Legal News

Case Summaries

Asset Forfeiture

[03/08] US v. Brummer
In defendant's appeal from the district court's order that he forfeit two firearms and six rounds of ammunition pursuant to his conviction of knowingly and willfully failing to declare firearms to a common carrier, the order is affirmed where the indictment charging defendant with violating 18 U.S.C. section 922(e) included a notice of forfeiture, and thus the district court therefore was required to order forfeiture of the property.

[03/02] US v. Cheeseman
In a prosecution of defendant for violating 18 U.S.C. section 922(g)(3), which criminalizes possession of firearms and ammunition by an unlawful user or addict of a controlled substance, district court's judgment ordering the forfeiture of over 600 firearms and ammunition is affirmed where: 1) the possession of firearms and ammunition is sufficient for a district court to find that the property was "involved in" a section 922(g)(3) offense; and 2) forfeiture did not violate the Excessive Fines Clause as the value of the firearms was at most two times the maximum penalty imposed by the statute.

[02/26] US v. Meux
Following defendant's conviction and sentence of 37 months' imprisonment and order to pay a mandatory restitution of $134,218.52, a magistrate judge's order granting the government's motion for turnover of funds that was held in custody by a US Marshal in an unrelated case is affirmed as the magistrate judge had authority to hold a hearing and to order the turnover of funds to satisfy the lien. Furthermore, record reflects that defendant was provided with essentially the same due process protections he wold have been accorded in garnishment proceedings.

Read More

Aerospace & Defense

[02/26] Pasternack v. NTSB
In a petition for review of the FAA's revocation of petitioner's airman certificates on the ground that petitioner refused to take a mandatory drug test, the petition is granted where the FAA erred by relying on an "implicit credibility determination" by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), when in fact the ALJ made no such credibility determination.

[02/19] Gorzynski v. JetBlue Airways Corp.
In an employment discrimination action based on claims that plaintiff suffered a hostile work environment, age discrimination, and retaliation for complaints of race and age discrimination, summary judgment for defendant is vacated and the matter remanded where: 1) an employer is not, as a matter of law, entitled to the Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense simply because an employer's sexual harassment policy provides that the plaintiff could have complained to other persons as well as the alleged harasser; and 2) thus, the employer in this case was not entitled to the Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense as a matter of law, and it was necessary to look to the facts and circumstances to determine whether, by not pursuing other avenues seemingly provided in defendant's sexual harassment policy, plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of the employer's preventative measures.

[02/08] Crandall v. Denver
In an action under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act to prohibit full-plane deicing at an airport concourse and also require other precautionary steps relating to airplane deicing fluid (ADF), judgment for defendants is affirmed where plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that ADF at the airport (whether it degraded inside or outside the concourse) may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to health.

Read More