statute or regulation, but because it is inconsistent with a federal agency's current enforcement priorities. Those priorities, however, are not ...
Supreme Court - trial or verdict - Supreme Court - trial or verdict
SOUTHERN UNION COMPANY v. U.S., 11-94 (U.S. 6-21-2012)
No. 11-94
Argued March 19, 2012, Decided June 21, 2012 OCTOBER TERM, 2011
As I have said, the dissenters thought that the Sixth Amendment did not require a jury to find any of these sentencing facts. Why, asked the dissenters, should Congress' or a State's desire for greater sentencing uniformity achieved through statutes seeking more uniform treatment (of similar offenders committing similar offenses in similar ways) suddenly produce new Sixth Amendment jury trial requirements? Those requirements would work against greater sentencing fairness. To treat all sentencing facts (where so specified in a statute or rule) as if they were elements of the offense could lead Congress simply to set high maximum ranges for each crime, thereby avoiding Apprendi's jury trial requirement. Alternatively, Congress might enact statutes that more...
"judge" near "error" - "judge" near "error"
SNYDER v. NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, 11-1101 (2nd Cir. 6-21-2012)
No. 11-1101.
June 21, 2012.
This Court reviews a district court's denial of a Rule 59(a) motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion. See Munafo v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 381 F.3d 99, 105 (2d Cir. 2004). "A motion for a new trial ordinarily should not be granted unless the trial court is convinced that the jury has reached a seriously erroneous result or that the verdict is a miscarriage of justice." Lightfoot v. Union Carbide Corp., 110 F.3d 898, 911 (2d Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). Upon review, ... I. Jury Instructions On appeal, Appellants argue that the district court gave several erroneous jury instructions. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(d)(1), a party may assign error based on an erroneous jury instruction "if that party properly objected." If a party does not receive the...
"right to counsel" - "right to counsel"
SNYDER v. NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, 11-1101 (2nd Cir. 6-21-2012)
No. 11-1101.
June 21, 2012.
This Court reviews a district court's denial of a Rule 59(a) motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion. See Munafo v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 381 F.3d 99, 105 (2d Cir. 2004). "A motion for a new trial ordinarily should not be granted unless the trial court is convinced that the jury has reached a seriously erroneous result or that the verdict is a miscarriage of justice." Lightfoot v. Union Carbide Corp., 110 F.3d 898, 911 (2d Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). Upon review, ... I. Jury Instructions On appeal, Appellants argue that the district court gave several erroneous jury instructions. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(d)(1), a party may assign error based on an erroneous jury instruction "if that party properly objected." If a party does not receive the...
"judge" near "error" - "judge" near "error"
PEOPLE v. ELEBY, 1570-1985 (5-18-2012)
No. 1570-1985
May 18, 2012[fn1]
On January 9, 1986, a Kings County petit jury found the defendant guilty of five counts of Murder in the Second Degree, two counts of Attempted Murder in the Second Degree and assorted other charges. On January 30, 1986, the defendant was sentenced to three consecutive terms of twenty-five years to life, one for each of the felony murder convictions, and consecutive terms of imprisonment for his Attempted Murder in the Second Degree and Assault in the Second Degree convictions. The defendant's direct ... In support of his claim that trail attorney failed to provide effective assistance of counsel, based upon her failure to call two potential alibi witnesses at trial, defendant has provided what are purported to be affidavits from two individuals. Yvette Hayes's statement was signed and dated before a notary...
"professional misconduct" - "professional misconduct"
DAVIS v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, 513418 (3d Dept 6-21-2012)
513418
Calendar Date: April 23, 2012 Decided and Entered: June 21, 2012
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Petitioner filed a complaint with respondent New York State Department of Education alleging that a physical therapist from whom he had received treatment engaged in professional misconduct ? specifically, inappropriate touching. The matter was referred to respondent Office of Professional Discipline (hereinafter OPD) which, following an investigation, concluded that there was insufficient evidence to pursue petitioner's complaint. When OPD declined petitioner's subsequent request ... We affirm. Standing is a threshold legal requirement for a party seeking to challenge a governmental action, imposing upon the complaining party an obligation to demonstrate that he or she has suffered an injury in fact that is both...
Supreme Court - trial or verdict - Supreme Court - trial or verdict
MILLER v. ALABAMA, 10-9646 (U.S. 6-25-2012)
Nos. 10-9646, 10-9647
Argued March 20, 2012, Decided June 25, 2012[fn*] OCTOBER TERM, 2011
The Court long ago abandoned the original meaning of the Eighth Amendment, holding instead that the prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment" embodies the "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." Trop v. Dulles, 356 U. S. 86, 101 (1958) Page 2 (plurality opinion); see also Graham v. Florida, 560 U. S. ___, ___ (2010) (slip op., at 7); Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U. S. 407, 419 (2008); Roper v. Simmons, 543 U. S. 551, 560-561 (2005); Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U. S. ... Who says so, and how did this particular philosophy of history find its way into our fundamental law?
Supreme Court - trial or verdict - Supreme Court - trial or verdict
ARIZONA v. U.S., 11-182 (U.S. 6-25-2012)
No. 11-182
Argued April 25, 2012, Decided June 25, 2012 OCTOBER TERM, 2011
In any event, it is hard to see how state and local officers could proceed in conformity with the Federal Government's enforcement priorities without making an inquiry into a suspected alien's immigration status. For example, one of the Federal Government's highest priorities is the apprehension and removal of aliens who have failed to comply with a final order of removal. See App. 108. How can an officer identify those persons without first inquiring about their status? The United States' attack on § 2(B) is quite remarkable. The United States suggests that a state law may be preempted, not because it conflicts with a federal statute or regulation, but because it is inconsistent with a federal agency's current enforcement priorities. Those priorities, however, are not ...
Supreme Court - trial or verdict - Supreme Court - trial or verdict
SOUTHERN UNION COMPANY v. U.S., 11-94 (U.S. 6-21-2012)
No. 11-94
Argued March 19, 2012, Decided June 21, 2012 OCTOBER TERM, 2011
As I have said, the dissenters thought that the Sixth Amendment did not require a jury to find any of these sentencing facts. Why, asked the dissenters, should Congress' or a State's desire for greater sentencing uniformity achieved through statutes seeking more uniform treatment (of similar offenders committing similar offenses in similar ways) suddenly produce new Sixth Amendment jury trial requirements? Those requirements would work against greater sentencing fairness. To treat all sentencing facts (where so specified in a statute or rule) as if they were elements of the offense could lead Congress simply to set high maximum ranges for each crime, thereby avoiding Apprendi's jury trial requirement. Alternatively, Congress might enact statutes that more...
"judge" near "error" - "judge" near "error"
SNYDER v. NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, 11-1101 (2nd Cir. 6-21-2012)
No. 11-1101.
June 21, 2012.
This Court reviews a district court's denial of a Rule 59(a) motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion. See Munafo v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 381 F.3d 99, 105 (2d Cir. 2004). "A motion for a new trial ordinarily should not be granted unless the trial court is convinced that the jury has reached a seriously erroneous result or that the verdict is a miscarriage of justice." Lightfoot v. Union Carbide Corp., 110 F.3d 898, 911 (2d Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). Upon review, ... I. Jury Instructions On appeal, Appellants argue that the district court gave several erroneous jury instructions. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(d)(1), a party may assign error based on an erroneous jury instruction "if that party properly objected." If a party does not receive the...
"right to counsel" - "right to counsel"
SNYDER v. NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, 11-1101 (2nd Cir. 6-21-2012)
No. 11-1101.
June 21, 2012.
This Court reviews a district court's denial of a Rule 59(a) motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion. See Munafo v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 381 F.3d 99, 105 (2d Cir. 2004). "A motion for a new trial ordinarily should not be granted unless the trial court is convinced that the jury has reached a seriously erroneous result or that the verdict is a miscarriage of justice." Lightfoot v. Union Carbide Corp., 110 F.3d 898, 911 (2d Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). Upon review, ... I. Jury Instructions On appeal, Appellants argue that the district court gave several erroneous jury instructions. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(d)(1), a party may assign error based on an erroneous jury instruction "if that party properly objected." If a party does not receive the...
"judge" near "error" - "judge" near "error"
PEOPLE v. ELEBY, 1570-1985 (5-18-2012)
No. 1570-1985
May 18, 2012[fn1]
On January 9, 1986, a Kings County petit jury found the defendant guilty of five counts of Murder in the Second Degree, two counts of Attempted Murder in the Second Degree and assorted other charges. On January 30, 1986, the defendant was sentenced to three consecutive terms of twenty-five years to life, one for each of the felony murder convictions, and consecutive terms of imprisonment for his Attempted Murder in the Second Degree and Assault in the Second Degree convictions. The defendant's direct ... In support of his claim that trail attorney failed to provide effective assistance of counsel, based upon her failure to call two potential alibi witnesses at trial, defendant has provided what are purported to be affidavits from two individuals. Yvette Hayes's statement was signed and dated before a notary...
"professional misconduct" - "professional misconduct"
DAVIS v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, 513418 (3d Dept 6-21-2012)
513418
Calendar Date: April 23, 2012 Decided and Entered: June 21, 2012
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Petitioner filed a complaint with respondent New York State Department of Education alleging that a physical therapist from whom he had received treatment engaged in professional misconduct ? specifically, inappropriate touching. The matter was referred to respondent Office of Professional Discipline (hereinafter OPD) which, following an investigation, concluded that there was insufficient evidence to pursue petitioner's complaint. When OPD declined petitioner's subsequent request ... We affirm. Standing is a threshold legal requirement for a party seeking to challenge a governmental action, imposing upon the complaining party an obligation to demonstrate that he or she has suffered an injury in fact that is both...
Supreme Court - trial or verdict - Supreme Court - trial or verdict
MILLER v. ALABAMA, 10-9646 (U.S. 6-25-2012)
Nos. 10-9646, 10-9647
Argued March 20, 2012, Decided June 25, 2012[fn*] OCTOBER TERM, 2011
The Court long ago abandoned the original meaning of the Eighth Amendment, holding instead that the prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment" embodies the "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." Trop v. Dulles, 356 U. S. 86, 101 (1958) Page 2 (plurality opinion); see also Graham v. Florida, 560 U. S. ___, ___ (2010) (slip op., at 7); Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U. S. 407, 419 (2008); Roper v. Simmons, 543 U. S. 551, 560-561 (2005); Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U. S. ... Who says so, and how did this particular philosophy of history find its way into our fundamental law?
Supreme Court - trial or verdict - Supreme Court - trial or verdict
ARIZONA v. U.S., 11-182 (U.S. 6-25-2012)
No. 11-182
Argued April 25, 2012, Decided June 25, 2012 OCTOBER TERM, 2011
In any event, it is hard to see how state and local officers could proceed in conformity with the Federal Government's enforcement priorities without making an inquiry into a suspected alien's immigration status. For example, one of the Federal Government's highest priorities is the apprehension and removal of aliens who have failed to comply with a final order of removal. See App. 108. How can an officer identify those persons without first inquiring about their status? The United States' attack on § 2(B) is quite remarkable. The United States suggests that a state law may be preempted, not because it conflicts with a federal statute or regulation, but because it is inconsistent with a federal agency's current enforcement priorities. Those priorities, however, are not ...
Supreme Court - trial or verdict - Supreme Court - trial or verdict
SOUTHERN UNION COMPANY v. U.S., 11-94 (U.S. 6-21-2012)
No. 11-94
Argued March 19, 2012, Decided June 21, 2012 OCTOBER TERM, 2011
As I have said, the dissenters thought that the Sixth Amendment did not require a jury to find any of these sentencing facts. Why, asked the dissenters, should Congress' or a State's desire for greater sentencing uniformity achieved through statutes seeking more uniform treatment (of similar offenders committing similar offenses in similar ways) suddenly produce new Sixth Amendment jury trial requirements? Those requirements would work against greater sentencing fairness. To treat all sentencing facts (where so specified in a statute or rule) as if they were elements of the offense could lead Congress simply to set high maximum ranges for each crime, thereby avoiding Apprendi's jury trial requirement. Alternatively, Congress might enact statutes that more...
"judge" near "error" - "judge" near "error"
SNYDER v. NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, 11-1101 (2nd Cir. 6-21-2012)
No. 11-1101.
June 21, 2012.
This Court reviews a district court's denial of a Rule 59(a) motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion. See Munafo v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 381 F.3d 99, 105 (2d Cir. 2004). "A motion for a new trial ordinarily should not be granted unless the trial court is convinced that the jury has reached a seriously erroneous result or that the verdict is a miscarriage of justice." Lightfoot v. Union Carbide Corp., 110 F.3d 898, 911 (2d Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). Upon review, ... I. Jury Instructions On appeal, Appellants argue that the district court gave several erroneous jury instructions. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(d)(1), a party may assign error based on an erroneous jury instruction "if that party properly objected." If a party does not receive the...
"right to counsel" - "right to counsel"
SNYDER v. NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, 11-1101 (2nd Cir. 6-21-2012)
No. 11-1101.
June 21, 2012.
This Court reviews a district court's denial of a Rule 59(a) motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion. See Munafo v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 381 F.3d 99, 105 (2d Cir. 2004). "A motion for a new trial ordinarily should not be granted unless the trial court is convinced that the jury has reached a seriously erroneous result or that the verdict is a miscarriage of justice." Lightfoot v. Union Carbide Corp., 110 F.3d 898, 911 (2d Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). Upon review, ... I. Jury Instructions On appeal, Appellants argue that the district court gave several erroneous jury instructions. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(d)(1), a party may assign error based on an erroneous jury instruction "if that party properly objected." If a party does not receive the...
"judge" near "error" - "judge" near "error"
PEOPLE v. ELEBY, 1570-1985 (5-18-2012)
No. 1570-1985
May 18, 2012[fn1]
On January 9, 1986, a Kings County petit jury found the defendant guilty of five counts of Murder in the Second Degree, two counts of Attempted Murder in the Second Degree and assorted other charges. On January 30, 1986, the defendant was sentenced to three consecutive terms of twenty-five years to life, one for each of the felony murder convictions, and consecutive terms of imprisonment for his Attempted Murder in the Second Degree and Assault in the Second Degree convictions. The defendant's direct ... In support of his claim that trail attorney failed to provide effective assistance of counsel, based upon her failure to call two potential alibi witnesses at trial, defendant has provided what are purported to be affidavits from two individuals. Yvette Hayes's statement was signed and dated before a notary...
"professional misconduct" - "professional misconduct"
DAVIS v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, 513418 (3d Dept 6-21-2012)
513418
Calendar Date: April 23, 2012 Decided and Entered: June 21, 2012
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Petitioner filed a complaint with respondent New York State Department of Education alleging that a physical therapist from whom he had received treatment engaged in professional misconduct ? specifically, inappropriate touching. The matter was referred to respondent Office of Professional Discipline (hereinafter OPD) which, following an investigation, concluded that there was insufficient evidence to pursue petitioner's complaint. When OPD declined petitioner's subsequent request ... We affirm. Standing is a threshold legal requirement for a party seeking to challenge a governmental action, imposing upon the complaining party an obligation to demonstrate that he or she has suffered an injury in fact that is both...
Supreme Court - trial or verdict - Supreme Court - trial or verdict
MILLER v. ALABAMA, 10-9646 (U.S. 6-25-2012)
Nos. 10-9646, 10-9647
Argued March 20, 2012, Decided June 25, 2012[fn*] OCTOBER TERM, 2011
The Court long ago abandoned the original meaning of the Eighth Amendment, holding instead that the prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment" embodies the "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." Trop v. Dulles, 356 U. S. 86, 101 (1958) Page 2 (plurality opinion); see also Graham v. Florida, 560 U. S. ___, ___ (2010) (slip op., at 7); Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U. S. 407, 419 (2008); Roper v. Simmons, 543 U. S. 551, 560-561 (2005); Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U. S. ... Who says so, and how did this particular philosophy of history find its way into our fundamental law?
Supreme Court - trial or verdict - Supreme Court - trial or verdict
ARIZONA v. U.S., 11-182 (U.S. 6-25-2012)
No. 11-182
Argued April 25, 2012, Decided June 25, 2012 OCTOBER TERM, 2011
In any event, it is hard to see how state and local officers could proceed in conformity with the Federal Government's enforcement priorities without making an inquiry into a suspected alien's immigration status. For example, one of the Federal Government's highest priorities is the apprehension and removal of aliens who have failed to comply with a final order of removal. See App. 108. How can an officer identify those persons without first inquiring about their status? The United States' attack on § 2(B) is quite remarkable. The United States suggests that a state law may be preempted, not because it conflicts with a federal statute or regulation, but because it is inconsistent with a federal agency's current enforcement priorities. Those priorities, however, are not ...
Supreme Court - trial or verdict - Supreme Court - trial or verdict
SOUTHERN UNION COMPANY v. U.S., 11-94 (U.S. 6-21-2012)
No. 11-94
Argued March 19, 2012, Decided June 21, 2012 OCTOBER TERM, 2011
As I have said, the dissenters thought that the Sixth Amendment did not require a jury to find any of these sentencing facts. Why, asked the dissenters, should Congress' or a State's desire for greater sentencing uniformity achieved through statutes seeking more uniform treatment (of similar offenders committing similar offenses in similar ways) suddenly produce new Sixth Amendment jury trial requirements? Those requirements would work against greater sentencing fairness. To treat all sentencing facts (where so specified in a statute or rule) as if they were elements of the offense could lead Congress simply to set high maximum ranges for each crime, thereby avoiding Apprendi's jury trial requirement. Alternatively, Congress might enact statutes that more...
"judge" near "error" - "judge" near "error"
SNYDER v. NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, 11-1101 (2nd Cir. 6-21-2012)
No. 11-1101.
June 21, 2012.
This Court reviews a district court's denial of a Rule 59(a) motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion. See Munafo v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 381 F.3d 99, 105 (2d Cir. 2004). "A motion for a new trial ordinarily should not be granted unless the trial court is convinced that the jury has reached a seriously erroneous result or that the verdict is a miscarriage of justice." Lightfoot v. Union Carbide Corp., 110 F.3d 898, 911 (2d Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). Upon review, ... I. Jury Instructions On appeal, Appellants argue that the district court gave several erroneous jury instructions. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(d)(1), a party may assign error based on an erroneous jury instruction "if that party properly objected." If a party does not receive the...
"right to counsel" - "right to counsel"
SNYDER v. NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, 11-1101 (2nd Cir. 6-21-2012)
No. 11-1101.
June 21, 2012.
This Court reviews a district court's denial of a Rule 59(a) motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion. See Munafo v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 381 F.3d 99, 105 (2d Cir. 2004). "A motion for a new trial ordinarily should not be granted unless the trial court is convinced that the jury has reached a seriously erroneous result or that the verdict is a miscarriage of justice." Lightfoot v. Union Carbide Corp., 110 F.3d 898, 911 (2d Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). Upon review, ... I. Jury Instructions On appeal, Appellants argue that the district court gave several erroneous jury instructions. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(d)(1), a party may assign error based on an erroneous jury instruction "if that party properly objected." If a party does not receive the...
"judge" near "error" - "judge" near "error"
PEOPLE v. ELEBY, 1570-1985 (5-18-2012)
No. 1570-1985
May 18, 2012[fn1]
On January 9, 1986, a Kings County petit jury found the defendant guilty of five counts of Murder in the Second Degree, two counts of Attempted Murder in the Second Degree and assorted other charges. On January 30, 1986, the defendant was sentenced to three consecutive terms of twenty-five years to life, one for each of the felony murder convictions, and consecutive terms of imprisonment for his Attempted Murder in the Second Degree and Assault in the Second Degree convictions. The defendant's direct ... In support of his claim that trail attorney failed to provide effective assistance of counsel, based upon her failure to call two potential alibi witnesses at trial, defendant has provided what are purported to be affidavits from two individuals. Yvette Hayes's statement was signed and dated before a notary...
"professional misconduct" - "professional misconduct"
DAVIS v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, 513418 (3d Dept 6-21-2012)
513418
Calendar Date: April 23, 2012 Decided and Entered: June 21, 2012
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Petitioner filed a complaint with respondent New York State Department of Education alleging that a physical therapist from whom he had received treatment engaged in professional misconduct ? specifically, inappropriate touching. The matter was referred to respondent Office of Professional Discipline (hereinafter OPD) which, following an investigation, concluded that there was insufficient evidence to pursue petitioner's complaint. When OPD declined petitioner's subsequent request ... We affirm. Standing is a threshold legal requirement for a party seeking to challenge a governmental action, imposing upon the complaining party an obligation to demonstrate that he or she has suffered an injury in fact that is both...
Supreme Court - trial or verdict - Supreme Court - trial or verdict
MILLER v. ALABAMA, 10-9646 (U.S. 6-25-2012)
Nos. 10-9646, 10-9647
Argued March 20, 2012, Decided June 25, 2012[fn*] OCTOBER TERM, 2011
The Court long ago abandoned the original meaning of the Eighth Amendment, holding instead that the prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment" embodies the "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." Trop v. Dulles, 356 U. S. 86, 101 (1958) Page 2 (plurality opinion); see also Graham v. Florida, 560 U. S. ___, ___ (2010) (slip op., at 7); Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U. S. 407, 419 (2008); Roper v. Simmons, 543 U. S. 551, 560-561 (2005); Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U. S. ... Who says so, and how did this particular philosophy of history find its way into our fundamental law?
Supreme Court - trial or verdict - Supreme Court - trial or verdict
ARIZONA v. U.S., 11-182 (U.S. 6-25-2012)
No. 11-182
Argued April 25, 2012, Decided June 25, 2012 OCTOBER TERM, 2011
In any event, it is hard to see how state and local officers could proceed in conformity with the Federal Government's enforcement priorities without making an inquiry into a suspected alien's immigration status. For example, one of the Federal Government's highest priorities is the apprehension and removal of aliens who have failed to comply with a final order of removal. See App. 108. How can an officer identify those persons without first inquiring about their status? The United States' attack on § 2(B) is quite remarkable. The United States suggests that a state law may be preempted, not because it conflicts with a federal statute or regulation, but because it is inconsistent with a federal agency's current enforcement priorities. Those priorities, however, are not ...
Supreme Court - trial or verdict - Supreme Court - trial or verdict
SOUTHERN UNION COMPANY v. U.S., 11-94 (U.S. 6-21-2012)
No. 11-94
Argued March 19, 2012, Decided June 21, 2012 OCTOBER TERM, 2011
As I have said, the dissenters thought that the Sixth Amendment did not require a jury to find any of these sentencing facts. Why, asked the dissenters, should Congress' or a State's desire for greater sentencing uniformity achieved through statutes seeking more uniform treatment (of similar offenders committing similar offenses in similar ways) suddenly produce new Sixth Amendment jury trial requirements? Those requirements would work against greater sentencing fairness. To treat all sentencing facts (where so specified in a statute or rule) as if they were elements of the offense could lead Congress simply to set high maximum ranges for each crime, thereby avoiding Apprendi's jury trial requirement. Alternatively, Congress might enact statutes that more...
"judge" near "error" - "judge" near "error"
SNYDER v. NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, 11-1101 (2nd Cir. 6-21-2012)
No. 11-1101.
June 21, 2012.
This Court reviews a district court's denial of a Rule 59(a) motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion. See Munafo v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 381 F.3d 99, 105 (2d Cir. 2004). "A motion for a new trial ordinarily should not be granted unless the trial court is convinced that the jury has reached a seriously erroneous result or that the verdict is a miscarriage of justice." Lightfoot v. Union Carbide Corp., 110 F.3d 898, 911 (2d Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). Upon review, ... I. Jury Instructions On appeal, Appellants argue that the district court gave several erroneous jury instructions. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(d)(1), a party may assign error based on an erroneous jury instruction "if that party properly objected." If a party does not receive the...
"right to counsel" - "right to counsel"
SNYDER v. NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, 11-1101 (2nd Cir. 6-21-2012)
No. 11-1101.
June 21, 2012.
This Court reviews a district court's denial of a Rule 59(a) motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion. See Munafo v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 381 F.3d 99, 105 (2d Cir. 2004). "A motion for a new trial ordinarily should not be granted unless the trial court is convinced that the jury has reached a seriously erroneous result or that the verdict is a miscarriage of justice." Lightfoot v. Union Carbide Corp., 110 F.3d 898, 911 (2d Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). Upon review, ... I. Jury Instructions On appeal, Appellants argue that the district court gave several erroneous jury instructions. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(d)(1), a party may assign error based on an erroneous jury instruction "if that party properly objected." If a party does not receive the...
"judge" near "error" - "judge" near "error"
PEOPLE v. ELEBY, 1570-1985 (5-18-2012)
No. 1570-1985
May 18, 2012[fn1]
On January 9, 1986, a Kings County petit jury found the defendant guilty of five counts of Murder in the Second Degree, two counts of Attempted Murder in the Second Degree and assorted other charges. On January 30, 1986, the defendant was sentenced to three consecutive terms of twenty-five years to life, one for each of the felony murder convictions, and consecutive terms of imprisonment for his Attempted Murder in the Second Degree and Assault in the Second Degree convictions. The defendant's direct ... In support of his claim that trail attorney failed to provide effective assistance of counsel, based upon her failure to call two potential alibi witnesses at trial, defendant has provided what are purported to be affidavits from two individuals. Yvette Hayes's statement was signed and dated before a notary...
"professional misconduct" - "professional misconduct"
DAVIS v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, 513418 (3d Dept 6-21-2012)
513418
Calendar Date: April 23, 2012 Decided and Entered: June 21, 2012
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Petitioner filed a complaint with respondent New York State Department of Education alleging that a physical therapist from whom he had received treatment engaged in professional misconduct ? specifically, inappropriate touching. The matter was referred to respondent Office of Professional Discipline (hereinafter OPD) which, following an investigation, concluded that there was insufficient evidence to pursue petitioner's complaint. When OPD declined petitioner's subsequent request ... We affirm. Standing is a threshold legal requirement for a party seeking to challenge a governmental action, imposing upon the complaining party an obligation to demonstrate that he or she has suffered an injury in fact that is both...
Supreme Court - trial or verdict - Supreme Court - trial or verdict
MILLER v. ALABAMA, 10-9646 (U.S. 6-25-2012)
Nos. 10-9646, 10-9647
Argued March 20, 2012, Decided June 25, 2012[fn*] OCTOBER TERM, 2011
The Court long ago abandoned the original meaning of the Eighth Amendment, holding instead that the prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment" embodies the "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." Trop v. Dulles, 356 U. S. 86, 101 (1958) Page 2 (plurality opinion); see also Graham v. Florida, 560 U. S. ___, ___ (2010) (slip op., at 7); Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U. S. 407, 419 (2008); Roper v. Simmons, 543 U. S. 551, 560-561 (2005); Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U. S. ... Who says so, and how did this particular philosophy of history find its way into our fundamental law?
Supreme Court - trial or verdict - Supreme Court - trial or verdict
ARIZONA v. U.S., 11-182 (U.S. 6-25-2012)
No. 11-182
Argued April 25, 2012, Decided June 25, 2012 OCTOBER TERM, 2011
In any event, it is hard to see how state and local officers could proceed in conformity with the Federal Government's enforcement priorities without making an inquiry into a suspected alien's immigration status. For example, one of the Federal Government's highest priorities is the apprehension and removal of aliens who have failed to comply with a final order of removal. See App. 108. How can an officer identify those persons without first inquiring about their status? The United States' attack on § 2(B) is quite remarkable. The United States suggests that a state law may be preempted, not because it conflicts with a federal statute or regulation, but because it is inconsistent with a federal agency's current enforcement priorities. Those priorities, however, are not ...
Supreme Court - trial or verdict - Supreme Court - trial or verdict
SOUTHERN UNION COMPANY v. U.S., 11-94 (U.S. 6-21-2012)
No. 11-94
Argued March 19, 2012, Decided June 21, 2012 OCTOBER TERM, 2011
As I have said, the dissenters thought that the Sixth Amendment did not require a jury to find any of these sentencing facts. Why, asked the dissenters, should Congress' or a State's desire for greater sentencing uniformity achieved through statutes seeking more uniform treatment (of similar offenders committing similar offenses in similar ways) suddenly produce new Sixth Amendment jury trial requirements? Those requirements would work against greater sentencing fairness. To treat all sentencing facts (where so specified in a statute or rule) as if they were elements of the offense could lead Congress simply to set high maximum ranges for each crime, thereby avoiding Apprendi's jury trial requirement. Alternatively, Congress might enact statutes that more...
"judge" near "error" - "judge" near "error"
SNYDER v. NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, 11-1101 (2nd Cir. 6-21-2012)
No. 11-1101.
June 21, 2012.
This Court reviews a district court's denial of a Rule 59(a) motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion. See Munafo v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 381 F.3d 99, 105 (2d Cir. 2004). "A motion for a new trial ordinarily should not be granted unless the trial court is convinced that the jury has reached a seriously erroneous result or that the verdict is a miscarriage of justice." Lightfoot v. Union Carbide Corp., 110 F.3d 898, 911 (2d Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). Upon review, ... I. Jury Instructions On appeal, Appellants argue that the district court gave several erroneous jury instructions. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(d)(1), a party may assign error based on an erroneous jury instruction "if that party properly objected." If a party does not receive the...
"right to counsel" - "right to counsel"
SNYDER v. NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, 11-1101 (2nd Cir. 6-21-2012)
No. 11-1101.
June 21, 2012.
This Court reviews a district court's denial of a Rule 59(a) motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion. See Munafo v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 381 F.3d 99, 105 (2d Cir. 2004). "A motion for a new trial ordinarily should not be granted unless the trial court is convinced that the jury has reached a seriously erroneous result or that the verdict is a miscarriage of justice." Lightfoot v. Union Carbide Corp., 110 F.3d 898, 911 (2d Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). Upon review, ... I. Jury Instructions On appeal, Appellants argue that the district court gave several erroneous jury instructions. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(d)(1), a party may assign error based on an erroneous jury instruction "if that party properly objected." If a party does not receive the...
"judge" near "error" - "judge" near "error"
PEOPLE v. ELEBY, 1570-1985 (5-18-2012)
No. 1570-1985
May 18, 2012[fn1]
On January 9, 1986, a Kings County petit jury found the defendant guilty of five counts of Murder in the Second Degree, two counts of Attempted Murder in the Second Degree and assorted other charges. On January 30, 1986, the defendant was sentenced to three consecutive terms of twenty-five years to life, one for each of the felony murder convictions, and consecutive terms of imprisonment for his Attempted Murder in the Second Degree and Assault in the Second Degree convictions. The defendant's direct ... In support of his claim that trail attorney failed to provide effective assistance of counsel, based upon her failure to call two potential alibi witnesses at trial, defendant has provided what are purported to be affidavits from two individuals. Yvette Hayes's statement was signed and dated before a notary...
"professional misconduct" - "professional misconduct"
DAVIS v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, 513418 (3d Dept 6-21-2012)
513418
Calendar Date: April 23, 2012 Decided and Entered: June 21, 2012
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Petitioner filed a complaint with respondent New York State Department of Education alleging that a physical therapist from whom he had received treatment engaged in professional misconduct ? specifically, inappropriate touching. The matter was referred to respondent Office of Professional Discipline (hereinafter OPD) which, following an investigation, concluded that there was insufficient evidence to pursue petitioner's complaint. When OPD declined petitioner's subsequent request ... We affirm. Standing is a threshold legal requirement for a party seeking to challenge a governmental action, imposing upon the complaining party an obligation to demonstrate that he or she has suffered an injury in fact that is both...
Supreme Court - trial or verdict - Supreme Court - trial or verdict
MILLER v. ALABAMA, 10-9646 (U.S. 6-25-2012)
Nos. 10-9646, 10-9647
Argued March 20, 2012, Decided June 25, 2012[fn*] OCTOBER TERM, 2011
The Court long ago abandoned the original meaning of the Eighth Amendment, holding instead that the prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment" embodies the "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." Trop v. Dulles, 356 U. S. 86, 101 (1958) Page 2 (plurality opinion); see also Graham v. Florida, 560 U. S. ___, ___ (2010) (slip op., at 7); Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U. S. 407, 419 (2008); Roper v. Simmons, 543 U. S. 551, 560-561 (2005); Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U. S. ... Who says so, and how did this particular philosophy of history find its way into our fundamental law?
Supreme Court - trial or verdict - Supreme Court - trial or verdict
ARIZONA v. U.S., 11-182 (U.S. 6-25-2012)
No. 11-182
Argued April 25, 2012, Decided June 25, 2012 OCTOBER TERM, 2011
In any event, it is hard to see how state and local officers could proceed in conformity with the Federal Government's enforcement priorities without making an inquiry into a suspected alien's immigration status. For example, one of the Federal Government's highest priorities is the apprehension and removal of aliens who have failed to comply with a final order of removal. See App. 108. How can an officer identify those persons without first inquiring about their status? The United States' attack on § 2(B) is quite remarkable. The United States suggests that a state law may be preempted, not because it conflicts with a federal statute or regulation, but because it is inconsistent with a federal agency's current enforcement priorities. Those priorities, however, are not ...
Supreme Court - trial or verdict - Supreme Court - trial or verdict
SOUTHERN UNION COMPANY v. U.S., 11-94 (U.S. 6-21-2012)
No. 11-94
Argued March 19, 2012, Decided June 21, 2012 OCTOBER TERM, 2011
As I have said, the dissenters thought that the Sixth Amendment did not require a jury to find any of these sentencing facts. Why, asked the dissenters, should Congress' or a State's desire for greater sentencing uniformity achieved through statutes seeking more uniform treatment (of similar offenders committing similar offenses in similar ways) suddenly produce new Sixth Amendment jury trial requirements? Those requirements would work against greater sentencing fairness. To treat all sentencing facts (where so specified in a statute or rule) as if they were elements of the offense could lead Congress simply to set high maximum ranges for each crime, thereby avoiding Apprendi's jury trial requirement. Alternatively, Congress might enact statutes that more...
"judge" near "error" - "judge" near "error"
SNYDER v. NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, 11-1101 (2nd Cir. 6-21-2012)
No. 11-1101.
June 21, 2012.
This Court reviews a district court's denial of a Rule 59(a) motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion. See Munafo v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 381 F.3d 99, 105 (2d Cir. 2004). "A motion for a new trial ordinarily should not be granted unless the trial court is convinced that the jury has reached a seriously erroneous result or that the verdict is a miscarriage of justice." Lightfoot v. Union Carbide Corp., 110 F.3d 898, 911 (2d Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). Upon review, ... I. Jury Instructions On appeal, Appellants argue that the district court gave several erroneous jury instructions. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(d)(1), a party may assign error based on an erroneous jury instruction "if that party properly objected." If a party does not receive the...
"right to counsel" - "right to counsel"
SNYDER v. NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, 11-1101 (2nd Cir. 6-21-2012)
No. 11-1101.
June 21, 2012.
This Court reviews a district court's denial of a Rule 59(a) motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion. See Munafo v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 381 F.3d 99, 105 (2d Cir. 2004). "A motion for a new trial ordinarily should not be granted unless the trial court is convinced that the jury has reached a seriously erroneous result or that the verdict is a miscarriage of justice." Lightfoot v. Union Carbide Corp., 110 F.3d 898, 911 (2d Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). Upon review, ... I. Jury Instructions On appeal, Appellants argue that the district court gave several erroneous jury instructions. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(d)(1), a party may assign error based on an erroneous jury instruction "if that party properly objected." If a party does not receive the...
"judge" near "error" - "judge" near "error"
PEOPLE v. ELEBY, 1570-1985 (5-18-2012)
No. 1570-1985
May 18, 2012[fn1]
On January 9, 1986, a Kings County petit jury found the defendant guilty of five counts of Murder in the Second Degree, two counts of Attempted Murder in the Second Degree and assorted other charges. On January 30, 1986, the defendant was sentenced to three consecutive terms of twenty-five years to life, one for each of the felony murder convictions, and consecutive terms of imprisonment for his Attempted Murder in the Second Degree and Assault in the Second Degree convictions. The defendant's direct ... In support of his claim that trail attorney failed to provide effective assistance of counsel, based upon her failure to call two potential alibi witnesses at trial, defendant has provided what are purported to be affidavits from two individuals. Yvette Hayes's statement was signed and dated before a notary...
"professional misconduct" - "professional misconduct"
DAVIS v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, 513418 (3d Dept 6-21-2012)
513418
Calendar Date: April 23, 2012 Decided and Entered: June 21, 2012
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Petitioner filed a complaint with respondent New York State Department of Education alleging that a physical therapist from whom he had received treatment engaged in professional misconduct ? specifically, inappropriate touching. The matter was referred to respondent Office of Professional Discipline (hereinafter OPD) which, following an investigation, concluded that there was insufficient evidence to pursue petitioner's complaint. When OPD declined petitioner's subsequent request ... We affirm. Standing is a threshold legal requirement for a party seeking to challenge a governmental action, imposing upon the complaining party an obligation to demonstrate that he or she has suffered an injury in fact that is both...
Supreme Court - trial or verdict - Supreme Court - trial or verdict
MILLER v. ALABAMA, 10-9646 (U.S. 6-25-2012)
Nos. 10-9646, 10-9647
Argued March 20, 2012, Decided June 25, 2012[fn*] OCTOBER TERM, 2011
The Court long ago abandoned the original meaning of the Eighth Amendment, holding instead that the prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment" embodies the "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." Trop v. Dulles, 356 U. S. 86, 101 (1958) Page 2 (plurality opinion); see also Graham v. Florida, 560 U. S. ___, ___ (2010) (slip op., at 7); Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U. S. 407, 419 (2008); Roper v. Simmons, 543 U. S. 551, 560-561 (2005); Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U. S. ... Who says so, and how did this particular philosophy of history find its way into our fundamental law?
Supreme Court - trial or verdict - Supreme Court - trial or verdict
ARIZONA v. U.S., 11-182 (U.S. 6-25-2012)
No. 11-182
Argued April 25, 2012, Decided June 25, 2012 OCTOBER TERM, 2011
In any event, it is hard to see how state and local officers could proceed in conformity with the Federal Government's enforcement priorities without making an inquiry into a suspected alien's immigration status. For example, one of the Federal Government's highest priorities is the apprehension and removal of aliens who have failed to comply with a final order of removal. See App. 108. How can an officer identify those persons without first inquiring about their status? The United States' attack on § 2(B) is quite remarkable. The United States suggests that a state law may be preempted, not because it conflicts with a federal statute or regulation, but because it is inconsistent with a federal agency's current enforcement priorities. Those priorities, however, are not ...
Supreme Court - trial or verdict - Supreme Court - trial or verdict
SOUTHERN UNION COMPANY v. U.S., 11-94 (U.S. 6-21-2012)
No. 11-94
Argued March 19, 2012, Decided June 21, 2012 OCTOBER TERM, 2011
As I have said, the dissenters thought that the Sixth Amendment did not require a jury to find any of these sentencing facts. Why, asked the dissenters, should Congress' or a State's desire for greater sentencing uniformity achieved through statutes seeking more uniform treatment (of similar offenders committing similar offenses in similar ways) suddenly produce new Sixth Amendment jury trial requirements? Those requirements would work against greater sentencing fairness. To treat all sentencing facts (where so specified in a statute or rule) as if they were elements of the offense could lead Congress simply to set high maximum ranges for each crime, thereby avoiding Apprendi's jury trial requirement. Alternatively, Congress might enact statutes that more...
"judge" near "error" - "judge" near "error"
SNYDER v. NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, 11-1101 (2nd Cir. 6-21-2012)
No. 11-1101.
June 21, 2012.
This Court reviews a district court's denial of a Rule 59(a) motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion. See Munafo v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 381 F.3d 99, 105 (2d Cir. 2004). "A motion for a new trial ordinarily should not be granted unless the trial court is convinced that the jury has reached a seriously erroneous result or that the verdict is a miscarriage of justice." Lightfoot v. Union Carbide Corp., 110 F.3d 898, 911 (2d Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). Upon review, ... I. Jury Instructions On appeal, Appellants argue that the district court gave several erroneous jury instructions. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(d)(1), a party may assign error based on an erroneous jury instruction "if that party properly objected." If a party does not receive the...
"right to counsel" - "right to counsel"
SNYDER v. NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, 11-1101 (2nd Cir. 6-21-2012)
No. 11-1101.
June 21, 2012.
This Court reviews a district court's denial of a Rule 59(a) motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion. See Munafo v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 381 F.3d 99, 105 (2d Cir. 2004). "A motion for a new trial ordinarily should not be granted unless the trial court is convinced that the jury has reached a seriously erroneous result or that the verdict is a miscarriage of justice." Lightfoot v. Union Carbide Corp., 110 F.3d 898, 911 (2d Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). Upon review, ... I. Jury Instructions On appeal, Appellants argue that the district court gave several erroneous jury instructions. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(d)(1), a party may assign error based on an erroneous jury instruction "if that party properly objected." If a party does not receive the...
"judge" near "error" - "judge" near "error"
PEOPLE v. ELEBY, 1570-1985 (5-18-2012)
No. 1570-1985
May 18, 2012[fn1]
On January 9, 1986, a Kings County petit jury found the defendant guilty of five counts of Murder in the Second Degree, two counts of Attempted Murder in the Second Degree and assorted other charges. On January 30, 1986, the defendant was sentenced to three consecutive terms of twenty-five years to life, one for each of the felony murder convictions, and consecutive terms of imprisonment for his Attempted Murder in the Second Degree and Assault in the Second Degree convictions. The defendant's direct ... In support of his claim that trail attorney failed to provide effective assistance of counsel, based upon her failure to call two potential alibi witnesses at trial, defendant has provided what are purported to be affidavits from two individuals. Yvette Hayes's statement was signed and dated before a notary...
"professional misconduct" - "professional misconduct"
DAVIS v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, 513418 (3d Dept 6-21-2012)
513418
Calendar Date: April 23, 2012 Decided and Entered: June 21, 2012
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Petitioner filed a complaint with respondent New York State Department of Education alleging that a physical therapist from whom he had received treatment engaged in professional misconduct ? specifically, inappropriate touching. The matter was referred to respondent Office of Professional Discipline (hereinafter OPD) which, following an investigation, concluded that there was insufficient evidence to pursue petitioner's complaint. When OPD declined petitioner's subsequent request ... We affirm. Standing is a threshold legal requirement for a party seeking to challenge a governmental action, imposing upon the complaining party an obligation to demonstrate that he or she has suffered an injury in fact that is both...
Supreme Court - trial or verdict - Supreme Court - trial or verdict
MILLER v. ALABAMA, 10-9646 (U.S. 6-25-2012)
Nos. 10-9646, 10-9647
Argued March 20, 2012, Decided June 25, 2012[fn*] OCTOBER TERM, 2011
The Court long ago abandoned the original meaning of the Eighth Amendment, holding instead that the prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment" embodies the "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." Trop v. Dulles, 356 U. S. 86, 101 (1958) Page 2 (plurality opinion); see also Graham v. Florida, 560 U. S. ___, ___ (2010) (slip op., at 7); Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U. S. 407, 419 (2008); Roper v. Simmons, 543 U. S. 551, 560-561 (2005); Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U. S. ... Who says so, and how did this particular philosophy of history find its way into our fundamental law?
Supreme Court - trial or verdict - Supreme Court - trial or verdict
ARIZONA v. U.S., 11-182 (U.S. 6-25-2012)
No. 11-182
Argued April 25, 2012, Decided June 25, 2012 OCTOBER TERM, 2011
In any event, it is hard to see how state and local officers could proceed in conformity with the Federal Government's enforcement priorities without making an inquiry into a suspected alien's immigration status. For example, one of the Federal Government's highest priorities is the apprehension and removal of aliens who have failed to comply with a final order of removal. See App. 108. How can an officer identify those persons without first inquiring about their status? The United States' attack on § 2(B) is quite remarkable. The United States suggests that a state law may be preempted, not because it conflicts with a federal statute or regulation, but because it is inconsistent with a federal agency's current enforcement priorities. Those priorities, however, are not ...
Supreme Court - trial or verdict - Supreme Court - trial or verdict
SOUTHERN UNION COMPANY v. U.S., 11-94 (U.S. 6-21-2012)
No. 11-94
Argued March 19, 2012, Decided June 21, 2012 OCTOBER TERM, 2011
As I have said, the dissenters thought that the Sixth Amendment did not require a jury to find any of these sentencing facts. Why, asked the dissenters, should Congress' or a State's desire for greater sentencing uniformity achieved through statutes seeking more uniform treatment (of similar offenders committing similar offenses in similar ways) suddenly produce new Sixth Amendment jury trial requirements? Those requirements would work against greater sentencing fairness. To treat all sentencing facts (where so specified in a statute or rule) as if they were elements of the offense could lead Congress simply to set high maximum ranges for each crime, thereby avoiding Apprendi's jury trial requirement. Alternatively, Congress might enact statutes that more...
"judge" near "error" - "judge" near "error"
SNYDER v. NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, 11-1101 (2nd Cir. 6-21-2012)
No. 11-1101.
June 21, 2012.
This Court reviews a district court's denial of a Rule 59(a) motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion. See Munafo v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 381 F.3d 99, 105 (2d Cir. 2004). "A motion for a new trial ordinarily should not be granted unless the trial court is convinced that the jury has reached a seriously erroneous result or that the verdict is a miscarriage of justice." Lightfoot v. Union Carbide Corp., 110 F.3d 898, 911 (2d Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). Upon review, ... I. Jury Instructions On appeal, Appellants argue that the district court gave several erroneous jury instructions. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(d)(1), a party may assign error based on an erroneous jury instruction "if that party properly objected." If a party does not receive the...
"right to counsel" - "right to counsel"
SNYDER v. NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, 11-1101 (2nd Cir. 6-21-2012)
No. 11-1101.
June 21, 2012.
This Court reviews a district court's denial of a Rule 59(a) motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion. See Munafo v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 381 F.3d 99, 105 (2d Cir. 2004). "A motion for a new trial ordinarily should not be granted unless the trial court is convinced that the jury has reached a seriously erroneous result or that the verdict is a miscarriage of justice." Lightfoot v. Union Carbide Corp., 110 F.3d 898, 911 (2d Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). Upon review, ... I. Jury Instructions On appeal, Appellants argue that the district court gave several erroneous jury instructions. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(d)(1), a party may assign error based on an erroneous jury instruction "if that party properly objected." If a party does not receive the...
"judge" near "error" - "judge" near "error"
PEOPLE v. ELEBY, 1570-1985 (5-18-2012)
No. 1570-1985
May 18, 2012[fn1]
On January 9, 1986, a Kings County petit jury found the defendant guilty of five counts of Murder in the Second Degree, two counts of Attempted Murder in the Second Degree and assorted other charges. On January 30, 1986, the defendant was sentenced to three consecutive terms of twenty-five years to life, one for each of the felony murder convictions, and consecutive terms of imprisonment for his Attempted Murder in the Second Degree and Assault in the Second Degree convictions. The defendant's direct ... In support of his claim that trail attorney failed to provide effective assistance of counsel, based upon her failure to call two potential alibi witnesses at trial, defendant has provided what are purported to be affidavits from two individuals. Yvette Hayes's statement was signed and dated before a notary...
"professional misconduct" - "professional misconduct"
DAVIS v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, 513418 (3d Dept 6-21-2012)
513418
Calendar Date: April 23, 2012 Decided and Entered: June 21, 2012
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Petitioner filed a complaint with respondent New York State Department of Education alleging that a physical therapist from whom he had received treatment engaged in professional misconduct ? specifically, inappropriate touching. The matter was referred to respondent Office of Professional Discipline (hereinafter OPD) which, following an investigation, concluded that there was insufficient evidence to pursue petitioner's complaint. When OPD declined petitioner's subsequent request ... We affirm. Standing is a threshold legal requirement for a party seeking to challenge a governmental action, imposing upon the complaining party an obligation to demonstrate that he or she has suffered an injury in fact that is both...
Supreme Court - trial or verdict - Supreme Court - trial or verdict
MILLER v. ALABAMA, 10-9646 (U.S. 6-25-2012)
Nos. 10-9646, 10-9647
Argued March 20, 2012, Decided June 25, 2012[fn*] OCTOBER TERM, 2011
The Court long ago abandoned the original meaning of the Eighth Amendment, holding instead that the prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment" embodies the "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." Trop v. Dulles, 356 U. S. 86, 101 (1958) Page 2 (plurality opinion); see also Graham v. Florida, 560 U. S. ___, ___ (2010) (slip op., at 7); Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U. S. 407, 419 (2008); Roper v. Simmons, 543 U. S. 551, 560-561 (2005); Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U. S. ... Who says so, and how did this particular philosophy of history find its way into our fundamental law?
Supreme Court - trial or verdict - Supreme Court - trial or verdict
ARIZONA v. U.S., 11-182 (U.S. 6-25-2012)
No. 11-182
Argued April 25, 2012, Decided June 25, 2012 OCTOBER TERM, 2011
In any event, it is hard to see how state and local officers could proceed in conformity with the Federal Government's enforcement priorities without making an inquiry into a suspected alien's immigration status. For example, one of the Federal Government's highest priorities is the apprehension and removal of aliens who have failed to comply with a final order of removal. See App. 108. How can an officer identify those persons without first inquiring about their status? The United States' attack on § 2(B) is quite remarkable. The United States suggests that a state law may be preempted, not because it conflicts with a federal statute or regulation, but because it is inconsistent with a federal agency's current enforcement priorities. Those priorities, however, are not ...
Supreme Court - trial or verdict - Supreme Court - trial or verdict
SOUTHERN UNION COMPANY v. U.S., 11-94 (U.S. 6-21-2012)
No. 11-94
Argued March 19, 2012, Decided June 21, 2012 OCTOBER TERM, 2011
As I have said, the dissenters thought that the Sixth Amendment did not require a jury to find any of these sentencing facts. Why, asked the dissenters, should Congress' or a State's desire for greater sentencing uniformity achieved through statutes seeking more uniform treatment (of similar offenders committing similar offenses in similar ways) suddenly produce new Sixth Amendment jury trial requirements? Those requirements would work against greater sentencing fairness. To treat all sentencing facts (where so specified in a statute or rule) as if they were elements of the offense could lead Congress simply to set high maximum ranges for each crime, thereby avoiding Apprendi's jury trial requirement. Alternatively, Congress might enact statutes that more...
"judge" near "error" - "judge" near "error"
SNYDER v. NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, 11-1101 (2nd Cir. 6-21-2012)
No. 11-1101.
June 21, 2012.
This Court reviews a district court's denial of a Rule 59(a) motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion. See Munafo v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 381 F.3d 99, 105 (2d Cir. 2004). "A motion for a new trial ordinarily should not be granted unless the trial court is convinced that the jury has reached a seriously erroneous result or that the verdict is a miscarriage of justice." Lightfoot v. Union Carbide Corp., 110 F.3d 898, 911 (2d Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). Upon review, ... I. Jury Instructions On appeal, Appellants argue that the district court gave several erroneous jury instructions. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(d)(1), a party may assign error based on an erroneous jury instruction "if that party properly objected." If a party does not receive the...
"right to counsel" - "right to counsel"
SNYDER v. NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, 11-1101 (2nd Cir. 6-21-2012)
No. 11-1101.
June 21, 2012.
This Court reviews a district court's denial of a Rule 59(a) motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion. See Munafo v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 381 F.3d 99, 105 (2d Cir. 2004). "A motion for a new trial ordinarily should not be granted unless the trial court is convinced that the jury has reached a seriously erroneous result or that the verdict is a miscarriage of justice." Lightfoot v. Union Carbide Corp., 110 F.3d 898, 911 (2d Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). Upon review, ... I. Jury Instructions On appeal, Appellants argue that the district court gave several erroneous jury instructions. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(d)(1), a party may assign error based on an erroneous jury instruction "if that party properly objected." If a party does not receive the...
"judge" near "error" - "judge" near "error"
PEOPLE v. ELEBY, 1570-1985 (5-18-2012)
No. 1570-1985
May 18, 2012[fn1]
On January 9, 1986, a Kings County petit jury found the defendant guilty of five counts of Murder in the Second Degree, two counts of Attempted Murder in the Second Degree and assorted other charges. On January 30, 1986, the defendant was sentenced to three consecutive terms of twenty-five years to life, one for each of the felony murder convictions, and consecutive terms of imprisonment for his Attempted Murder in the Second Degree and Assault in the Second Degree convictions. The defendant's direct ... In support of his claim that trail attorney failed to provide effective assistance of counsel, based upon her failure to call two potential alibi witnesses at trial, defendant has provided what are purported to be affidavits from two individuals. Yvette Hayes's statement was signed and dated before a notary...
"professional misconduct" - "professional misconduct"
DAVIS v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, 513418 (3d Dept 6-21-2012)
513418
Calendar Date: April 23, 2012 Decided and Entered: June 21, 2012
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Petitioner filed a complaint with respondent New York State Department of Education alleging that a physical therapist from whom he had received treatment engaged in professional misconduct ? specifically, inappropriate touching. The matter was referred to respondent Office of Professional Discipline (hereinafter OPD) which, following an investigation, concluded that there was insufficient evidence to pursue petitioner's complaint. When OPD declined petitioner's subsequent request ... We affirm. Standing is a threshold legal requirement for a party seeking to challenge a governmental action, imposing upon the complaining party an obligation to demonstrate that he or she has suffered an injury in fact that is both...
Supreme Court - trial or verdict - Supreme Court - trial or verdict
MILLER v. ALABAMA, 10-9646 (U.S. 6-25-2012)
Nos. 10-9646, 10-9647
Argued March 20, 2012, Decided June 25, 2012[fn*] OCTOBER TERM, 2011
The Court long ago abandoned the original meaning of the Eighth Amendment, holding instead that the prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment" embodies the "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." Trop v. Dulles, 356 U. S. 86, 101 (1958) Page 2 (plurality opinion); see also Graham v. Florida, 560 U. S. ___, ___ (2010) (slip op., at 7); Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U. S. 407, 419 (2008); Roper v. Simmons, 543 U. S. 551, 560-561 (2005); Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U. S. ... Who says so, and how did this particular philosophy of history find its way into our fundamental law?
Supreme Court - trial or verdict - Supreme Court - trial or verdict
ARIZONA v. U.S., 11-182 (U.S. 6-25-2012)
No. 11-182
Argued April 25, 2012, Decided June 25, 2012 OCTOBER TERM, 2011
In any event, it is hard to see how state and local officers could proceed in conformity with the Federal Government's enforcement priorities without making an inquiry into a suspected alien's immigration status. For example, one of the Federal Government's highest priorities is the apprehension and removal of aliens who have failed to comply with a final order of removal. See App. 108. How can an officer identify those persons without first inquiring about their status? The United States' attack on § 2(B) is quite remarkable. The United States suggests that a state law may be preempted, not because it conflicts with a federal statute or regulation, but because it is inconsistent with a federal agency's current enforcement priorities. Those priorities, however, are not ...
Supreme Court - trial or verdict - Supreme Court - trial or verdict
SOUTHERN UNION COMPANY v. U.S., 11-94 (U.S. 6-21-2012)
No. 11-94
Argued March 19, 2012, Decided June 21, 2012 OCTOBER TERM, 2011
As I have said, the dissenters thought that the Sixth Amendment did not require a jury to find any of these sentencing facts. Why, asked the dissenters, should Congress' or a State's desire for greater sentencing uniformity achieved through statutes seeking more uniform treatment (of similar offenders committing similar offenses in similar ways) suddenly produce new Sixth Amendment jury trial requirements? Those requirements would work against greater sentencing fairness. To treat all sentencing facts (where so specified in a statute or rule) as if they were elements of the offense could lead Congress simply to set high maximum ranges for each crime, thereby avoiding Apprendi's jury trial requirement. Alternatively, Congress might enact statutes that more...
"judge" near "error" - "judge" near "error"
SNYDER v. NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, 11-1101 (2nd Cir. 6-21-2012)
No. 11-1101.
June 21, 2012.
This Court reviews a district court's denial of a Rule 59(a) motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion. See Munafo v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 381 F.3d 99, 105 (2d Cir. 2004). "A motion for a new trial ordinarily should not be granted unless the trial court is convinced that the jury has reached a seriously erroneous result or that the verdict is a miscarriage of justice." Lightfoot v. Union Carbide Corp., 110 F.3d 898, 911 (2d Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). Upon review, ... I. Jury Instructions On appeal, Appellants argue that the district court gave several erroneous jury instructions. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(d)(1), a party may assign error based on an erroneous jury instruction "if that party properly objected." If a party does not receive the...
"right to counsel" - "right to counsel"
SNYDER v. NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, 11-1101 (2nd Cir. 6-21-2012)
No. 11-1101.
June 21, 2012.
This Court reviews a district court's denial of a Rule 59(a) motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion. See Munafo v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 381 F.3d 99, 105 (2d Cir. 2004). "A motion for a new trial ordinarily should not be granted unless the trial court is convinced that the jury has reached a seriously erroneous result or that the verdict is a miscarriage of justice." Lightfoot v. Union Carbide Corp., 110 F.3d 898, 911 (2d Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). Upon review, ... I. Jury Instructions On appeal, Appellants argue that the district court gave several erroneous jury instructions. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(d)(1), a party may assign error based on an erroneous jury instruction "if that party properly objected." If a party does not receive the...
"judge" near "error" - "judge" near "error"
PEOPLE v. ELEBY, 1570-1985 (5-18-2012)
No. 1570-1985
May 18, 2012[fn1]
On January 9, 1986, a Kings County petit jury found the defendant guilty of five counts of Murder in the Second Degree, two counts of Attempted Murder in the Second Degree and assorted other charges. On January 30, 1986, the defendant was sentenced to three consecutive terms of twenty-five years to life, one for each of the felony murder convictions, and consecutive terms of imprisonment for his Attempted Murder in the Second Degree and Assault in the Second Degree convictions. The defendant's direct ... In support of his claim that trail attorney failed to provide effective assistance of counsel, based upon her failure to call two potential alibi witnesses at trial, defendant has provided what are purported to be affidavits from two individuals. Yvette Hayes's statement was signed and dated before a notary...
"professional misconduct" - "professional misconduct"
DAVIS v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, 513418 (3d Dept 6-21-2012)
513418
Calendar Date: April 23, 2012 Decided and Entered: June 21, 2012
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Petitioner filed a complaint with respondent New York State Department of Education alleging that a physical therapist from whom he had received treatment engaged in professional misconduct ? specifically, inappropriate touching. The matter was referred to respondent Office of Professional Discipline (hereinafter OPD) which, following an investigation, concluded that there was insufficient evidence to pursue petitioner's complaint. When OPD declined petitioner's subsequent request ... We affirm. Standing is a threshold legal requirement for a party seeking to challenge a governmental action, imposing upon the complaining party an obligation to demonstrate that he or she has suffered an injury in fact that is both...
Supreme Court - trial or verdict - Supreme Court - trial or verdict
MILLER v. ALABAMA, 10-9646 (U.S. 6-25-2012)
Nos. 10-9646, 10-9647
Argued March 20, 2012, Decided June 25, 2012[fn*] OCTOBER TERM, 2011
The Court long ago abandoned the original meaning of the Eighth Amendment, holding instead that the prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment" embodies the "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." Trop v. Dulles, 356 U. S. 86, 101 (1958) Page 2 (plurality opinion); see also Graham v. Florida, 560 U. S. ___, ___ (2010) (slip op., at 7); Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U. S. 407, 419 (2008); Roper v. Simmons, 543 U. S. 551, 560-561 (2005); Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U. S. ... Who says so, and how did this particular philosophy of history find its way into our fundamental law?
Supreme Court - trial or verdict - Supreme Court - trial or verdict
ARIZONA v. U.S., 11-182 (U.S. 6-25-2012)
No. 11-182
Argued April 25, 2012, Decided June 25, 2012 OCTOBER TERM, 2011
In any event, it is hard to see how state and local officers could proceed in conformity with the Federal Government's enforcement priorities without making an inquiry into a suspected alien's immigration status. For example, one of the Federal Government's highest priorities is the apprehension and removal of aliens who have failed to comply with a final order of removal. See App. 108. How can an officer identify those persons without first inquiring about their status? The United States' attack on § 2(B) is quite remarkable. The United States suggests that a state law may be preempted, not because it conflicts with a federal statute or regulation, but because it is inconsistent with a federal agency's current enforcement priorities. Those priorities, however, are not ...
Supreme Court - trial or verdict - Supreme Court - trial or verdict
SOUTHERN UNION COMPANY v. U.S., 11-94 (U.S. 6-21-2012)
No. 11-94
Argued March 19, 2012, Decided June 21, 2012 OCTOBER TERM, 2011
As I have said, the dissenters thought that the Sixth Amendment did not require a jury to find any of these sentencing facts. Why, asked the dissenters, should Congress' or a State's desire for greater sentencing uniformity achieved through statutes seeking more uniform treatment (of similar offenders committing similar offenses in similar ways) suddenly produce new Sixth Amendment jury trial requirements? Those requirements would work against greater sentencing fairness. To treat all sentencing facts (where so specified in a statute or rule) as if they were elements of the offense could lead Congress simply to set high maximum ranges for each crime, thereby avoiding Apprendi's jury trial requirement. Alternatively, Congress might enact statutes that more...
"judge" near "error" - "judge" near "error"
SNYDER v. NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, 11-1101 (2nd Cir. 6-21-2012)
No. 11-1101.
June 21, 2012.
This Court reviews a district court's denial of a Rule 59(a) motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion. See Munafo v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 381 F.3d 99, 105 (2d Cir. 2004). "A motion for a new trial ordinarily should not be granted unless the trial court is convinced that the jury has reached a seriously erroneous result or that the verdict is a miscarriage of justice." Lightfoot v. Union Carbide Corp., 110 F.3d 898, 911 (2d Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). Upon review, ... I. Jury Instructions On appeal, Appellants argue that the district court gave several erroneous jury instructions. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(d)(1), a party may assign error based on an erroneous jury instruction "if that party properly objected." If a party does not receive the...
"right to counsel" - "right to counsel"
SNYDER v. NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, 11-1101 (2nd Cir. 6-21-2012)
No. 11-1101.
June 21, 2012.
This Court reviews a district court's denial of a Rule 59(a) motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion. See Munafo v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 381 F.3d 99, 105 (2d Cir. 2004). "A motion for a new trial ordinarily should not be granted unless the trial court is convinced that the jury has reached a seriously erroneous result or that the verdict is a miscarriage of justice." Lightfoot v. Union Carbide Corp., 110 F.3d 898, 911 (2d Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). Upon review, ... I. Jury Instructions On appeal, Appellants argue that the district court gave several erroneous jury instructions. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(d)(1), a party may assign error based on an erroneous jury instruction "if that party properly objected." If a party does not receive the...
"judge" near "error" - "judge" near "error"
PEOPLE v. ELEBY, 1570-1985 (5-18-2012)
No. 1570-1985
May 18, 2012[fn1]
On January 9, 1986, a Kings County petit jury found the defendant guilty of five counts of Murder in the Second Degree, two counts of Attempted Murder in the Second Degree and assorted other charges. On January 30, 1986, the defendant was sentenced to three consecutive terms of twenty-five years to life, one for each of the felony murder convictions, and consecutive terms of imprisonment for his Attempted Murder in the Second Degree and Assault in the Second Degree convictions. The defendant's direct ... In support of his claim that trail attorney failed to provide effective assistance of counsel, based upon her failure to call two potential alibi witnesses at trial, defendant has provided what are purported to be affidavits from two individuals. Yvette Hayes's statement was signed and dated before a notary...
"professional misconduct" - "professional misconduct"
DAVIS v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, 513418 (3d Dept 6-21-2012)
513418
Calendar Date: April 23, 2012 Decided and Entered: June 21, 2012
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Petitioner filed a complaint with respondent New York State Department of Education alleging that a physical therapist from whom he had received treatment engaged in professional misconduct ? specifically, inappropriate touching. The matter was referred to respondent Office of Professional Discipline (hereinafter OPD) which, following an investigation, concluded that there was insufficient evidence to pursue petitioner's complaint. When OPD declined petitioner's subsequent request ... We affirm. Standing is a threshold legal requirement for a party seeking to challenge a governmental action, imposing upon the complaining party an obligation to demonstrate that he or she has suffered an injury in fact that is both...
Supreme Court - trial or verdict - Supreme Court - trial or verdict
MILLER v. ALABAMA, 10-9646 (U.S. 6-25-2012)
Nos. 10-9646, 10-9647
Argued March 20, 2012, Decided June 25, 2012[fn*] OCTOBER TERM, 2011
The Court long ago abandoned the original meaning of the Eighth Amendment, holding instead that the prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment" embodies the "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." Trop v. Dulles, 356 U. S. 86, 101 (1958) Page 2 (plurality opinion); see also Graham v. Florida, 560 U. S. ___, ___ (2010) (slip op., at 7); Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U. S. 407, 419 (2008); Roper v. Simmons, 543 U. S. 551, 560-561 (2005); Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U. S. ... Who says so, and how did this particular philosophy of history find its way into our fundamental law?
Supreme Court - trial or verdict - Supreme Court - trial or verdict
ARIZONA v. U.S., 11-182 (U.S. 6-25-2012)
No. 11-182
Argued April 25, 2012, Decided June 25, 2012 OCTOBER TERM, 2011
In any event, it is hard to see how state and local officers could proceed in conformity with the Federal Government's enforcement priorities without making an inquiry into a suspected alien's immigration status. For example, one of the Federal Government's highest priorities is the apprehension and removal of aliens who have failed to comply with a final order of removal. See App. 108. How can an officer identify those persons without first inquiring about their status? The United States' attack on § 2(B) is quite remarkable. The United States suggests that a state law may be preempted, not because it conflicts with a federal statute or regulation, but because it is inconsistent with a federal agency's current enforcement priorities. Those priorities, however, are not ...
Supreme Court - trial or verdict - Supreme Court - trial or verdict
SOUTHERN UNION COMPANY v. U.S., 11-94 (U.S. 6-21-2012)
No. 11-94
Argued March 19, 2012, Decided June 21, 2012 OCTOBER TERM, 2011
As I have said, the dissenters thought that the Sixth Amendment did not require a jury to find any of these sentencing facts. Why, asked the dissenters, should Congress' or a State's desire for greater sentencing uniformity achieved through statutes seeking more uniform treatment (of similar offenders committing similar offenses in similar ways) suddenly produce new Sixth Amendment jury trial requirements? Those requirements would work against greater sentencing fairness. To treat all sentencing facts (where so specified in a statute or rule) as if they were elements of the offense could lead Congress simply to set high maximum ranges for each crime, thereby avoiding Apprendi's jury trial requirement. Alternatively, Congress might enact statutes that more...
"judge" near "error" - "judge" near "error"
SNYDER v. NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, 11-1101 (2nd Cir. 6-21-2012)
No. 11-1101.
June 21, 2012.
This Court reviews a district court's denial of a Rule 59(a) motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion. See Munafo v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 381 F.3d 99, 105 (2d Cir. 2004). "A motion for a new trial ordinarily should not be granted unless the trial court is convinced that the jury has reached a seriously erroneous result or that the verdict is a miscarriage of justice." Lightfoot v. Union Carbide Corp., 110 F.3d 898, 911 (2d Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). Upon review, ... I. Jury Instructions On appeal, Appellants argue that the district court gave several erroneous jury instructions. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(d)(1), a party may assign error based on an erroneous jury instruction "if that party properly objected." If a party does not receive the...
"right to counsel" - "right to counsel"
SNYDER v. NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, 11-1101 (2nd Cir. 6-21-2012)
No. 11-1101.
June 21, 2012.
This Court reviews a district court's denial of a Rule 59(a) motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion. See Munafo v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 381 F.3d 99, 105 (2d Cir. 2004). "A motion for a new trial ordinarily should not be granted unless the trial court is convinced that the jury has reached a seriously erroneous result or that the verdict is a miscarriage of justice." Lightfoot v. Union Carbide Corp., 110 F.3d 898, 911 (2d Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). Upon review, ... I. Jury Instructions On appeal, Appellants argue that the district court gave several erroneous jury instructions. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(d)(1), a party may assign error based on an erroneous jury instruction "if that party properly objected." If a party does not receive the...
"judge" near "error" - "judge" near "error"
PEOPLE v. ELEBY, 1570-1985 (5-18-2012)
No. 1570-1985
May 18, 2012[fn1]
On January 9, 1986, a Kings County petit jury found the defendant guilty of five counts of Murder in the Second Degree, two counts of Attempted Murder in the Second Degree and assorted other charges. On January 30, 1986, the defendant was sentenced to three consecutive terms of twenty-five years to life, one for each of the felony murder convictions, and consecutive terms of imprisonment for his Attempted Murder in the Second Degree and Assault in the Second Degree convictions. The defendant's direct ... In support of his claim that trail attorney failed to provide effective assistance of counsel, based upon her failure to call two potential alibi witnesses at trial, defendant has provided what are purported to be affidavits from two individuals. Yvette Hayes's statement was signed and dated before a notary...
"professional misconduct" - "professional misconduct"
DAVIS v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, 513418 (3d Dept 6-21-2012)
513418
Calendar Date: April 23, 2012 Decided and Entered: June 21, 2012
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Petitioner filed a complaint with respondent New York State Department of Education alleging that a physical therapist from whom he had received treatment engaged in professional misconduct ? specifically, inappropriate touching. The matter was referred to respondent Office of Professional Discipline (hereinafter OPD) which, following an investigation, concluded that there was insufficient evidence to pursue petitioner's complaint. When OPD declined petitioner's subsequent request ... We affirm. Standing is a threshold legal requirement for a party seeking to challenge a governmental action, imposing upon the complaining party an obligation to demonstrate that he or she has suffered an injury in fact that is both...
Supreme Court - trial or verdict - Supreme Court - trial or verdict
MILLER v. ALABAMA, 10-9646 (U.S. 6-25-2012)
Nos. 10-9646, 10-9647
Argued March 20, 2012, Decided June 25, 2012[fn*] OCTOBER TERM, 2011
The Court long ago abandoned the original meaning of the Eighth Amendment, holding instead that the prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment" embodies the "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." Trop v. Dulles, 356 U. S. 86, 101 (1958) Page 2 (plurality opinion); see also Graham v. Florida, 560 U. S. ___, ___ (2010) (slip op., at 7); Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U. S. 407, 419 (2008); Roper v. Simmons, 543 U. S. 551, 560-561 (2005); Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U. S. ... Who says so, and how did this particular philosophy of history find its way into our fundamental law?
Supreme Court - trial or verdict - Supreme Court - trial or verdict
ARIZONA v. U.S., 11-182 (U.S. 6-25-2012)
No. 11-182
Argued April 25, 2012, Decided June 25, 2012 OCTOBER TERM, 2011
In any event, it is hard to see how state and local officers could proceed in conformity with the Federal Government's enforcement priorities without making an inquiry into a suspected alien's immigration status. For example, one of the Federal Government's highest priorities is the apprehension and removal of aliens who have failed to comply with a final order of removal. See App. 108. How can an officer identify those persons without first inquiring about their status? The United States' attack on § 2(B) is quite remarkable. The United States suggests that a state law may be preempted, not because it conflicts with a federal statute or regulation, but because it is inconsistent with a federal agency's current enforcement priorities. Those priorities, however, are not ...
Supreme Court - trial or verdict - Supreme Court - trial or verdict
SOUTHERN UNION COMPANY v. U.S., 11-94 (U.S. 6-21-2012)
No. 11-94
Argued March 19, 2012, Decided June 21, 2012 OCTOBER TERM, 2011
As I have said, the dissenters thought that the Sixth Amendment did not require a jury to find any of these sentencing facts. Why, asked the dissenters, should Congress' or a State's desire for greater sentencing uniformity achieved through statutes seeking more uniform treatment (of similar offenders committing similar offenses in similar ways) suddenly produce new Sixth Amendment jury trial requirements? Those requirements would work against greater sentencing fairness. To treat all sentencing facts (where so specified in a statute or rule) as if they were elements of the offense could lead Congress simply to set high maximum ranges for each crime, thereby avoiding Apprendi's jury trial requirement. Alternatively, Congress might enact statutes that more...
|
Judicial Home
