Case Summaries
Criminal Law & Procedure
[11/21] US v. Goss
Sentence for mortgage-lending fraud is vacated and remanded where, when computing the sentencing guidelines range, the fair market value of the collateral for each of the home-mortgage loans involved in the scheme should have been credited against loss to the victim.
[11/21] Hines v. Anderson
In a suit over prison medical care, an order terminating a consent decree regulating medical care for inmates at a federal prison is affirmed where: 1) the decree did not constitute a final judgment, and plaintiffs-inmates had no property right therein that would entitle them under the due process clause to further discovery and a pretermination evidentiary hearing; 2) the Prison Litigation Reform Act did not require a pretermination investigation and evidentiary hearing; 3) there was no evidence of ongoing Eighth Amendment violations at the prison; and 4) the consent decree was not narrowly tailored or the lease intrusive means to protect the inmates' Eighth Amendment rights.
[11/21] McGhee v. Pottawattamie County, Iowa
In suits by two men convicted for murder and released over twenty years later, alleging constitutional violations by the original prosecutors and defamation by the current prosecutor, orders of the district court are affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) defendant-current prosecutor was entitled to sovereign immunity on the defamation claim; and 2) with respect to defendants-original prosecutors, the district court erred in failing to conduct an analysis of the scope of their employment for sovereign immunity purposes distinct from the court's analysis of whether they were entitled to absolute immunity.
[11/21] Jimenez-Gonzalez v. Mukasey
Petition for review of an order of removal based on petitioner's conviction on a state charge of criminal recklessness is granted where criminal recklessness is not a crime of violence for immigration purposes.
[11/21] Dale v. Poston
In a federal prisoner's suit alleging Eighth Amendment violations by prison employees who allegedly failed to protect him from an attack by another inmate, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where there was no evidence that any of the defendants were aware of facts from which they could draw an inference of substantial harm.
More...
|
