Brown v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., No. 08-16158, concerned an action seeking compensatory and punitive damages from cigarette manufacturers under theories of strict liability, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, civil conspiracy to fraudulently conceal, fraudulent concealment, negligence, and loss of consortium.

Related Resources

• Full Text of Baby Buddies, Inc. v. Toys “R” Us, Inc., No. 08-17021
• Full Text of Brown v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., No. 08-16158

Garces v. US Atty. Gen., No. 09-11520, involved a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing petitioner’s appeal from an immigration judge’s order finding him removable under section 212(a)(2)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as an alien whom the Attorney General “knows or has reason to believe is or has been an illicit trafficker in any controlled substance.”  The Eleventh Circuit granted the petition on the ground that the court did not require every alien seeking admission to the U.S. to produce evidence proving clearly and beyond a doubt that he is not a drug trafficker, unless there was already some other evidence — some “reason to believe” — that he was one.

In US v. Tome, No. 09-16486, the court of appeals affirmed defendant’s sentence following the revocation of his supervised release after his child pornography conviction, on the grounds that 1) it was not necessary for a special condition to be supported by each section 3553(a) factor; rather, each factor was an independent consideration to be weighed; 2) the Internet ban condition was not a greater deprivation of liberty than reasonably necessary; and 3) defendant did not meet his burden to show his 24-month sentence was procedurally or substantively unreasonable.

Related Resources

• Full Text of Estate of Ahuva Amergi v. Palestinian Auth., No. 09-13618
• Full Text of Garces v. US Atty. Gen., No. 09-11520
• Full Text of US v. Tome, No. 09-16486

As the court wrote:  “In 2005, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (”EPA”) filed an administrative complaint against Petitioner John P. Vidiksis. The complaint alleged 69 violations of the Toxic Substances Control Act section 409, 15 U.S.C. § 2689; the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4851-4856; and the federal regulations promulgated thereunder. An Administrative Law Judge for the EPA (”ALJ”) found Vidiksis liable on each of the 69 counts and assessed a civil penalty of $97,545. On appeal, the Environmental Appeals Board (”EAB”) affirmed the decision of the ALJ as to the liability finding and the penalty amount. Vidiksis has now appealed to this court. As explained further below, we AFFIRM the EAB’s ruling on liability and on the penalty amount.”

Related Resources

• Full Text of Vidiksis v. EPA, No. 09-12544

In Hall v. Thomas, No. 09-12728, a robbery and kidnapping prosecution, the court of appeals affirmed the denial of petitioner’s habeas petition, on the grounds that 1) the totality of the circumstances here indicated that defendant’s waiver of his Miranda rights and his subsequent confession were knowing, intelligent, and voluntary; 2) petitioner failed to show that evidence of his intelligence would have made a difference in the state court’s finding that the confession was voluntary; and 3) the Alabama courts’ conclusion–that petitioner’s trial counsel was not ineffective–was not an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented, nor was it contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law.

Related Resources

• Full Text of Cappuccitti v. DirecTV, Inc., No. 09-14107
• Full Text of Hall v. Thomas, No. 09-12728

As the court wrote:  “In 2005, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (”EPA”) filed an administrative complaint against Petitioner John P. Vidiksis. The complaint alleged 69 violations of the Toxic Substances Control Act section 409, 15 U.S.C. § 2689; the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4851-4856; and the federal regulations promulgated thereunder. An Administrative Law Judge for the EPA (”ALJ”) found Vidiksis liable on each of the 69 counts and assessed a civil penalty of $97,545. On appeal, the Environmental Appeals Board (”EAB”) affirmed the decision of the ALJ as to the liability finding and the penalty amount. Vidiksis has now appealed to this court. As explained further below, we AFFIRM the EAB’s ruling on liability and on the penalty amount.”

Related Resources

• Full Text of Vidiksis v. EPA, No. 09-12544

Garces v. US Atty. Gen., No. 09-11520, involved a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing petitioner’s appeal from an immigration judge’s order finding him removable under section 212(a)(2)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as an alien whom the Attorney General “knows or has reason to believe is or has been an illicit trafficker in any controlled substance.”  The Eleventh Circuit granted the petition on the ground that the court did not require every alien seeking admission to the U.S. to produce evidence proving clearly and beyond a doubt that he is not a drug trafficker, unless there was already some other evidence — some “reason to believe” — that he was one.

In US v. Tome, No. 09-16486, the court of appeals affirmed defendant’s sentence following the revocation of his supervised release after his child pornography conviction, on the grounds that 1) it was not necessary for a special condition to be supported by each section 3553(a) factor; rather, each factor was an independent consideration to be weighed; 2) the Internet ban condition was not a greater deprivation of liberty than reasonably necessary; and 3) defendant did not meet his burden to show his 24-month sentence was procedurally or substantively unreasonable.

Related Resources

• Full Text of Estate of Ahuva Amergi v. Palestinian Auth., No. 09-13618
• Full Text of Garces v. US Atty. Gen., No. 09-11520
• Full Text of US v. Tome, No. 09-16486

Brown v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., No. 08-16158, concerned an action seeking compensatory and punitive damages from cigarette manufacturers under theories of strict liability, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, civil conspiracy to fraudulently conceal, fraudulent concealment, negligence, and loss of consortium.

Related Resources

• Full Text of Baby Buddies, Inc. v. Toys “R” Us, Inc., No. 08-17021
• Full Text of Brown v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., No. 08-16158

In Hall v. Thomas, No. 09-12728, a robbery and kidnapping prosecution, the court of appeals affirmed the denial of petitioner’s habeas petition, on the grounds that 1) the totality of the circumstances here indicated that defendant’s waiver of his Miranda rights and his subsequent confession were knowing, intelligent, and voluntary; 2) petitioner failed to show that evidence of his intelligence would have made a difference in the state court’s finding that the confession was voluntary; and 3) the Alabama courts’ conclusion–that petitioner’s trial counsel was not ineffective–was not an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented, nor was it contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law.

Related Resources

• Full Text of Cappuccitti v. DirecTV, Inc., No. 09-14107
• Full Text of Hall v. Thomas, No. 09-12728

As the court of appeals wrote:  “Visca Imelda, an ethnic Chinese Christian and native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (”BIA”) order affirming the immigration judge’s (”IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (”INA”), and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (”CAT”). After review of the parties’ briefs and the record, and with the benefit of oral argument, we grant the petition for review, vacate the BIA’s decision, and remand.”

Related Resources

• Full Text of Imelda v. US Atty. Gen., No. 09-11920

As the court wrote:  “Wilton Fontenot appeals his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1519 for making a false entry in a document with the intent to impede an investigation within the jurisdiction of a United States agency. Fontenot claims that, to convict under § 1519, the Government must prove he knew the investigation would be a federal investigation. Finding this claim without merit under plain error review, we affirm Fontenot’s conviction.”

Related Resources

• Full Text of US v. Fontenot, No. 08-12266