“Law is the embodiment of the moral sentiment of the people.”
--- Blackstone

“A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations … is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or to despotism.”

--- Abraham Lincoln

BRIEF RELIEF MATTERS

1. Federal regulations regarding Section 8 – payment to landlord and responsibility when tenant is a holdover.
2. New York - responsibility of employer for criminal act of an employee.
3. New York – preparation of motion and supporting Affirmation for return of property pursuant to CPL 710.70.
4. New York – draft and preparation of Article 78 Petition, Order to Show Cause and Memorandum of Law.
5. Texas – case support on issues of judicial economy, laches and joinder.

DECISIONS OF INTEREST

SUPREME COURT

City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams, No. 03-1601 (U.S.S.C. March 22, 2005)
An individual may not enforce the limitations on local zoning authority, set forth in section 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act, through an action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/us/000/031601.html

Muehler v. Mena, No. 03-1423 (U.S.S.C. March 22, 2005)
In a section 1983 suit, police officers' detention of defendant in handcuffs during the execution of a search warrant was reasonable and did not violate the Fourth Amendment. http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/us/000/031423.html

Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., No. 02-1672 (U.S.S.C. March 29, 2005)
Title IX's private right of action encompasses claims of retaliation against an individual because he has complained about sex discrimination. http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/02-1672.html

Smith v. City of Jackson, Mississippi, No. 03-1160 (U.S.S.C. March 30, 2005)
Although the "disparate-impact" theory of recovery, for cases brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, is cognizable under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the disparate-impact theory's scope is narrower under the ADEA than under Title VII. http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/us/000/03-1160.html

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus., No. 03-1696 (U.S.S.C. March 30, 2005)
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine is confined to cases brought by state-court losers 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. http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/03-1696.html
 

FIRST CIRCUIT

Mason v. Morrisette (04/07/05 - No. 04-1908)
A lessee's minor children do not have standing to sue a lessor for failure to disclose information regarding the hazards of lead paint as required by the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act. http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/1st/041908.html

SECOND CIRCUIT

Bryant v. City of N.Y., No. 04-0199 (2d Cir. April 05, 2005)
Dismissal of plaintiffs' claims, alleging that their prolonged post arrest detentions were a violation of due process, is affirmed where defendant-police officers' refusal to issue desk appearance tickets immediately after arrest was not objectively unreasonable. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/2nd/040199p.pdf

US v. Watson, No. 03-1709 (2d Cir. April 12, 2005)
Denial of defendant's suppression motion is affirmed where defendant failed to demonstrate that the allegedly unlawful search of a residence violated his legitimate expectation of privacy. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/2nd/031709p.pdf

THIRD CIRCUIT

Budget Rent-A-Car Sys. v. Chappell, No. 04-1931 (3d cir. May 5, 2005)
In a multi-state personal injury lawsuit, the State of New York’s substantive law should be applied to determine the extent of plaintiff-car rental agency’s vicarious liability since New York has the greatest interest in the application of its law to this dispute. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/3rd/041931p.pdf

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

Ass'n for Disabled Americans v. Florida Int'l Univ. (04/06/05 - No. 02-10360)
The Eleventh Amendment does not prevent a disabled person from suing a state university under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/11th/0210360p.pdf

NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS

In the Matter of Huckaby v. N.Y. State Division of Tax Appeals, 8 (N.Y. March 29, 2005)
New York's "convenience of the employer" test does not violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Court held that a telecommuter who lives and works in Tennessee but is employed by a New York-based company must pay New York taxes on 100 percent of his income even though he spends at most 25 percent of his working time in the Empire State. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/ny/cases/app/8opn05.pdf

MATTERS OF INTEREST

Landmark Supreme Court Cases
http://www.landmarkcases.org

Developed by Street Law and the Supreme Court Historical Society, this website was developed in order to provide teachers with a full range of resources and activities regarding such cases. Some of the cases covered here include Mapp v. Ohio, Gideon v. Wainwright, and Miranda v. Arizona. The site also offers some detailed explanations of important related concepts, such as federalism, national supremacy, and judicial review. Additional, the site provides background summaries of each case and pertinent discussion questions for a variety of reading levels and abilities.