Justia Law, Technology & Legal Marketing Blog

Writer’s Picks: Lawyers Behaving Badly

2012-05-07T17:37:15Z

Well, it hasn’t been a good week for the reputation of the legal profession.

By now, you’ve heard that the 9th Circuit ruled on Padilla v. Yoo, finding that plaintiffs do not have a cause of action against the former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John C. Yoo for injuries suffered as a result of Mr. Yoo’s “torture memos.” The Court found that Yoo was entitled to qualified immunity under Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, because regardless of the legality of plaintiff’s detention and the wisdom of Yoo’s judgments, at the time he acted the law was not “sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he [wa]s doing violated[d]” plaintiff’s rights.

In South Carolina, the state Supreme Court found that a lawyer working on the deceased singer James Brown’s estate misappropriated funds from the estate and filed tax returns without authority. He was sentenced to 6 months in jail and ordered to pay the misappropriated amount back plus attorney’s fees. On appeal, he argued that his jail sentence mooted the requirement to pay fees. The Court said no way — Get up offa that thing and pay up! Cannon v. Estate of James Brown.

Finally, the 6th Circuit issued an opinion regarding two lawyers convicted of misappropriating a large chunk of their client’s settlement. In US v. Cunningham, the Court rejected the defendants’ challenge to their conviction. The settlement arose out of a mass-tort action against the manufacturer of the defective diet drug “fen-phen.” The attorneys only disbursed 23% of the $200M settlement. For this, they were disbarred, sentenced to jail time, and ordered to pay the amount back in restitution. Way to go, guys.

Notable Opinions this Week – Global Warming Insurance, False Statements and Health Care Fraud Class Actions

2012-04-26T23:29:38Z

Our Daily Opinion Summary writers have picked some interesting cases to highlight this week, with one in particular cutting close to home.

First up, we leave the lower forty-eight and head up to Alaska with AES Corp. v. Steadfast Ins. Co.. The case involved the village and city of Kivalina, a community located on an Alaskan barrier island, which filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court against AES and other defendants for allegedly damaging the village by causing global warming through the emission of greenhouse gases. AES requested that Steadfast provide a defense and insurance coverage pursuant to the terms of their commercial general liability policy. Steadfast provided AES a defense under a reservation of rights and filed a declaratory judgment action, claiming that it did not owe AES a defense or indemnity regarding the Complaint brought by Kivalina. The circuit court granted Steadfast’s motion for summary judgment, holding that the Complaint filed by Kivalina did not allege property damage caused by an “occurrence” as that term was defined in AES’s contracts of insurance with Steadfast.

The next pick, United States v. Abrahem, relates to the Fort Hood shooting in 2009, and, as our summary writer who picked this one noted, there’s some “drama in the facts.” In 2010, the defendant entered the Brooke Haven Army Medical Center and demanded to see the patient in the hospital accused of the shooting, Major Nidal Hasan. While the defendant did not request Major Hasan by name, he claimed he was the Major’s lawyer. The defendant, after some back and forth with the medical center staff, was escorted out of the Center and left the premises. Defendant was convicted of knowingly making a false statement to the Department of Defense security personnel and then subsequently appealed the decision on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to establish that his false statement that he was a lawyer was material. The court concluded that a statement to a decision maker in a military hospital that the speaker was a lawyer for a restricted military prisoner was the type of statement capable of influencing the decision maker to allow the speaker to visit the patient and that the protocols in place did not affect the statement’s materiality. The court also concluded that defendant’s delivery of the statement in a manner not likely to persuade did not affect the materiality of the statement. Accordingly, the court affirmed defendant’s conviction.

Last up, Rohn v. Dana Farber/Harvard Cancer Center, which resonated with our summary writer who is passionate about social justice issues related to health care access. As she noted, “Health care is my seeing red issue and this case had a bulls-eye on it.” Plaintiffs are a dissident group, within a larger class of medical patient consumers in a case alleging fraud in overcharging for the medication Lupron. The patients, along with insurers and private health care providers, obtained a $150 million settlement agreement that was approved by the district court, of which $40 million was allocated to consumers. That agreement provided that if there were unclaimed monies from the $40 million consumer settlement pool after full recovery to consumer plaintiffs, all unclaimed funds would go into a cy pres fund to be distributed at the discretion of the trial judge. Dissident plaintiffs appealed distribution of the $11.4 million cy pres fund to the Dana Farber/Harvard Cancer Center and the Prostate Cancer Foundation for work on the treatment of the diseases for which Lupron is prescribed. They have already recovered more than 100% of their actual damages. The First Circuit affirmed. After expressing concern about distribution of such funds by judges and adding an audit requirement, the court noted the importance of avoiding windfalls for plaintiffs who have already been fully compensated.

Who Has the Most Current Online Maps: Google, Bing or Yahoo?

2012-04-25T17:50:26Z

During a recent trip to Washington, D.C., I discovered that the reflecting pool between the Lincoln Memorial and the National World War II Memorial had lost a bit of its luster. From inside the Lincoln Memorial, my gaze at the National Mall was interrupted by fencing, heavy equipment, and an empty pool.

However, an aerial view of Washington, D.C. from Google Maps provided no hint of the ongoing construction. So, based on some online research, I wanted to determine when the aerial photo used by Google was taken, as well as whether Google, Microsoft/Bing or Yahoo offered the most up-to-date maps.

On the ground, the progress was evident. The reflecting pool was inaccessible to tourists, and the new pool was under construction.

However, on Google Maps, the reflecting pool was still intact.

Recovery.gov stated that the Department of Interior awarded Corman Construction, Inc. a 32 million dollar contract on August 19, 2010 for the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool Rehabilitation. The rehabilitation began in November 2010. So, the satellite view from Google maybe at least 18 months old.

In contrast, the aerial map provided by Bing shows an empty reflecting pool as well as an adjacent construction site.

The map by Yahoo is even more dated than the one from Google.

Not only is the reflecting pool intact, the site along the bend of the tidal basin, where the new Washington, D.C. Martin Luther King, Jr. National Memorial is located, is completely undisturbed.

The MLK memorial as it currently appears:

In Google Maps, the base of the statue is visible.

In Bing, the progress is more advanced with the statue in place, as well as some landscaping work already completed.

Fortunately, the Washington, D.C. Martin Luther King, Jr. National Memorial website has aerial construction photos. So, the Yahoo photo pre-dates March 2010 when the site was cleared of foliage. The Google Maps satellite photo was probably taken between October 2010 and November 2010, based on the when the base of the Mountain of Despair and the Stone of Hope were installed. The Bing photo was taken as early as April 2011, based on the landscaping around the memorial.

One item to note about Bing. Apparently, Bing displays its maps from different sources based on the degree of magnification. At the highest level of magnification, the construction site suddenly reverts to a verdant park, not too different from what Yahoo offers.

So, despite the focus on offering the most current information, the mapping data from Google, Bing and Yahoo can be stale–months or even years old. Just something to keep in mind when you are consulting your favorite online maps for directions.

Writer’s Picks: Miranda, Superman and Bad Men Provisions

2012-04-23T21:39:03Z

Here are some of the more interesting opinions issued this week, collected by our Daily Summary writers.

In State v. Eli, the Hawaii Supreme Court found that a police practice of asking an arrestee to tell his or her “side of the story” prior to offering Miranda warnings violates the defendant’s constitutional right against self-incrimination and right to due process. In this case, the “pre-interview” statements were thrown out, and the case remanded for a new trial.

The 9th Circuit issued an opinion on intellectual property and the Superman comic. In Pacific Pictures Corp. et al v. USCD-CALA, the Court refused to protect documents included in a subpoena under attorney client privilege. In this case, an attorney absconded with his client’s intellectual property, and the US Attorney was called to investigate. The US Attorney’s office issued a subpoena for copies of the stolen property, and promised that if the complainant complied with the request, they would not provide the documents to non-governmental third parties. The Court found that since Congress has declined to extend attorney client privilege to such materials, the Court was not in the position to do it here.

Finally, the Federal Circuit issued an opinion interpreting the “bad men” provisions in the 1868 Laramie Treaty between the Sioux Indian Tribe and the United States. In Richard v. US, the court found that the treaty provision to reimburse injured tribe members for expenses incurred by the wrongdoing of “bad men” subject to the authority of the US was not limited to “bad men” acting on or behalf of the U.S.

Don’t Get a Ticket for Parking at an Unmarked Curb

2012-04-20T20:25:43Z

Lunch at Justia is a time reserved for scholarly legal debate. Our focus recently turned to the legality of parking a vehicle along an unmarked curb outside a local Chipotle. On a day when we thought the God of Parking was gracing us with his magnificence, any semblance of karma was purely illusory.

First, we pulled adjacent to the curb. From California Vehicle Code § 21458, we know the meaning of the following curb colors:

(1) Red indicates no stopping, standing, or parking, whether the vehicle is attended or unattended, except that a bus may stop in a red zone marked or signposted as a bus loading zone.

(2) Yellow indicates stopping only for the purpose of loading or unloading passengers or freight for the time as may be specified by local ordinance.

(3) White indicates stopping for either of the following purposes:

(A) Loading or unloading of passengers for the time as may be specified by local ordinance.

(B) Depositing mail in an adjacent mailbox.

(4) Green indicates time limit parking specified by local ordinance.

(5) Blue indicates parking limited exclusively to the vehicles of disabled persons and disabled veterans.

So, since the curb was not red, we were in the clear, right?

Unfortunately not. A closer reading of Section 21458 indicates that these curb colors are mandated “[w]henever local authorities enact local parking regulations and indicate them by the use of paint upon curbs.” In other words, a person may not park at an unmarked curb if a state law forbids parking at that location, such as when a fire hydrant is present.

In our situation, a fire hydrant painted in stealth silver was next to the curb. Now, what’s the difference between a hydrant next to an unmarked curb and one next to a red curb? Fortunately, California Vehicle Code § 22514 answers that question.

In general, the law prohibits persons from stopping or parking within 15 feet of a fire hydrant. However, if local authorities reduce that distance to less than 10 feet in total length, “the distance shall be indicated by signs or markings.”

But, Section 22514(a) does provide an exception if “the vehicle is attended by a licensed driver who is seated in the front seat and who can immediately move such vehicle in case of necessity.” I’m guessing that the driver would not have preferred to exercise that loophole while everyone was eating, regardless of how great a parking spot it was.

Writer’s Picks

2012-04-16T18:26:25Z

Our daily summary writers chose some interesting cases to share this week.

The 4th Circuit issued an opinion remanding the Rosetta Stone v. Google trademark case back to the district court for further proceedings. Rosetta Stone complained that Google AdWords infringed on their trademarks and caused likely and actual confusion for consumers. As Eric Goldman notes — “how 2005.” Professor Goldman has an excellent and detailed post on this case and its ramifications for trademark actions against Google. Go there for details.

The 2nd Circuit issued an interesting opinion in a criminal case against a former Goldman Sachs employee, Sergey Aleynikov, who was charged with theft for stealing computer code. In United States v. Aleynikov, the 2nd Circuit held that code is not tangible property, and thus cannot be stolen under the context of the statute. Our Techlaw blog has a more in-depth look at this case.

Finally, the Wyoming Supreme Court issued an opinion dealing with the free speech rights of Operation Save America, an anti-abortion protest group. In Operation Save America v. City of Jackson, the Court vacated an order barring the protesters from holding up graphic signs within a two block radius of the City’s 2011 Boy Scout’s Elk Fest. The Court applied strict scrutiny and found the order to be lacking.

Cases of the Week

2012-04-26T17:16:00Z

Our summary writers have highlighted some interesting cases this week — all from state supreme courts.

The Illinois Supreme Court ruled on an assault weapons ban, remanding it back to the trial court to determine whether the law comports with the Second Amendment. In Wilson v. Cook County, the court found that given the early stage of the litigation, it cannot be said conclusively whether “assault weapons” as defined by the ordinance fall within the scope of rights protected by the Second Amendment. The question requires an empirical inquiry, beyond the scope of both the record and judicial notice. The county has not had an opportunity to establish a nexus between the ordinance and the protected governmental interest.

In Utah, the Supreme Court ruled on an insurance law question that had some interesting policy implications. In McArthur v. State Farm, the Court found that (1) exhaustion clauses that require the liability insurer to pay out its full policy limits before permitting payment of uninsured motorist benefits are generally enforceable in the State of Utah; and (2) because uninsured motorist exhaustion provisions are conditions precedent and not covenants capable of being breached, no showing of prejudice is required to sustain their invocation. The opinion discusses the trends in exhaustion clauses across the country, and the “troubling” policy aspects of these clauses in the uninsured motorist context. The concurrence suggested that Utah adopt the judicially created constructive-exhaustion doctrine that many other states have adopted.

The North Dakota Supreme Court issued an interesting case on jurisdiction. In N.D. State Board of Higher Education v. Jaeger, the State Board of Higher Education wanted the Court to exercise original jurisdiction and enjoin the Secretary of State from allowing a measure on the June 2012 ballot to reinstate the “Fighting Sioux” nickname and logo for the University of South Dakota. The Court concluded this was not an appropriate exercise of original jurisdiction and declined to hear the case.

Finally, the New York Court of Appeal issued an opinion in a case with some pretty absurd facts. In People v. Pagan, the defendant appealed a criminal charge related to an underlying dispute over cab fare. Defendant fought with a cab driver over a $4 fare, scratching, biting, and threatening him with a knife. On appeal, the petitioner asserted a right of defense and a mistake of fact defense, arguing that she thought the money was hers. The court affirmed her conviction.

10 Free Cover Photos for Your Facebook Profile Page

2012-04-05T23:01:12Z

Creating a Facebook cover photo for your profile page can be difficult. The cover photo dimensions (i.e., 851 pixels x 315 pixels) require a long and narrow crop from a standard photo. If you are still searching for that ideal image to show your love for law and government, we have you covered. Justia is releasing 10 free Facebook cover photos for you to use on your own profile. Click on the smaller image to access the cover photo in full resolution.

Facebook Cover Photo of The White House

Facebook Cover Photo of the US Capitol

Facebook Cover Photo of the United States Supreme Court

Facebook Cover Photo of the Cherry Blossom Festival

Facebook Cover Photo of the Lincoln Memorial

Facebook Cover Photo of Washington, D.C. Tidal Basin

Justia’s Top 10 Lists for March 2012

2012-04-02T20:48:55Z

Here is a rundown of March’s highest scoring lawyers on Justia Legal Answers, along with a look at which Justia Dockets legal filings, Tech Law blog posts, and Facebook posts readers viewed the most.

Justia Legal Answers’ Top 10 Legal Answerers for March 2012

Min G. Kim, 880 points, 18 answers
David Philip Shapiro, 705 points, 14 answers
Gojko Kasich, 600 points, 12 answers
Vincent Ronald Ross, 560 points, 12 answers
Andrew Bresalier, 500 points, 10 answers
Daniel Marc Berman, 430 points, 18 answers
Janet Rubel 400 points, 8 answers
James Kenneth Sweeney, 300 points, 6 answers
Benjamin P. Urbelis 250 points, 5 answers
Michael Howard Joseph, 210 points, 5 answers

The Top 10 Legal Filings Viewed in Justia Dockets in March 2012

A lawsuit filed by parents who accused Pennsylvania’s Hersey Medical Center of taking their baby and kicking them out of the hospital.
A Tennessee businessman sues his business partner in a dispute over control and finances fo companies.
Hollywood’s ongoing copyright litigation against digital storage service Hotfile.
The trademark lawsuit filed by former Kyuss Lives! band member Josh Humme against other members of the rock group.
There were massive numbers of searches for copyright lawsuits filed by adult porn purveyor 808 Holdings, LLC alleging unauthorized digital downloads of its movies via BitTorrent
Apple’s patent lawsuit against Motorola in Chicago, Illinois.
A labor lawsuit filed against the Air Line Pilots Association by Air Tran pilots over their seniority following Southwest’s purchase of the competing airline.
The patent lawsuit between two Cooper Lighting and Elite Lighting
The decision upholding an arbitrator’s award in a dispute between former Frontier pilots and Republic Airway Holdings.
Weather Underground’s trademark lawsuit against competitors, alleging that they used an automated process to register and use domain names that are confusingly similar to famous or distinctive trademarks their own.

The Top 10 Most-Viewed Justia Tech Law Blog Pages in March 2012

Our Top 10 March 2012 Facebook Posts:

Labor unions sue drug companies, alleging that they illegally subsidize co-payments to steer consumers to their brand name prescriptions instead of cheaper generics.
Folks were intrigued when Kim Dotcom was allegedly dotwronged by New Zealand police.
A trial over hip-hop superstar Jay-Z’s purported sampling of a well-known Egyptian ballad.
A state jury ruled that Virginia Tech was guilty of negligence for failing to quickly advise students about a deadly gunmen rampaging the campus.
How did the feds indict several hackers allegedly affiliated with Anonymous and LulSec? According to unsealed court documents, they had inside help.
Folks had a lot to say about state efforts to ban Islamic sharia law potentially affecting other religions too.
The federal government gave ICANN notice that it would not renew the company’s long-term contract for domain name registration oversight.
French authorities had been tracking a terror suspect believed to have trained with al Qaeda for quite some time via his mother’s IP address, but that didn’t stop authorities from preventing his murder of seven (7) people, and injuring others in terror attacks.
Celebrity chef Mario Batali settled a lawsuit brought by his restaurent employees accusing him of shorting them out of tips. $5.25 million is a lot of tip money.
A New York lawyer filed his own pro se lawsuit against Yahoo, claiming that the company’s revelation of users’ first and last names via Yahoo Mail violates the portal’s own Terms of Service and California law.

Thanks again for visiting.

Opinions of the Week

2012-04-26T17:17:39Z

We have some interesting cases from our daily summary writers this week. At the intersection of reality TV and the law comes Edmonds v. Oktibbeha County (5th Cir.). In this case, the Court upheld the denial of a 42 USC 1983 claim of a coerced confession from a minor, after the minor went on the Dr. Phil show and told a national television audience that deputies did not coerce him into confession.

The Maryland Court of Appeals issued an interesting decision in a child custody case that involved a conflict of laws with Japanese family courts. In Toland v. Futagi, the Court upheld the Japanese decision to award custody of the minor to her maternal grandmother, a Japanese national. The child grew up in Japan and spent her whole life there. When her mother died, the grandmother took custody. The Maryland Court found that this decision did not infringe on the due process rights of the American father, and that the lower court properly declined to exercise jurisdiction over the child, who had no connection to the state.

Finally, the 7th Circuit issued an opinion involving access to nuclear power plants. In Exelon Generation Co. v. Local 15, Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, the court upheld the rights of union employees at privately-owned nuclear power plants to labor arbitration for denial of security clearance. At issue was whether post-9/11 security requirements had removed the denial of “unescorted access” privileges from arbitral review.

Have a great weekend, everyone.

The Law: Still Not Free

2012-03-27T21:22:10Z

Carl Malamud of public.resource.org has a guest post on Boing Boing: Liberating America’s Secret, for-pay Laws. In it, he discusses the problem of laws that incorporate copyrighted technical standards by reference. Because the standards bodies that issue them are in the private sector, anyone who wants to view the standards (to comply with the law) must pay for a copy. Those copies can be very expensive; public.resource.org spent over $7,000 for copies of the corpus.

Carl’s basic premise, one that we endorse, is that citizens are entitled to read the law to which that they are bound, free of charge. If ignorance of the law is no defense to a crime, then we must of course be able to know what the law is. Expanding on Carl’s post, building codes and other standards are just the tip of the iceberg. Most of the laws in this country are not available for free.

Here’s the situation: right now private publishers control access to the laws of the United States. The majority of the state and federal courts rely on Thomson Reuters and LexisNexis to publish their official opinions. If you want to read an official opinion, you must pay these publishers to do so. Same thing for codes and statutes: governments contract the publication of codified laws to private publishers. Those publishers then assert copyright over the “compilation” of statutes.

Now, 49 states* and all of the federal courts of appeal publish draft opinions on their websites for the public to read. In legal parlance, these are called slip opinions. You can cite to them, but only until the official version is printed by the official publisher. Then, you need the official citation, along with the official page numbers, to cite to this document in court papers or legal writing.

The Supreme Court of the U.S., which publishes pdf versions of its bound volumes (official opinions), is a notable exception.

Google Scholar, bless them, posts official opinions online for free to the public. But note: that is because Google pays for copies from these publishers. They do this because they’re Google and they’re awesome, but do not mistake this for free access–someone else is paying for it, just not you.

Similarly, all states publish a version of their code online to read for free. However, those databases are, for the most part, papered over with disclaimers and copyright statements, and to cite to the code in a legal document, you must use the official (privately published) version.

What is needed right now is a system of universal citation. 16 states** employ this method of publishing, which cuts out the middleman (private legal publishers). They do this by adopting a neutral citation format and inserting paragraph numbers into the opinion, and then they publish the opinion on their website. Voila! Official opinions, ready to cite, available for free to the public.

The government likes to make a big deal out of how they post all the opinions online, or that they limit PACER charges [except, oops, those fees just went up], or whatever — but the truth of the matter is, these are not official opinions, and you cannot cite to them. The question is why? Why haven’t other states — and the federal government — adopted a neutral citation scheme?

Carl’s post did a great job of explaining problems of access to proprietary standards, and a lot of Boing Boing commenters pointed out that this was specialized law, not something that a person needs in everyday life. However, the law I am talking about above does affect everyone, in every aspect of their life — these are the laws that citizens are beholden to in our democracy. But if you want to read and cite them to the court, you must pay for the privilege.

*Alabama is the only state that charges for access to its Supreme Court Opinions. You can read them on Justia or Google Scholar instead.

**16 states employ vendor neutral citations and publish official opinions instead of drafts: Arkansas, Illinois, Louisiana, Illinois, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

For more information, check out the following links.

Why the fuck are we still citing to page numbers in cases?

Universal Citation for State Codes

UniversalCitation.org

This is why we need universal citation

This Week in Opinions

2012-03-23T17:14:20Z

Our Daily Caselaw Summary writers have served up some interesting cases this week:

In Colorado, the Supreme Court issued Air Wisconsin Airlines v. Hoeper, which found an airline was not immune from a defamation claim by an employee under the Aviation Transportation Safety Act. In that case, the employee was authorized to carry a firearem on the planes he flew, but was reported by a trainer to be “disgruntled” and that he posed a threat with a gun. The Colorado Supreme Court upheld the defamation victory, adding that the airline was not immune from suit or defamation under the ATSA and that the record supported the jury’s finding of clear and convincing evidence of actual malice.

In Homan v. Branstad, the Iowa Supreme Court found that the governor improperly vetoed several provisions in an appropriations bill passed in the General Assembly. Primarily at issue was $8.66 million the legislature appropriated in section 15 for the operation of Iowa Workforce Development (IWD) field offices. The Supreme Court found that portions of the vetoes did not comply with the item-veto amendment of the state constitution and because the Governor unconstitutionally item vetoed “conditions or restrictions” on the appropriations without vetoing the accompanying appropriations; and when the Governor impermissibly item vetoes a condition on an appropriation during the pocket veto period, the appropriation item fails to become law.

The United States Supreme Court issued a patent opinion this week in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories. The Court held that the process of measuring matabolite levels in a patient’s blood to determine the proper dosage of thiopurine drugs to treat autoimmune diseases was not patentable. The court explained that the claimed process was based on a law of nature and involved well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously engaged in by researchers in the field. At the same time, upholding the patents would risk disproportionately tying up the use of the underlying natural laws, inhibiting their use in the making of further discoveries.

Finally, in Wachovia Secs. LLC v. Banco Panamericano, Inc., the 7th Circuit allowed plaintiff Wachovia to pierce the corporate veil to collect a judgment from the so called “Bad Boys of Chicago Arbitage” [I had to look that up: Arbitage means “The simultaneous buying and selling of securities, currency, or commodities in different markets or in derivative forms in order to take advantage of differing prices for the same asset”]. The “bad boys” (and they really were, it seems) tried to funnel assets through several holdings to avoid debt on a margin call from Wachovia. The district court pierced Loop’s corporate veil, found the owners personally liable, and voided as fraudulent Banco’s lien, the “compensation” payments, and payments to the golf company, and the 7th Circuit upheld.

This Week in Opinions: Vaccine Safety, School Violence, Prison Hunger Strikes and The Jones Act

2012-03-16T22:57:42Z

The DC Circuit released an opinion about vaccine safety this week. In Coal. for Mercury-Free Drugs v. Sebelius, the Court found that plaintiffs did not have standing to sue the FDA for failing to prohibit the use of vaccines containing the mercury-based preservative thimerosal on young children and pregnant women. The court concluded that plaintiffs were not required to receive thimerosal-preserved vaccines, they could readily obtain thimerosal-free vaccines, they did not have standing to challenge the FDA’s decision to allow other people to receive the vaccines, and plaintiffs could advocate that the Legislative and Executive Branches ban the vaccines. As a result, plaintiffs were suffering no cognizable injury as a result of the FDA’s decision to allow the vaccine, their lawsuit was not a proper subject for the Judiciary.

The 7th Circuit released a decision about school violence, something that’s been in the news a lot in recent weeks. In Hannemann v. S. Door Cty. School Dist., the Court held that a school may bar a permanently expelled student from its school gym facilities. The student was expelled for threatening violence at the school. The Court found that as a member of the public, the plaintiff student had no protected liberty interest in accessing school grounds and the school had no obligation to provide him with process in connection with the ban.

The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled on involuntary feeding of a prisoner on hunger strike. In Comm’r of Corr. v. Coleman, the Court upheld an injunction allowing the Department of Correction to restrain and force-feed Defendant to prevent life-threatening dehydration and malnutrition. Defendant was subsequently force-fed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court properly determined that (1) the state’s interests outweigh Defendant’s common-law right to bodily integrity; (2) the forcible administration of artificial nutrition and hydration to Defendant does not violate his constitutional right to free speech and privacy; and (3) international law does not prohibit medically necessary force-feeding under such circumstances.

Finally, the Washington Supreme Court issued an opinion involving maritime law and the Jones Act. In Clausen v. Icicle Seafoods, Inc., the Court upheld a jury verdict against Icicle Seafoods, which found Icicle negligent under the Jones Act, and that Icicle was callous or willful and wanton in its failure to pay maintenance and cure of an injured seaman. The company paid him only $20 a day, which forced the plaintiff to live in a trailer with no heat, running water, or toilet facilities. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that under federal maritime law, the trial court calculates an attorney fee award related to a maintenance and cure action, and the punitive damages award as determined by the jury here, based on the callous or willful and wanton withholding of maintenance and cure, was proper.

Google Scholar “Cited By” Update

2012-03-14T18:28:21Z

From our friends over at Google Scholar comes word last week of changes to the “Cited by” function within their legal opinions database. For those of you not familiar with this feature, “Cited by” appears as a link under items returned in a result set. For example, the first opinion returned after a search for “347 U.S. 483″ indicates it is “Cited by” 32,903 sources.

Clicking on the link brings up a separate page which, before last week’s changes, sorted citing documents by their prominence but which are now ranked by the the extent of discussion of the cited case. This means that cases that support, overturn, or clarify an opinion are ranked above those that just mention it.

The significance is also visually displayed by a series of horizontal bars which now display next to the case or cited source with explanatory title text, e.g., “Discusses cited case at length”, “Discusses Cited Case” and “Discusses Cited Case Briefly.”

Democratic National Committee v. Republican National Committee

2012-03-12T23:44:32Z

Election season is upon us, and an interesting opinion came out last week. In Democratic Nat’l Comm. v. Republican Nat’l Comm., the Third Circuit upheld a consent decree between the parties that restricted voter fraud enforcement actions.

According to the facts in the case, the Republican National Committee (RNC) was sued for voter intimidation in 1981:

The RNC allegedly created a voter challenge list by mailing sample ballots to individuals in precincts with a high percentage of racial or ethnic minority registered voters and, then, including individuals whose postcards were returned as undeliverable on a list of voters to challenge at the polls. The RNC also allegedly enlisted the help of off-duty sheriffs and police officers to intimidate voters by standing at polling places in minority precincts during voting with ‘National Ballot Security Task Force’ armbands. Some of the officers allegedly wore firearms in a visible manner.

The RNC entered into a consent decree to settle the matter, agreeing to comply with federal and state voting laws, get court consent before engaging in ballot security activities, and to refrain from intimidating practices like interrogating prospective voters at the polls and removing lawful campaign materials from polling sites. The Democratic National Committee (DNC) sued for violation of the order in 1982, and became part of the consent decree.

In 2008, the RNC sought to vacate the decree, arguing that circumstances had changed since the enactment of National Voter Registation Act of 1993 [NVRA] (42 USC §1973 et seq), the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 [BCRA] (2 USC §431 et seq) and the Help America Vote Act of 2002 [HAVA] (42 USC §15301 et seq), and that the consent decree was no longer needed. The District Court upheld the decree with some modifications, and the Third Circuit found that the Court did not abuse its discretion in doing so.

Among the Court’s findings:

(1) The First Amendment does not cover an agreement between two private parties in this situation, regardless of Court involvement in supervising the agreement;

(2) Just because African Americans hold several prominent government roles (President, Attorney General, and Chairman of the RNC) does not mean that minorities are no longer subjected to voter intimidation;

(3) An increase in minority voters since 1982 does not demonstrate that minority votes are not being suppressed;

(4) The consent decree is not rendered moot by the NVRA, nor does the NVRA authorize conduct that is prohibited by the decree. The NVRA authorizes election officials to use mailings to update voter registration. It does not authorize private parties to do this;

(5) The provisional ballot portion of HAVA does not render prospective application of the decree inequitable, and its provision for complaint procedures do not render the decree moot or make legal what is prohibited in the decree;

(6) It is not in the public interest to vacate the decree; and

(7) The decree is not “unworkable” because the RNC must use “hard money” to defend itself against voter intimidation lawsuits;

The Third Circuit seemed skeptical of the RNC’s motives, holding that “If the RNC does not hope to engage in conduct that would violate the Decree, it is puzzling that the RNC is pursuing vacatur so vigorously notwithstanding the District Court’s significant modifications to the Decree.” In other words, if you were planning to follow the rules anyway, why seek to change them?

Writer’s Picks: Loughner Competency, Concealed Carry on Campus, and Government Contracts

2012-03-11T10:21:40Z

Our Justia caselaw summary writers have suggested some interesting cases from last week’s load.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a ruling in the case concerning Jared Lee Loughner, who is accused of shooting U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords, among others. In United States v. Loughner, the appellate court upheld the trial court’s decision permitting the defendant to be involuntarily medicated. The appellate court concluded that defendant was provided with the substance and procedure demanded by the Due Process Clause before the government involuntarily medicated him: the defendant clearly suffered from a severe mental illness, he represented a danger to himself or others, the prescribed medication was appropriate and in his medical interest, and the district court did not arbitrarily deny the motion to enjoin defendant’s emergency treatment.

Speaking of gun violence, the Colorado Supreme Court struck down a ban on concealed weapons on Colorado state university campuses that has been in effect since the 1970s. In Regents of the University of Colorado v. Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, the Court found that the Colorado Concealed Carry Act’s comprehensive statewide purpose, broad language, and narrow exclusions show that the General Assembly intended to divest the Board of Regents of its authority to regulate concealed handgun possession on campus.

Finally, the Federal Circuit issued an opinion that touches on government contracts, environmental hazards, and judicial conduct. In Shell Oil Co. v. U.S., the Court vacated and remanded a decision because the trial judge failed to recuse himself, and the error was not harmless. During World War II, the U.S. contracted with oil companies for the production of aviation fuel, which resulted in production of hazardous waste. The waste was dumped at the California McColl site. Several decades later, the oil companies were held liable for cleanup costs under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601, and sought reimbursement from the government based on the contracts. The district court entered summary judgment on liability, finding that the contracts contained open ended indemnification agreements and encompassed costs for CERLCA cleanup, and awarded $87,344,345.70. The trial judge subsequently discovered that his wife had inherited 97.59 shares of stock in a parent to two of the oil companies. The judge ultimately vacated his summary judgment rulings; severed two companies from the suit and directed the clerk to reassign their claims to a different judge; reinstated his prior decisions with respect to two remaining companies; and entered judgment against the government ($68,849,505). The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded for reassignment to another judge. The judge was required to recuse himself under 28 U.S.C. 455(b)(4) and the error was not harmless.

Justia’s Top 10 Lists for February 2012

2012-03-07T00:03:52Z

Here is a rundown of February’s highest scoring lawyers on Justia Legal Answers, along with a look at which Justia Dockets legal filings, Tech Law blog posts, and Facebook posts readers viewed the most.

Justia Legal Answers’ Top 10 Legal Answerers for February 2012

Nick Passe, 1,600 points, 32 answers
Jerry Lutkenhaus, 1,011 points, 32 answers
Andrew Bresalier, 801 points, 25 answers
Jeffrey Moore 351 points, 7 answers
Peter Navis, 300 points, 6 answers
Daniel Marc Berman, 250 points, 10 answers
William S. Adams 215 points, 5 answers
David Philip Shapiro, 150 points, 3 answers
Timothy Belt, 150 points, 3 answers
Ryan P. Sullivan, 150 points, 3 answers

The Top 10 Legal Filings Viewed in Justia Dockets in February 2012

A trade secrets lawsuit alleging that a Silicon Valley solar power company’s employees took confidential information from their employer’s computers, and purportedly took it to use when going to work for a competitor.
A stipulation and order in the Pokerstar’s online gambling case, followed by another ruling.
Revelations in the Silicon Valley antitrust litigation alleging that certain companies conspired to prevent one another’s employees from interviewing, and being hired at their respective businesses.
A lawsuit by the DISH Network alleging that certain websites illegally let people “[steal] unlimited amounts of DISH satellite television programming.”
A federal court opinion regarding the Jackson Hewitt tax service’s lawsuit against competing defendants.
A judge ruled that RadioShack cannot dismiss a lawsuit brought by a man who charges that his employer fired him after the retailer turned over pictures found on the man’s personal cell phone left for recycling or disposal by the retailer.
A claim construction order in a network patent infringement lawsuit.
A protective order was issued in a patent infringement lawsuit involving competing blood sugar test strips for diabetics.
The incomprehensible musings of a pro se litigant suing Facebook and a slew of other defendants.
A judge’s memorandum opinion dismissing another pro se litigant’s lawsuit because it “cannot discern which claims are made against which defendants and on what basis.”

The Top 10 Most-Viewed Justia Tech Law Blog Pages in February 2012

Our Top 10 February 2012 Facebook Posts:

The U.S. Supreme Court opinion on GPS tracking devices and search warrants.
When a federal judge ordered Google to produce Facebook litigant Paul Ceglia’s previously unknown Gmails, folks were interested.
Federal laws on protecting people using service animals prompted strong and diverse opinions from our Facebook friends.
It’s not every day that a party’s leading presidential candidates get sued for alleged patent infringement, particularly over their Facebook pages.
What kind of damages can you seek in a veterinary malpractice lawsuit? In North Carolina, only the small kind.
Just how do you define the standard for state marijuana DUI offenses?
The TimeZone database lawsuit was dropped. We’re safe to travel time again.
A federal judge sends racially charged email from his office computer. Outrage ensues.
Justia Verdict columnist Joanne Mariner’s piece on military detentions under the new National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) spurred intense debate.
We predicted that California’s anti-SLAPP law might be used to throw a case involving a YouTube video out of court. Here’s why.

Thanks again for visiting.

Justia’s Daily Summary Weekly Writer’s Picks

2012-03-01T21:55:16Z

The selections from our Daily Opinion Summary writers are pretty varied this week covering a World of Warcraft game gone bad, a tug of war between two District Courts over Park Service limits of snowmobilers, a suit alleging negligence in the prescription of medications which led to murder, and the rights of part-owners of a dairy located in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

First up, we have Laurel’s pick, which she aptly labeled, “every mother’s nightmare.”

U.S. v. Lucas
US 7th Cir (Filed 2/29/12)
While playing World of Warcraft online, defendant requested sexual pictures of CG, a minor. CG blocked him, but reinstated him in exchange for online “currency.” Defendant again sent sexual messages; CG again blocked him. Defendant, on release following arrest for possession of large-capacity firearms, paid to obtain CG’s address, told others he planned to kill CG, dug holes in his yard, and removed the release latch from his trunk. He amassed weapons, drove 20 hours to CG’s home, and impersonated an officer to lure CG out of the house and kidnap him. CG’s mother refused to allow defendant into the house. He pointed a handgun at her face, but she slammed the door and called police. He was arrested and pled guilty to brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. 924(c). The district court sentenced him to 210 months’ imprisonment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. A district court may consider a wide range of conduct at sentencing, including acquitted conduct and dismissed offenses, and the sentencing ranges for those offenses. The court rejected arguments that the court treated defendant’s psychological conditions as an aggravating factor or impermissibly considered rehabilitation.

Laura picked the following opinion involving prescription drugs, which she found interesting because “I’m not sure how clear the standard is here, as who knows what medications or what combination of medications is going to cause someone to go on a murderous rampage?”

Jeffs v. West
Utah Supreme Court (Filed 2/28/12)
Patient received medical treatment from a nurse at a medical clinic. Nurse prescribed patient at least six medications. With all of these drugs in his system, patient shot and killed his wife. Patient subsequently pled guilty to aggravated murder. Patient’s children (plaintiffs) filed suit through their conservator against the nurse, her consulting physician, and the medical clinic (collectively defendants), alleging negligence in the prescription of the medications that caused patient’s violent outburst and his wife’s death. The district court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, concluding that the nurse owed no duty of care to plaintiffs because no patient-health care provider relationship existed at the time of the underlying events between plaintiffs and defendants. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that healthcare providers owe nonpatients a duty to exercise reasonable care in the affirmative act of prescribing medications that pose a risk of injury to third parties.

From Leslie comes the tug of war between two District Courts over the limits of the numbers of snowmobiles allowed in our National Parks (including Grand Teton and Yellowstone). The two courts kept invalidating each other’s holdings before taking the matter to the Tenth Circuit.

Wyoming v. NPCA, et al
US 10th Cir (Filed 2/29/12)
In 1997, environmental and recreational groups began seeking to limit the daily number of snowmobiles permitted in Wyoming national parks. In several consolidated cases, the State of Wyoming and Park County, Wyoming petitioned for a review of agency action, challenging the 2009 rules governing snowmobile use in the parks. The district court dismissed the petitions for review, holding that petitioners lacked standing to pursue their claims. Snowmobile proponents filed suit in a Wyoming district court to challenge a 2001 National Park Service (NPS) rule limiting snowmobiles in the parks. That suit was settled, but ultimately the resolution of the suit brought the promulgation of another rule (the 2003 rule) that set limits on snowmobiles allowed in the parks. A Washington, D.C. district court invalidated the 2003 rule and reinstated the 2001 rule. Another lawsuit was filed in Wyoming district court, the result of which invalidated the D.C. court’s ruling. NPS then promulgated a series of rules which contained “sunset clauses” set to expire at end of each subsequent winter season. “Unsurprisingly,” the proponents and opponents filed simultaneous challenges in both Wyoming and D.C. to challenge the rules. While the two courts fought on jurisdiction, NPS formulated another new rule (2009 rule). Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that petitioners’ argument was moot: “Even if [the Court] were to conclude Petitioners had standing to challenge the procedure and analysis used to adopt the 2009 rule, and if the district court then found NPS had violated NEPA or the APA in promulgating that rule, [the Court's] decision would still have no effect. [The Court] reach[ed] this conclusion because the analytical and procedural aspects of the 2009 rule have been superseded by the new analysis and procedure underlying the new one-year rule. Because the procedural challenge in this case[was] to the analysis underlying the 2009 temporary rule and that analysis has been redone, [the Court held] that the procedural challenge to the 2009 temporary rule [was] moot.”

Our last pick, from Loan, takes us all the way from Wyoming to the Islamic Republic of Iran.

McKesson Corp. v. Islamic Republic of Iran
US DC Cir (Filed 02/28/2012)
McKesson, a United States company, claimed that after the Islamic Revolution, the government of Iran expropriated McKesson’s interest in an Iranian dairy (Pak Dairy) and withheld its dividend payments. McKesson filed its complaint in 1982, the case reached the court on five prior occasions, and was remanded by the court for numerous trials by the district court. At issue was whether the court had jurisdiction over McKesson’s claim and whether any recognized body of law provided McKesson with a private right of action against Iran. The court affirmed the district court’s holding that the act of state doctrine did not apply in this case. While the court reversed the district court’s holding that McKesson could base its claim on customary international law, the court affirmed the district court’s alternative holding that the Treaty of Amity, construed as Iranian law, provided McKesson with a private right of action, and the court further affirmed the district court’s finding that Iran was liable for the expropriation of McKesson’s equity interest in Pak Dairy and the withholding of McKesson’s dividend payments. Finally, the court reversed the district court’s award of compound interest and remanded for calculation of an award consisting of the value of McKesson’s expropriated property and withheld dividends plus simple interest.

Timezone Database Lawsuit Dropped

2012-02-27T23:12:47Z

In October, we blogged about a lawsuit against the editors of tz info, the time zone database for Unix. The editors were sued by a company called Astrolabe, Inc., who claimed a copyright interest in data used to populate the database.

The lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff this week. It turns out the EFF got involved. According to their statement,

“In January, EFF advised Astrolabe that Olson and Eggert would move for sanctions if Astrolabe did not withdraw its complaint. Today’s dismissal followed.”

Astrolabe agreed to dismiss the suit and a covenant not to sue in the future. Their statement included this gem:

“Astrolabe’s lawsuit against Mr. Olson and Mr. Eggert was based on a flawed understanding of the law. We now recognize that historical facts are no one’s property and, accordingly, are withdrawing our Complaint.”

Writer’s Picks for February 24, 2012

2012-02-24T18:45:45Z

The 10th Circuit decided an interesting FOIA case this week. In World Pub. Co. v. United States Dept. of Justice, the Court held that Tulsa World magazine was not entitled to six mugshots under the Freedom of Information Act. For more on this case, see posts on Politico and ABA Journal.

The Maryland Supreme Court denied a negligence claim against the state for serving a peanut butter sandwich to an allergic child through the free lunch program. In Pace v. State, the court found that the National School Lunch Act simply establishes a subsidized lunch program to benefit children at participating schools and did not impose a specific statutory duty of care towards children with food allergies.

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on a products liability case against the manufacturers of Motrin. In Lofton v. McNeil Consumer & Specialty Pharmaceuticals, the Court found that federal law preempted a Texas law that required plaintiffs to assert, in failure to warn cases, that a drug manufacturer withheld or misrepresented material information to the FDA. Since fraud on the FDA was not asserted in this claim, it was preempted by the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), and defendants were entitled to summary judgment in their favor.

UC Davis Student Pepper Spray Lawsuit

2012-02-23T21:32:46Z

Yesterday, the UC Davis protestors who were pepper sprayed by campus police in response to a non-violent protest filed suit in U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California. The plaintiffs, who were students or recent graduates of the university, had occupied the campus quad to protest university privatization, tuition increases, and earlier police beatings of protestors at Occupy Cal.

When some students failed to vacate the campus quad pursuant to a letter from UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi, police officers in riot gear disassembled the tents, administered pepper spray to the protestors and arrested them. The Baker v. Katehi complaint alleges violation of state and federal constitutional rights.

Download PDF

Writer’s Picks for February 17, 2012: Mafiosos and more

2012-02-17T17:55:49Z

I’m from Chicago, where everyone knows someone who knows someone in the mob. That’s why I loved this case, U.S. v Ambrose, sent to me by Laurel. It’s chock full of good mafia stories and lingo involving a crooked Deputy U.S. Marshal and a made guy in the “Chicago outfit” who turned state’s evidence.

In other criminal law cases, a defendant in the 10th Circuit was convicted of selling drugs at his apartment and for selling them within 1000 feet of a playground. Defendant challenged the definition of playground, which the court did not find convincing, holding that even if there was “one apparatus…intended for recreation of children,” then the place was a playground under the statutes. US v. West. In other words, “that’s nice.”

The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled in Univ. of Conn. v. Freedom of Info. Comm’nr that public agencies can create trade secrets entitled to protection from disclosure under FOIA. This seems like a pretty big deal.

Finally, the 9th Circuit issued an interesting case that dealt with wildlife management and press rights. The court remanded a case back to the district court to determine whether the public had a First Amendment right of access to the Bureau of Land Management’s wild horse roundups and, if so, whether the viewing restrictions were narrowly tailored to serve the government’s overriding interests. Leigh v. Salazar. The opinion doesn’t mention what they do with the horses when they round them up–I’m not sure I want to know.

Enjoy your weekend, everyone.

Whitey Bulger’s Defense Lawyers Want Time “to Review a Tsunami’s Worth” of Material

2012-02-13T20:13:01Z

Whitey Bulger, the indicted and apprehended alleged ringleader of Boston’s notorious ‘Winter Hill Gang’ organized crime family, needs “a reasonable amount of time to review a tsunami’s worth of discovery,” according to Bulger’s defense lawyers J.W. Carney, Jr. and and Henry B. Brennan.

The statement was made in a filing with the Massachusetts federal court this morning (read the legal filing below).

Just how much material?

According to Bulger’s defense attorneys, they need to review roughly 580,000 pages of documents and 921 government wiretaps, “with only a few transcribed.” Reviewing 2.5 wiretaps a day, every day of the year (including weekends) — focusing on nothing else — still wouldn’t be enough time, and would not even cover the 580,0000 pages of documents

Bulger’s attorneys’ request for a “reasonable amount of time” appears to be just that: a reasonable request given the number of witnesses, documentation, electronic evidence, and more.

THey also hint that at least one defense strategy will be to probe “the FBI regarding its relationship with” Bulger.

You can read Whitey Bulger’s indictment here:

Third Superseding Indictment (U.S. v. Bulger, et al.)

See Bulger’s defense lawyer’s request for more time to prepare for trial here:

Defendant’s Memorandum Regarding Estimated time Required to Review and Analyze Discovery (U.S. v. Bulger, et al.)

Writer’s Picks

2012-02-10T18:56:59Z

This was kind of a slow week for our Daily Summary writers, but we did have a blockbuster from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals: Perry v. Brown. This case involved Proposition 8, which amended the California state constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. The 9th Cir. chose to address the constitutionality of Prop. 8 and declined to address the broader question of whether same-sex couples had the right to marry. As a preliminary matter, the 9th Cir. held that proponents of the ballot measure had standing. The 9th Cir. held that Prop. 8 was unconstitutional because it violated the Equal Protection Clause by targeting a minority group and withdrawing a right that the group possessed without a legitimate reason for doing so. The court also affirmed the denial of a motion to vacate former Chief Judge Walker on the basis of his purported interest in being allowed to marry his same-sex partner.

The mainstream media extensively covered this case — for more information, check out the New York Times article.

The Iowa Supreme Court ruled on the First Amendment and its Free Exercise clause in Mitchell County v. Zimmerman. This case involved a Mennonite resident whose religion forbade the use of steel cleats on tires of his tractor wheels, which conflicted with a local county ordinance requiring them. The Iowa Supreme Court held that the ordinance as applied to church members violated the free exercise clause of the First Amendment where the ordinance (1) was not of general applicability because it contained exemptions that were inconsistent with its stated purpose of protecting Mitchell County’s roads; and (2) did not survive strict scrutiny because it was not the least restrictive means of serving what was claimed to be a compelling governmental interest in road protection.

In Holt v. 2011 Legislative Reapportionment Comm’n, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court considered the issue of redistricting. A state official had sued the official commission charged with redistricting. The court issued, as our writer Leslie tells us, “an incredibly long opinion that points to the simplest answer: ‘this is a good start, but try again.’”

Finally, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion on a patent matter for AstraZeneca, the makers of Crestor. In AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, L.P. v Apotex Corp., the Court held for defendant generic manufacturers on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to state a 35 U.S.C. 271(e)(2) claim based on defendants’ existing ANDA filings, and claims premised on presumed future labeling amendments were not ripe for adjudication.

Prop. 8 Unconstitutional, Federal Appeals Court Rules

2012-02-07T18:50:19Z

Proposition 8 (‘Prop 8′), the California voter amendment that sought to ban same-sex marriages in the state is unconstitutional, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in a 128-page opinion issued this morning.

You can read the complete decision below:

Download PDF

Opinion (Perry v. Brown)