Irving Hill

The case involved a habeas corpus petition by an individual committed to a state mental hospital after being found not guilty by reason of insanity on charges including assault and second-degree murder. The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of California's statutes governing the release and conditional release of insanity acquittees on due process, equal protection, and cruel and unusual punishment grounds, as well as an alleged improper delegation of legislative and judicial power, and claimed the trial court erred by not applying the doctrine of imperfect self-defense. The court reviewed the petition, records, magistrate's report and recommendation, and objections, then adopted the magistrate's findings and recommendations after a de novo review of objected-to portions. It dismissed the petition with prejudice, concluding that the claims lacked sufficient merit to warrant habeas relief. The decision rested on exhaustion of state remedies and determinations that the statutory scheme and trial court's actions did not violate federal constitutional standards in a way justifying federal intervention.

criminal lawcivil rights

Petitioner, a Cuban citizen who entered the US via the 1980 Mariel Boatlift and was paroled into the country, was later convicted in Florida state court of second-degree murder, armed burglary, and armed robbery, for which he served a prison term. After completing his sentence, he was taken into INS custody for exclusion and deportation proceedings based on his criminal history and other factors reviewed under the Cuban Review Plan. He petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming his ongoing detention in a federal facility was indefinite and violated his constitutional rights. The district court denied the petition, adopting the magistrate's report and recommendation after de novo review, which concluded that the detention was lawful under immigration statutes and not unconstitutional.

immigrationcriminal lawcivil rights

This case involved a dispute over health insurance coverage under an ERISA employee welfare benefit plan, where the insurer paid only $10,000 of a $54,696.96 claim for a child's hospitalization and treatment for autism, classifying the condition as a mental illness subject to the policy's annual limit. The court held that autism is not a mental illness within the meaning of the exclusionary clause, entitling the plaintiff to the full amount. The ruling rested on expert testimony establishing that autism is a pervasive developmental disability caused by a physical organic brain disorder, with symptoms appearing early in life and unrelated to environmental or psychological factors, and that it cannot be treated through traditional psychotherapy. The court applied a standard of review requiring the administrator's decision to be neither arbitrary nor capricious and interpreted the undefined policy term according to its plain modern meaning informed by medical consensus.

healthcarebusiness & regulatory

In Popovich v. United States, an employee injured on the job sued the federal government for negligence under the Tort Claims Act and obtained a judgment that was later paid in full and satisfied. The employer, which had paid workers' compensation benefits and filed a notice of lien claim under California Labor Code sections 3852-3856 before trial but did not participate further, later sought to perfect and enforce the lien by reopening the federal case after satisfaction of judgment. The employee had separately petitioned the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board to void the lien based on alleged employer negligence, and the Board denied the petition for lack of jurisdiction. The court addressed the timing of lien perfection, the interplay between federal tort proceedings and state workers' compensation processes, and whether employer negligence could be litigated to defeat the lien, ultimately denying the request to reopen while noting the Board's role in credit determinations under section 3861.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilityprocedure

The case concerned Apple's claims that Formula infringed its copyrights by selling computer kits containing unauthorized copies of Apple's software programs. Following a preliminary injunction barring Formula from copying or selling such programs, Formula sold ROM Sets that included exact copies of Apple's Applesoft and Autostart programs on silicon chips. The court found Formula in contempt, determining that its sales violated the injunction. The core reasoning was that Section 117 of the Copyright Act permits only the owner of a program copy to make an archival backup for personal use and does not authorize the manufacture or commercial distribution of copies to third parties.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Apple Computer suing Formula International for copyright infringement of its computer programs stored in ROMs and diskettes, trademark infringement through use of the 'Pineapple' name, and unfair competition, after Formula began selling computer kits containing identical copies of Apple's software. The court granted Apple's motion for a preliminary injunction, barring Formula from using the Apple or Pineapple marks, copying the protected programs, and distributing or selling items containing those copies. The ruling rested on findings that Apple had shown a probability of success on the merits of its copyright and trademark claims, as the programs were properly registered and protectable and the names were confusingly similar, while the unfair competition theory was not relied upon for relief. The injunction was issued pending trial, subject to Apple posting a bond.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case involved two construction companies that had withdrawn from a multiemployer pension plan governed by ERISA before Congress passed the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendment Act (MPPAA) in 1980. The companies challenged the statute's retroactive imposition of withdrawal liability, which assessed them hundreds of thousands of dollars each—amounts exceeding their net worth or annual income—after their withdrawals but before the law's enactment. The court ruled that the retroactive provisions of MPPAA were unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiffs. It reasoned that the sudden and substantial retroactive liability imposed without prior notice or opportunity to avoid it violated due process, while rejecting other constitutional challenges and declining to address a takings claim.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryfederal power

The case involves a California state prisoner serving a life sentence for first-degree murder who filed a civil action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985(3) against Los Angeles County Deputy Sheriffs, alleging unlawful search of his home, seizure or destruction of property, assault, and arrest in 1976, and seeking damages along with declaratory and expungement relief. The plaintiff applied for a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum to secure his presence at the upcoming trial of his case. The court held that it possessed discretionary authority under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(5) to issue the writ even for a prisoner held outside the district's geographic boundaries, but denied the application after weighing factors including expense, logistical difficulty, and potential security risks against the limited benefit of the prisoner's in-person attendance.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case is a stockholders' derivative action brought against Walt Disney Productions and its officers/directors, challenging 1974 stock option grants as an invalid amendment to a 1973 shareholder-approved plan, violations of Sections 10(b) and 14 of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act, corporate waste, and breaches of fiduciary duty. After a Special Litigation Committee of uncharged directors investigated and recommended against pursuing the claims (following shareholder ratification of the 1974 grants), plaintiffs moved to dismiss the action with prejudice and petitioned for an award of over $381,000 in attorneys' and accountants' fees and expenses from the company. The court held that fees may be awarded only for services rendered up to the date of shareholder ratification, as that step provided the sole measurable benefit to the corporation, but not for later work on the independence/good-faith issues or post-ratification efforts. It further ruled that the total amount must be substantially reduced from the request and scheduled further proceedings for evidence and allocation. The topics are business & regulatory and procedure.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Adams v. Howerton, U.S. citizen Richard Adams and Australian citizen Anthony Sullivan, both male, sought to have Sullivan classified as Adams' "immediate relative" spouse under immigration law after participating in a marriage ceremony in Colorado. The Immigration and Naturalization Service denied the petition, and the court upheld that denial on summary judgment. The court determined that federal immigration law controls the definition of "spouse," which refers to a husband or wife in a traditional marriage, and that same-sex marriages are not recognized for this purpose even if valid under state law. The reasoning focused on the ordinary meaning of the term, congressional intent to limit benefits to opposite-sex couples, and the state's interest in promoting procreation through marriage.

immigrationfamily lawcivil rights

The case concerned challenges by aviation associations and businesses to multiple Santa Monica municipal ordinances regulating operations at the city's municipal airport, including night curfews, jet aircraft bans, noise level limits (SENEL), weekend operational restrictions, high fees for jet use, and various safety and radio requirements. Plaintiffs argued the rules violated the Equal Protection and Commerce Clauses, were preempted by federal aviation law and FAA regulations, and breached federal grant agreements and private leases. In prior rulings, the court rejected abstention in favor of state courts and addressed collateral estoppel and the scope of the Airport Director's discretion; the oral opinion from the bench then resolved the validity of the specific ordinances and regulations under federal constitutional and statutory standards.

business & regulatoryenvironmentfederal powercivil rights

This case involved the U.S. government's seizure of eight stone statues imported from Rhodesia, leading to an in rem forfeiture action based on violations of customs laws and economic sanctions prohibiting imports from Rhodesia. The claimant, the owner and a professor, moved for summary judgment arguing procedural defects and delays violated due process, while the government sought forfeiture on the merits. The court granted the claimant's motion and denied the government's, holding that due process barred the forfeiture due to deficiencies in the seizure process and substantial delays before filing the district court action, without reaching the merits of whether forfeiture was otherwise warranted.

criminal lawfederal powerprocedure

The case involved a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 filed by a defendant who had pled guilty to conspiracy to manufacture and distribute amphetamines in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and received a five-year prison sentence. The petitioner argued that the sentence was illegal because it omitted a mandatory special parole term of at least two years that should be carved out of his existing term. The court denied the motion on the merits, ruling that no special parole term applies to § 846 conspiracy convictions. Its reasoning rested on the distinct statutory language: § 846 authorizes only imprisonment or fine or both up to the maximum for the underlying substantive offense, whereas the special parole requirement is found only in the separate punishment provisions of § 841 that govern substantive drug offenses.

criminal law

This case concerns a federal prisoner whose established parole release date was rescinded by the Board of Parole solely on the basis of prison incident reports alleging misconduct, without the Board conducting its own investigation or hearing. The court determined that the fixing of a parole release date creates a protected liberty interest that cannot be withdrawn without minimum due process procedures, drawing on the standards from Wolff v. McDonnell. These required procedures include advance written notice of charges, a written statement of evidence and reasons, the right to be present and present witnesses and evidence (subject to institutional safety), and adjudication by an impartial panel. The court reasoned that there is no legally significant distinction between rescinding good time credits and rescinding a parole date, both of which impair a prisoner's residuum of liberty, and that a hearing meeting these standards could be conducted by either the Bureau of Prisons or the Board of Parole.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

This case involves a longshoreman injured aboard a vessel while operating a motorized cargo-handling vehicle whose brakes and steering allegedly failed; the vehicle was supplied by the vessel owner to the stevedoring employer for consideration. The plaintiff asserted a strict-liability claim against the vessel owner under federal maritime law, which the defendant moved to dismiss on the ground that the 1972 amendments to the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. § 905(b)) barred such claims. The court denied the motion without prejudice, holding that federal maritime law may incorporate common-law strict-liability principles, that the 1972 amendments do not preclude the theory, and that the vessel owner’s status as a potential “seller” or supplier in the business of providing such vehicles could support liability once additional facts are developed. The ruling leaves open whether the doctrine ultimately applies on the full record.

torts & liabilitylabor & employmentprocedure

This case was the first criminal trial under the 1971 Sound Recording Amendment to the Copyright Act, involving defendants convicted after a jury trial of conspiracy, copyright infringement, and mail fraud for manufacturing and selling eight-track tapes by re-recording copyrighted hit recordings from major labels. The court addressed legal issues in its jury instructions, holding that protection under the statute applies only to sound recordings fixed on or after February 15, 1972, so that albums mixing pre- and post-1972 material are copyrighted solely as to the later portions. The court further ruled that re-recordings constitute infringement even with alterations such as changes in speed, tone, or added echoes, unless the final product is no longer recognizable as the same performance, because such acts recapture the actual sounds rather than creating an independent fixation. The instructions defined the elements of willful infringement for profit as requiring a valid post-1972 copyright, duplication by re-recording, willfulness, and a commercial purpose.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatory

The case involved a homeowners association in Carson, California, suing federal and state transportation officials to halt construction of a segment of the Artesia Freeway (Route 91) adjacent to their neighborhood, alleging failures to follow required public hearing and approval procedures for federal-aid highway projects. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the remaining causes of action, dismissing the claims. It found that the plaintiff had unreasonably delayed in filing suit despite awareness of the project, leading to substantial public expenditures and detrimental reliance by defendants. The court concluded that laches barred equitable relief because the prejudice to defendants outweighed any countervailing considerations, as the statutes at issue were procedural and enforcement would mainly cause delay rather than guarantee project changes.

environmentprocedurefederal power

This case concerned the government's civil forfeiture action against a vehicle owned by Mrs. Jerry Scoggins, which had been seized after her son allegedly used it to import marijuana. The owner had filed an administrative petition for remission that was denied after months of delay, followed by a further seven-month wait before the government filed its district court complaint. The court granted the claimant's motion for summary judgment and ordered the car returned. It held that the relevant statutes (19 U.S.C. §§ 1602 et seq. and 49 U.S.C. § 781) require prompt reporting and filing by officials, that administrative pursuit of remission does not excuse delay, and that the prolonged inaction violated due process and was barred by laches given the depreciating nature of automobiles.

criminal lawfederal powerpropertyprocedure

In McMullen v. United States, the petitioner sought federal licenses as a firearms dealer and curio collector under 18 U.S.C. § 923, but the applications were denied based on a prior California conviction for unlawful possession of a machine gun. The state court had originally charged the offense as a felony but, by stipulation, treated it as a misdemeanor under Penal Code § 17(b)(5), resulting in a suspended sentence and fine. The district court affirmed the denials, holding that federal law disqualifies applicants convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment exceeding one year, determined by the maximum possible state penalty of five years rather than the final classification or actual sentence imposed. The court further found that the conviction qualified as a felony under related federal provisions and regulations because the offense involved a firearm, and state law treatment did not alter its federal disqualifying effect.

gunscriminal lawfederal power

The case involved the Secretary of Labor challenging the 1971 election of officers in a local union under Title IV of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, primarily on grounds that the union failed to provide absentee voting for members on travel card status or retirees living far away, and secondarily on refusal to mail campaign literature. The court ruled in favor of the defendant union, finding no violation of the law. The core reasoning was that the Act requires only a reasonable opportunity to vote, not mandatory absentee ballots, and the election arrangements did not deny such opportunity to a significant group of members; the literature issue was cured by a subsequent offer to mail it.

labor & employmentelections