Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

While dating April, Johnson made threats concerning April’s relationship with her former husband Edward. The night before April’s death, Johnson was upset that Edward had repaired April’s van. April’s neighbors reported hearing loud arguing in the early morning hours of December 11, 2011. On December 12, April did not report to work. Officers found April’s body. A pathologist opined that her death was a homicide caused by a stab wound to her abdomen and suffocation, On December 15, Johnson was arrested in Michigan driving April’s van, which contained Johnson’s blood-stained T-shirt and shoes. The DNA matched April’s profile. Johnson was convicted of first-degree murder, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person. On appeal, Johnson unsuccessfully claimed that the court erred by admitting cumulative, gruesome autopsy photographs; brought a Batson challenge; and challenged testimony and exhibits about Johnson’s DNA profile. Johnson’s motion for post-conviction relief alleged ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to move for discharge on the basis of speedy trial, failing to object to the prosecutor’s voir dire comments, failing to properly examine various witnesses, failing to argue after moving for a directed verdict, failing to object to the state’s closing argument, failing to sever one count, and failing to allow Johnson to testify. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the motion without holding an evidentiary hearing. Johnson failed to allege sufficient facts to demonstrate violation of his constitutional rights. View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant’s petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order compelling the trial court to issue a final, appealable order for his 1986 convictions and sentence. In his petition, Appellant argued that the 1986 judgment entry was unsigned and therefore void. The court of appeals concluded that the trial court’s 1986 judgment was a final judgment and dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, even accepting as true Appellant’s assertion that the entry was unsigned, res judicata barred Appellant from raising his claim that the entry did not comply with Ohio R. Crim. P. 32. View "State ex rel. Woods v. Dinkelacker" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the judgments of the court of appeals and the trial court in this interlocutory appeal arising from Respondent’s lawsuit contesting the validity of a sex offender residency restrictions ordinance enacted by the City of Krum. Respondent sued the City, challenging the City’s authority to pass the ordinance. The City filed a plea to the jurisdiction, arguing that Respondent lacked standing to sue. The trial court denied the plea, and Respondent filed an interlocutory appeal. The court of appeals affirmed the order denying the City’s plea to the jurisdiction. The City filed a petition for review. While the petition was pending, the Texas Legislature passed House Bill 1111, codified at Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code 341.906, and the City amended its ordinance. The Supreme Court held that Respondent’s challenge to the ordinance was moot in light of these changes in the law. Therefore, the courts lacked jurisdiction over Respondent’s claims. The court vacated the judgments of the court of appeals and the trial court and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. View "City of Krum, Texas v. Rice" on Justia Law

The proceedings involving the forfeiture of two handguns pursuant to Tex. Code Crim. Proc. 18.19 are civil in nature such that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction, but, in this case, conviction for possession of a weapon did not authorize a forfeiture under article 18.19(e), which allows forfeiture based on conviction of an offense involving use of the weapon.Defendant was arrested and convicted for the unlawful carrying of two handguns. Thereafter, the State moved under section 18.19(e) for forfeiture of the guns. The trial court granted the motions. The court of appeals determined that the forfeiture proceedings were civil in nature, severed the appeals of the forfeiture orders from the appeals of the convictions, and affirmed the forfeiture orders on the basis that “use” of a weapon under article 18.19(e) includes simply possessing the weapon. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) jurisdiction was proper in the Supreme Court; but (2) the trial court’s forfeiture orders made pursuant to article 18.19(e) were not valid when they were based on Defendant’s conviction under Tex. Penal Code 46. View "Tafel v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant Robert Parsons was charged with first degree murder, but was subsequently adjudged not guilty by reason of insanity. At a hearing following Appellant's acquittal, the trial court determined he was a continuing threat of danger to the public, and ordered him committed to the Oklahoma Forensic Center. After making progress in his treatment, the Oklahoma Forensic Review Board recommended Appellant begin a group therapy program one day per week at a facility outside of OFC. The District Attorney protested the FRB's treatment proposal, and the trial judge sustained the State's objection. Appellant sought review of the trial court's ruling; however, the OCCA transferred the matter to the Oklahoma Supreme Court. At issue was whether the case presented criminal or civil law issues. The Oklahoma Supreme Court found the issues pertaining to Appellant's therapeutic visits, under 22 O.S.2011 sec. 1161(F), were civil in nature and were properly within its jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court concluded the trial court's order sustaining the State's objection to therapeutic visits was erroneous. View "Parsons v. Dist. Court of Pushmataha Cty." on Justia Law

Respondent Patrick Roland appealed a New Hampshire Department of Safety (Department) decision requiring the installation of an ignition interlock device in his vehicle as a condition of restoration of his driver’s license. He pled guilty to misdemeanor DWI, after which his license was revoked for two years, retroactive to April 2016. In July 2016, the Department issued a notice of hearing to review respondent’s driving record. Review of respondent’s driving history had revealed that he had multiple DWI convictions. Roland argued on appeal: (1) the findings of fact in the hearing examiner’s initial report were insufficient to support the hearing examiner’s determination that “the safety of [Roland] and of other users of the highway would be enhanced” by the installation of a device; and (2) the issue of whether to require the installation of an interlock device was not “ripe” for consideration, and therefore his request for a new hearing should not have been denied. To the latter point, respondent contended a hearing “should properly be performed closer in time to when [he] will actually be eligible for restoration of his driver’s license,” and that a later hearing would provide him with an “opportunity to submit evidence that could assist in demonstrating, and even establishing, that he will not pose a danger to himself or others.” Finding the evidence presented was sufficient to support the Department’s decision to require the device, the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed. The Court did not reach respondent’s second issue. View "Appeal of Patrick Roland" on Justia Law

The general rule of privilege between psychologist and patient set forth in Nev. Rev. Stat. 49.209 applies when a criminal defendant seeks records related to a patient who is court-ordered to partake in therapy.J.A., a minor, was placed on probation for soliciting prostitution. As a condition of probation, J.A. was required to complete counseling with Dr. Shera Bradley. Based on J.A.’s statements to the police, Dontae Hudson was charged with first-degree kidnapping, sex trafficking of a child under the age of sixteen, and related crimes. Hudson filed a motion for discovery, including requests for J.A.’s counseling records. The district court ordered that Dr. Bradley disclose J.A.’s counseling records for in camera review. Dr. Bradley filed this petition for relief in the form of a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenging the discovery order. The Supreme Court granted the petition and directed the clerk of court to issue a writ of prohibition ordering the district court to halt the production of the documents, holding that the psychologist-patient privilege applies to J.A. and Dr. Bradley’s confidential communications, and Hudson failed to show that an exception to the privilege applied or that the privilege was waived. View "Bradley v. Eighth Judicial District Court" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court convicting Defendant of first-degree murder. The court held (1) even though Defendant’s trial commenced after the 180 days required by the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (IAD), Defendant’s federal sentence’s expiration nullified any rights he had under the IAD, and the delay in bringing the case to trial was a result of Defendant’s own pretrial motions; (2) the trial justice did not err in denying Defendant’s motions to suppress the seizure of his cell phone and the records of that cell phone, as well as other evidence retrieved from his apartment; (3) Defendant’s argument that the trial justice erred in allowing the admission of statements he made while he was in the hospital was waived; and (4) the sentence imposed on Defendant was not unduly harsh or unwarranted. View "State v. Tejeda" on Justia Law

Fadden earned over $100,000 per year but did not submit tax returns. After an audit, the IRS garnished his wages. Fadden filed for bankruptcy, triggering an automatic stay. Fadden claimed that he had no interest in any real property nor in any decedent’s life insurance policy or estate. Fadden actually knew that he would receive proceeds from the sale of his mother’s home (listed by the executor of her estate for $525,000) and would receive thousands of dollars as a beneficiary on his mother’s life insurance policies. A week later, Fadden mentioned his inheritance to a paralegal in the trustee’s office and asked to postpone his bankruptcy. When Fadden finally met with his bankruptcy trustee and an attorney, he confirmed that his schedules were accurate and denied receiving an inheritance. The Seventh Circuit affirmed his convictions under 18 U.S.C. 152(1) for concealing assets in bankruptcy; 18 U.S.C. 152(3) for making false declarations on his bankruptcy documents; and 18 U.S.C. 1001(a)(2) for making false statements during the investigation of his bankruptcy. Counts 1 and 2 required proof of intent to deceive. Fadden proposed a theory-of-defense instruction based on his assertion that his conduct was “sloppiness.” The Seventh Circuit upheld the use of pattern instructions, including that “knowingly means that the defendant realized what he was doing and was aware of the nature of his conduct and did not act through ignorance, mistake or accident.” View "United States v. Fadden" on Justia Law

Defendant James Woods, a detective in the Cottonwood Heights Police Department, was informed by Utah’s Unified Fire Authority (“UFA”) that medications, including opioids and sedatives, were missing from several UFA ambulances. Detective Woods accessed a state database and searched the prescription drug records of 480 UFA employees in an effort to “develop suspect leads of those who have the appearance of Opioid dependencies.” Consistent with Utah law at the time, Woods did not obtain a search warrant before accessing the Database. Based on the information Woods obtained from the Database search, he developed suspicions about Plaintiffs Ryan Pyle and Marlon Jones. Neither Plaintiff, however, was ever prosecuted for the thefts from the ambulances. Plaintiffs brought separate lawsuits pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, each challenging Defendants’ conduct as violative of the Fourth Amendment and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). In both suits, the district court dismissed the claims against Defendant Woods, concluding Woods was entitled to qualified immunity because the law governing warrantless access to prescription drug information by law enforcement was not clearly established. The district court also dismissed the FCRA claims because Defendants’ actions fit within an exemption set out in the Act. In Jones’s suit, the district court dismissed the constitutional claims against the city of Cottonwood Heights with prejudice because Jones’s complaint failed to state a claim for municipal liability plausible on its face. In Pyle’s suit, the district court dismissed the constitutional claims against Cottonwood Heights without prejudice, concluding Pyle failed to notify the Utah Attorney General of those claims as required by Rule 5.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Pyle and Jones each appealed. Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291, and finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s judgments. View "Pyle v. Woods" on Justia Law