This case involved an application for naturalization by Malaszenko, who was denied citizenship by the court. The court found that Malaszenko had willfully failed to support his natural child, as established by a German court judgment, despite having the financial means to do so, such as purchasing and operating a car. Previous decisions establish that such failure demonstrates a lack of good moral character required for citizenship under the statute. The applicant's unsubstantiated claim of improper trial proceedings was disregarded, leaving the German court's finding as prima facie evidence of paternity and obligation.
This case involves civil contempt proceedings arising from a 1959 consent decree in a trademark infringement action, where Singer Manufacturing Co. alleged that Sun Vacuum Stores, Inc. and its officers violated paragraph 5 of the decree. That provision barred the defendants from using Singer's marks in advertising to promote other products rather than making bona fide offers to sell Singer items, with specified practices like disparaging the advertised product or failing to deliver serving as prima facie evidence of violation. After a three-day hearing, the court found the corporate defendant in contempt based on evidence from three customer interactions in which salesmen disparaged rebuilt Singer machines, promoted competing brands like Morse, and failed to deliver as promised, despite the company's internal compliance orders. The individual defendants were not held in contempt due to insufficient evidence of their personal authorization or knowledge of the violations. The court awarded counsel fees to the plaintiff but declined to impose fines based on profits or an in terrorem fine without further information or proof of actual injury.
This negligence action was filed in federal district court in New Jersey more than two years after the accident, making it time-barred under the New Jersey statute of limitations but not under New York's. Defendants moved for summary judgment, and the plaintiff responded with a motion to transfer the case to the Southern District of New York under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The court denied the transfer motion and granted summary judgment, reasoning that the action could not have been brought in the proposed New York district because one defendant was not amenable to service there, the parties and witnesses would not be materially more convenient in New York, and the individual defendant would not consent to the transfer. The court further held that the statute-of-limitations defense controlled and that transfer was inappropriate where all defendants could not properly be transferred.
The case was a stockholder's derivative antitrust action brought by Alexander Rogers on behalf of Metal & Thermit Corporation against American Can Co. and several of M&T's directors, alleging violations of the Sherman and Clayton Acts through control over tin plate scrap purchases and pricing that injured M&T. After a prior suit was dismissed for failing to seek stockholder approval, the stockholders voted against authorizing the suit, and the defendants moved to dismiss for lack of standing and on the ground that the vote barred the action as an expression of business judgment. The court denied the motions to dismiss and for summary judgment, holding that the vote constituted an attempted ratification of the alleged ongoing violations rather than a pure business judgment and therefore did not preclude the derivative suit, while rejecting other defenses including arguments about intra-corporate conspiracies.
This case involves claims that the Department of Justice improperly used a grand jury to gather evidence for a civil antitrust action against Procter & Gamble Company, rather than for a criminal indictment. The court examined internal DOJ documents and testimony showing that, from the beginning, the agency planned to seek only civil remedies such as divestiture based on the grand jury evidence. The court decided that the grand jury had been misused in this manner and ordered production of the grand jury transcript to the defendants. The core reasoning was that employing criminal procedures solely to obtain civil evidence violates established legal policy and creates an unfair advantage that disclosure can remedy.
criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryprocedurefederal power
In Dimeco v. Fisher, the plaintiff sued his employer in state court for wrongful discharge and the union for failing to pursue arbitration under a collective bargaining agreement, while also bringing a slander claim against an individual defendant. The defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting jurisdiction under Section 301(a) of the Taft-Hartley Act or alternatively under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337. The court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand, holding that Section 301(a) does not confer federal jurisdiction over suits by individual employees to enforce uniquely personal rights such as wrongful discharge claims, which remain common-law actions properly heard in state courts. The court reasoned that Supreme Court precedents like Association of Westinghouse Salaried Employees v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. and Textile Workers Union v. Lincoln Mills distinguish between union-enforced contract rights and individual grievances, and that Congress did not intend to flood federal courts with such litigation. Alternative bases for jurisdiction were rejected as the underlying claim does not arise under federal law in the required sense.