FEDERAL PREEMPTION 
Published: January 23, 2012
Tags: federal preemption
A state law that regulates what slaughterhouses must do with pigs that cannot walk is preempted by the Federal Meat Inspection Act.
§1983 – QUALIFIED IMMUNITY
Published: January 23, 2012
Tags: qualified immunity, §1983
Because the Fourth Amendment permitted police officers to enter a residence if they had a reasonable basis for concluding that there was an imminent threat to their safety and the safety of others, they were entitled to qualified immunity despite the lack of a warrant.
See “Officers entitled to qualified immunity despite warrantless entry.”
U.S. Supreme Court. Ryburn v. Huff, No. 11-208. Jan. 23, 2012. Lawyers USA No. 993-3510.
SEX OFFENDERS
Published: January 23, 2012
Tags: sex offenders
The federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act did not require a pre-Act offender to register before the U.S. Attorney General had promulgated a rule making the law’s registration requirements applicable to him.
See “Sex offender had no duty to register”
U.S. Supreme Court. Reynolds v. U.S., No. 10-6549. Jan. 23, 2012. Lawyers USA No. 993-3508.
SEARCH AND SEIZURE
Published: January 23, 2012
Tags: Fourth Amendment, GPS device, privacy, search and seizure, Supreme Court, trespass, warrantless search
The attaching of a GPS device to a vehicle and the use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment.
See “Warrantless use of GPS device constitutes search”
U.S. Supreme Court. U.S. v. Jones. No. 10-1259. Jan. 23 2012. Lawyers USA No. 993-3509.
VOTING RIGHTS ACT
Published: January 20, 2012
Tags: Supreme Court, Texas redistricting, Voting Right Act
The U.S. Supreme Court vacated and remanded a Voting Right Act challenge to a redistricting plan because it was unclear whether the district court followed the appropriate standards in drawing interim maps for the 2012 elections.
U.S. Supreme Court. Perry v. Perez. Nos. 11-713, 11-714 and 11-715. Jan. 20, 2012. Lawyers USA No. 993-3504.
CONSUMER PROTECTION
Published: January 18, 2012
Tags: debt collection, TCPA, Telephone Consumer Protection Act
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act’s grant of permissive jurisdiction to state courts did not deprive a federal court of jurisdiction to hear the lawsuit of a plaintiff who claimed he was victimized by a debt collector’s use of an automated dialing system to place collection calls.
See “Federal courts can hear suits over ‘robo-calls’”
U.S. Supreme Court. Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, No. 10-1195. Jan. 18, 2012. Lawyers USA No. 993-3496.
CRIMINAL
Published: January 18, 2012
Tags: habeas corpus, ineffective assistance of counsel
A habeas petitioner who was effectively “abandoned” by his lawyers demonstrated sufficient cause to excuse his failure to meet a state deadline for appealing the denial of postconviction relief.
See “Habeas claim revived in death row case”
U.S. Supreme Court. Maples v. Thomas, No. 10-63. Jan. 18, 2012. Lawyers USA No. 993-3497.
EMPLOYMENT
Published: January 12, 2012
Tags: employment
An employee injured while working on land may still recover under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act where he can establish a substantial nexus between his injury and his employer’s extractive operations on the Outer Continental Shelf.
U.S. Supreme Court. Pacific Offshore Operators v. Valladolid, No. 10-507. Jan. 11, 2012. Lawyers USA No. 993-3480.
HABEAS CORPUS
Published: January 12, 2012
Tags: habeas corpus
Because section 2253(c) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act is a mandatory but nonjurisdictional rule, a federal appellate court is not deprived of jurisdiction to adjudicate an appeal where the lower federal court did not set forth a constitutional issue in a defendant’s certificate of appealability. Further, for state prisoners who fail to seek review in the state’s highest court, the judgment to appeal for purposes of the Act becomes final on the date that the time for seeking such review expires.
U.S. Supreme Court. Gonzalez v. Thaler, No. 10-895. Jan. 10, 2012. Lawyers USA No. 993-3479.
EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION
Published: January 11, 2012
Tags: eyewitness identifications
The Due Process Clause does not require a trial court to screen an eyewitness identification for reliability unless it was procured by unnecessarily suggestive circumstances arranged by the police.
SUBSCRIBERS: Did you receive the new Lawyers USA Weekly Update in your inbox on Monday?
If not, click here to register and learn more now.
