(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for coercion in the first-degree relating to defendant's harassment of his ex-girlfriend, both while still living at her apartment and from jail, is affirmed where: 1) defendant failed to preserve his argument that the court committed Apprendi error; and 2) defendant's sought jury instruction for second-degree coercion as a lesser-included offense was not warranted.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - In a civil action, arising from an auto accident allegedly caused by defendant school district's sign distracting and obstructing passing drivers on a roadway, the trial court's conclusion that plaintiff should not be permitted to serve late notice of a claim is reversed where the trial court abused its discretion in determining that defendant would be substantially prejudiced without any record evidence to support that determination.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - In an injury and tort action, brought against defendant city after twelve-year old plaintiff was seriously injured in a collision involving a speeding driver on a Brooklyn roadway, the trial court's entry of judgment for plaintiff is affirmed. The Court held that: 1) plaintiff did not have to prove the existence of a special duty because the city's acts or omissions regarding the road were made in a proprietary capacity; 2) the evidence was legally sufficient to uphold the jury's finding that the city's negligence was a proximate cause of the accident; and 3) the doctrine of qualified immunity did not apply.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for manslaughter is reversed where the trial court abused its discretion by prohibiting defense counsel from questioning prospective jurors about their views on involuntary confessions.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - In a negligence action, the Appellate Division's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment is reversed where there is a material question as to whether the escape of defendant's calf onto the road was a proximate cause of decedent's death in car accident while she was trying to assist.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for criminal possession of a weapon is affirmed where: 1) defendant failed to preserve his argument that the trial court erred by re-imposing the original sentence after reversal on appeal; and 2) defense counsel's failure to challenge the resentencing was not ineffective assistance of counsel.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for first-degree robbery is reversed and a new trial ordered where: 1) skin color is a cognizable classification upon which a challenge to a prosecutor's peremptory strikes can be made under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986); and 2) defendant made a prima facie showing of discrimination and the prosecutor failed to give a non-discriminatory reason for the juror exclusion at issue.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. Convictions for using or carrying a firearm to commit a federal crime of violence were remanded for resentencing after previous 7th Circuit opinions and the Supreme Court's decision in US v. Davis found the term "crime of violence" to be unconstitutionally vague.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Reversed. Defendant prison guards were entitled to qualified immunity in a case claiming cruel and unusual punishment where a PTSD-suffering prisoner asked guards not to stand behind him but they continued to do so. It did not violate clearly established constitutional law for non-medical staff to refuse to provide what amounts to medical accommodation that hadn't been ordered by the medical staff.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. The majority of a merits panel affirmed a district court judgment declaring a Mississippi redistricting plan as violative of the Voting Rights Act.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. Police officers who could not recall making a Terry stop of three black men in a grey sedan following a nearby shooting were entitled to qualified immunity because the description of the shooter was close enough to justify the stop.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court did not violate the confrontation clause when it prevented defendants in an armed robbery prosecution from cross examining government witnesses about the specific prison terms they avoided through their cooperation with the government.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. The denial of money damages to a member of the Texas Mexican Mafia in a case alleging constitutional and civil rights violations arising from a drug bust was affirmed.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. A lawsuit in which Texas complained that EEOC regulations relating to the use of criminal records in hiring was an unlawfully promulgated substantive rule properly dismissed the suit but enjoined EEOC enforcement until the agency complies with notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A tenured teacher who waged an extended campaign against students who did not give him an award and sued the school when the Board of Trustees took action against him lost his appeal of the grant of summary judgment to the school. The First Amendment didn't protect his firing for intentionally causing harm to students and failing to follow the dean's instructions.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. The bankruptcy court's rejection of a Texas Port Authority's claims of sovereign immunity and fraud in their gambit to invalidate a bankruptcy sale that extinguished an easement they held was affirmed because there was no Eleventh Amendment violation or basis to claim fraud.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court's grant of summary judgment to a County Veterans Assistance Commission was affirmed in a case where their superintendent was banned from the administration building after learning that he'd had a PTSD incident in which he threatened a police officer and kicked out the windows of a squad car.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. The court's imposition of conditions on supervised release could not be appealed as violations of due process rights by the convicted because they failed to object to them in district court and therefore waived the issue.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Reversed and remanded. A prisoner suing under the 8th Amendment for the prison's failure to treat his nasal polyps claimed he didn't receive notice of a deposition until after he was called out of his cell to meet with one of the defendants in the suit. He refused to answer questions and said he was feeling ill. The lower court dismissed with prejudice as sanctions, but the court of appeals determined that although this is sometimes a proper sanction the lower court had acted too quickly.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Reversed and remanded for dismissal. State child protective services agency employees were entitled to qualified immunity in a suit alleging constitutional violation in the removal of three children from their mother's custody under a temporary removal order.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed in part, reversed in part. In a case involving people attempting to adopt Indian children and challenges to the Indian Child Welfare Act, the plaintiffs had standing but were not entitled to summary judgment. Judgment was rendered to the defendant US government, its agencies, and Indian tribes.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed in part. The panel affirms that an administratively imposed term of post-release supervision deprived plaintiff of her due process rights, and defendants do not have qualified immunity.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. Those convicted for activities in connection with a New Orleans gang had their convictions vacated because Supreme Court precedent showed the residual clause of their convicting statute was unconstitutionally vague.

(Supreme Court of California) - At issue is whether police officers could enter a private residence without a warrant under a community care taking exception, as articulated in People v Ray (1999) 21 Cal.4th 464. The Court concluded any entry that falls short of a perceived emergency or other exigent circumstances does not satisfy the Fourth Amendment and that People v. Ray is disapproved.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed. The appeals court found that the trial court erred in partially granting a motion to suppress evidence obtained by a warrantless search.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A correctional facility was not entitled to qualified immunity in a putative class action suit by pretrial detainees that were denied running water and claimed Fourteenth Amendment violations.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Dismissed. An appeal of police officers on the issue of qualified immunity relating to an arrest of parents following their child's death was dismissed because the Fifth Amendment coerced confession claim was inseparable from questions of fact identified by the district court.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Partially affirmed, remanded. A Texas ban on public corporations obtaining package store permits did not violate Equal Protection rights, but the district court erred in finding a discriminatory nature and burden imposed by the public corporation ban.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. In the case of a man who alleged a constitutional violation related to his injuries while in custody, the dismissal of all federal claims for failure to state a claim affirmed, as was the decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a Texas law claim.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A confession taken after prolonged solitary confinement did not violate Fifth Amendment rights.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed. Defendant appealed from multiple convictions for robbery. He challenged the trial court’s admission of police interrogation statements, text exchange with his mother, and books and documents found in his car. The appeals court found that the police interrogation was properly admitted, but the text messages and the books and documents were not. This error by the trial court was prejudicial and therefore required reversal and remand.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Reversed. Prison officials sued for Eighth Amendment violations over their refusal to provide gender reassignment surgery to a prisoner were entitled to qualified immunity because caselaw did not clearly put them on notice their action was unconstitutional.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A local ordinance requiring residential property owners to get a license or hired a licensed contractor to make repairs didn't violate the commerce clause. It didn't distinguish between in and out of state owners and imposed no burden on interstate commerce.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. An unconstitutional conviction did not occur when an attorney confirmed he no longer disputed restitution while in chambers but repeated this withdrawal in open court.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Partially affirmed, partially reversed. The court determined that a jury, not judges, will resolve competing factual narratives relating to an excessive force claim that will determine whether qualified immunity applies.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. Defendant, a prior felon, was pulled over for a traffic stop. A drug-sniffing dog alerted on Defendants car. A search of the vehicle did not find drugs but did find a gun. Defendant was charged with felon-in-possession. Defendant was sentenced to 15 years. Defendant appealed on grounds that search was improper and error by trial court. Appellate court found no reversible error.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Plaintiff, an abortion care provider, sought a license from the State of Indiana to operate a clinic. Plaintiff made two unsuccessful license applications over a two-year period before resorting to the federal courts. The district court granted Plaintiff preliminary relief based on the likelihood that it would be successful at trial. Indiana appealed seeking a stay on the relief. Appellate ordered that Indiana should treat Plaintiff as though it were provisionally licensed while the litigation proceeds.

(United States DC Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. A pork farmer's suit alleging that the government unlawfully permitted funds for promoting the pork industry to be used for lobbying instead lacked constitutional standing. There was no evidence of misuse of funds that resulted in an injury in fact.

(Supreme Court of California) - Affirmed. Defendant was charged with completed kidnapping but was convicted of attempted kidnapping. Defendant argued that a conviction for a crime he was not charged with violates the Sixth Amendment. The court held that a criminal defendant can be convicted of an attempted crime despite being charged with a completed crime because being charged with a completed crime is sufficient notice that he could be charged with an attempted crime.

(Supreme Court of California) - A prosecutor in a criminal case has a duty to disclose to the defense information that they personally know and information that they can learn about that is favorable to the accused. This obligation to disclose even includes restricted information about law enforcement officers. A law enforcement agency may disclose to the prosecution identifying information about an office and relevant exonerating or impeaching material in a confidential personnel file.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. Injunctions against the state preventing it from implementing a plan to purge voter rolls based on third party information rather than directly contacting voters was affirmed because plaintiff organizations established standing and the decision was not an abuse of discretion.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A preliminary injunction against enforcement of state laws requiring parental notification in the case of pregnant unemancipated minors seeking abortions was upheld.

(California Court of Appeal) - Vacated in part. Defendant was convicted of multiple lewd acts upon a child. Defendant argued that the evidence did not support part of the conviction and his sentence is unconstitutional. The appeals court agreed that the evidence supported only two lewd acts on each victim and that his sentence was unconstitutionally excessive.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court properly dismissed a suit brought by a man whose state court award in a Takings Clause suit against state officials was unsatisfying to him. The State was entitled to sovereign immunity.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A state court gun possession finding was conclusive as to that factual point in a subsequent federal suit seeking damages for constitutional violations.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. A conservation and reclamation district regulating groundwater was not subject to the one person, one vote principle of the Equal Protection Clause because they are a special purpose unit of the government. Its apportionment scheme had a rational basis.

(California Court of Appeal) - Denied writ of habeas corpus. Defendant was convicted of lewd acts against two minors under the age of 14. Penal Code 667.61 provides that if there are multiple victims under 14 the sentence is 25 to life. The question in the writ was whether Defendant was given notice of the possibility of a 25 year to life sentence. The appeals court found no due process violation.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed in part. Reversed in part. Plaintiffs sued a number of defendants that included both local and state entities for causes of action alleging racial discrimination in disciplinary actions at a local high school. The appeals court affirmed the dismissal of most of Plaintiffs claims against state-level defendant because such claims cannot be brought against them. The appeals court did find that Plaintiffs have a cause of action under the equal protection clause of the California Constitution and they had standing to pursue the claims.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. The grant of a defense motion for summary judgement in an Eighth Amendment claim brought by a prisoner against prison nurses he says were deliberately indifferent to his needs as a sickle cell disease sufferer was proper because he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies against one nurse and the record wouldn't support a jury finding on his claim against the other.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Partially affirmed, partially reversed. The removal of children from a home under investigation for abuse did not result in substantive due process violation, but did result in procedural due process rights violation.