1st Circuit Court of Appeals, September, 2009, Federal Case law

Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!

Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!

Federal Courts - 1st Circuit Court of Appeals - September 17 - September 25, 2009

Pena v. Fortuno, No. 09-1911, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, September 17, 2009, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: District court rulings were not appealable under 28 U.S.C.S. ? 1292(a)(1) as a denial of a preliminary injunction because at no time did the district court state that it was denying a preliminary injunction, as opposed to a temporary restraining order, and it appeared from the court's indications that further interlocutory relief was available.

Search Cases for Free

Sutliffe v. Epping Sch. Dist., No. 08-2587, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, September 17, 2009, Decided
View this case - free

Search Cases for Free

Clarke v. Spencer, No. 08-2476, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, September 22, 2009, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Denial of petitioner's 28 U.S.C.S. ? 2254 petition was affirmed because the Commonwealth could properly introduce evidence of what petitioner told the detective during an interrogation, before petitioner invoked his right to remain silent, and the fact that it contradicted the story petitioner told at trial was fair game during closing argument.

Search Cases for Free

Sihombing v. Holder, No. 08-2119, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, September 22, 2009, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Petition for review of a judgment upholding the denial of a request for withholding of removal was denied, as the determination that petitioner failed to establish past persecution or a clear probability of future persecution was supported by substantial evidence in the record. Missing information in the transcript was not prejudicial.

Search Cases for Free

United States v. Mack, No. 09-1055, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, September 22, 2009, Decided
View this case - free

Search Cases for Free

Blue Cross & Blue Shield v. AstraZeneca Pharms. LP (In re Pharm. Indus. Average Wholesale Price Litig.), No. 08-1056, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, September 23, 2009, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Finding of liability and award of damages under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A was affirmed because pharmaceutical manufacturer published false and inflated average wholesale prices for physician-administered drug, creating windfall for physicians and causing injury to customers and third-party payors, each of whom overpaid for drug.

Search Cases for Free

Kholi v. Wall, No. 08-1159, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, September 23, 2009, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Habeas petitioner's state postconviction motion to reduce an imposed sentence under R.I. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 35(a), that sought purely discretionary leniency and did not directly challenge the validity of the conviction or sentence, nonetheless acted as a tolling mechanism within the purview of 28 U.S.C.S. ? 2244(d)(2).

Search Cases for Free

United States v. Wright, No. 08-1063, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, September 23, 2009, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Defendant's actions were sufficiently ambiguous as to whether there was criminal activity afoot to justify under the Fourth Amendment police stopping him when he leaned forward apparently to look at an unmarked police car that had just pulled up, then immediately exited his car and ran clutching at his pocket, failing to obey police orders to stop.

Search Cases for Free

United States v. Cabrera-Rivera, No. 08-1702, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, September 25, 2009, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Where the district court permitted the government, over objection, to improperly use out of court statements of nontestifying codefendants as evidence of guilt in a robbery violating the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C.S. ? 1951, the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to the confrontation of witnesses was violated, and a new trial was awarded.

Search Cases for Free

United States v. Troy, No. 08-2002, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, September 25, 2009, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Where defendant ignored border officers and pushed an officer when she touched him lightly on the arm, his conviction for assaulting a federal officer under 18 U.S.C.S. ? 111(a) was upheld because a rational factfinder could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer was acting within the scope of her official duties.

Search Cases for Free

Communities Portal