Case Summaries

Judges & Judiciary

[09/02] US v. Beale
Defendants' convictions for conspiracy to prevent by intimidation a judicial officer from discharging her official duties, and obstruction of justice, are affirmed where: 1) the evidence was sufficient to convict defendants of conspiracy to prevent by force, intimidation or threat, an officer of the U.S. from discharging her duties; 2) the First Amendment did not bar defendants' convictions because the conduct underlying the convictions was an unprotected true threat; and 3) the jury was advised more than once about the protections afforded by the First Amendment.

[08/20] Bauer v. Shepard
In plaintiffs' challenge to certain provisions of the Indiana Code of Judicial Conduct, claiming that they refrain from speaking about controversial issues such as abortion or from filling out questionnaires about abortion sent by the Indiana Right to Life, Inc., because they fear the prospect of sanctions under the Code, district court's holding that all of the contested provisions are constitutional is affirmed where: 1) district court's judgment that a plaintiff's challenge to the pre-2009 Code became moot is modified as it is unripe; 2) the fundraising provisions are constitutional; 3) the partisan-activities provisions are constitutional; 4) the "commits clauses" provisions are not overbroad; and 5) the recusal clause does not present a constitutional issue at all.

[08/05] In Re: U.S.
In proceedings involving a grant of the government's renewed petition for a writ of mandamus, directing the district court to admit into evidence in a drug related prosecution, evidence involving the recovery of latent fingerprints, defendant's petition for rehearing is denied as, based on the judge's demonstration of excess of emotion in excluding the evidence, the exacting standard for the grant of a writ of mandamus has been satisfied in this case.

[08/05] Great W. Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP
In plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit against a law firm and an alternative dispute resolution entity, claiming that its state-court losses were the result of a corrupt conspiracy between defendants and members of the Pennsylvania state judiciary to exchange favorable rulings for future employment as arbitrators with the arbitration firm, the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim and denial of its motion for reconsideration and motions for leave to amend its complaint are affirmed where: 1) defendants' argument that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes the exercise of subject matter jurisdiction over this case is rejected as plaintiff is not complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments, but rather, plaintiff asserts an independent constitutional claim that the alleged conspiracy violated its right to be heard in an impartial forum; and 2) granting plaintiff leave to amend would have proved futile as even the final version of its complaint failed to plead facts plausibly suggesting a conspiratorial agreement.

[08/03] In re: Squire
In proceedings arising from the suspension of a former judge on the county's Domestic Relations and Juvenile Court from practicing law in state of Ohio for two years, district court's imposition of a reciprocal disbarment of petitioner from practicing in federal court is affirmed where: 1) the failure to disclose the names of those persons to whom the Ohio disciplinary counsel may have spoken during the course of his investigation, but who were not part of the administrative record resulting in petitioner's disbarment did not testify against her, was not a due process violation requiring reversal; 2) the record supports the district court's decision to impose reciprocal discipline on petitioner; and 3) petitioner's remaining claims are rejected as meritless.

[08/03] Khan v. Los Angeles City Employees' Ret. Sys.
Trial court's judgment in favor of plaintiff granting his petition for writ of mandate compelling the Los Angeles City Employees Retirement System (LACERS) to approve his request for concurrent deferred retirement benefits with LACERS and the Judicial Retirement System (JRS), is reversed and remanded where: 1) there is no reciprocity between LACERS and JRS/JRS II, such that plaintiff, a judge of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County who had worked for the City of Los Angeles as a City Attorney, may retire from LACERS at his higher judicial salary; and 2) provisions relating to the County Employees' Retirement Law of 1937 (CERL) do not control the court's analysis.

[08/02] Haworth v. Superior Court
In a female patient's suit against her physician for negligence in performing plastic surgery on her lip, court of appeal's affirmance of the superior court's order vacating an arbitration award in favor of the physician on the ground that the neutral arbitrator had failed to disclose a matter "that could cause a person aware of the facts to reasonably to entertain a doubt that the...neutral arbitrator would be able to be impartial," is reversed as the neutral arbitrator, a former judge of the superior court, was not required to disclose to the parties the circumstances that 10 years earlier, he received a public censure based upon his conduct toward and statements to court employees, which together created "an overall courtroom environment where discussion of sex and improper ethnic and racial comments were customary."

[07/13] Carey v. Wolnitzek
In plaintiff's suit challenging certain clauses in the Kentucky Supreme Court's judicial canon related to judicial elections, claiming that the party affiliation, solicitation and commits clauses violated his speech and associational rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, judgment of the district court is affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded where: 1) strict scrutiny applies to all three aspects of the First Amendment challenge in this case; 2) district court correctly concluded that the party affiliation clause violates the First Amendment on its face; 3) district court correctly concluded that the solicitation clause is overbroad and thus invalid on its face; and 4) district court's ruling on the commitment clause is vacated and remanded as it is not clear what the Commonwealth's position on the term "issues" is, and the district court has not yet explored these issues.

Back to Main