Affiliations

• United States v. Bornstein

  District Court, D. New Jersey · 1973-06-26 · cited 9×

  The case concerned a civil action by the United States under the False Claims Act against defendants who operated United National Labs, alleging they supplied falsely branded electron tubes to a government contractor for use in military radio equipment. Based on stipulated facts, the court found that the defendants purchased surplus tubes, affixed unauthorized JAN markings and a fake government inspection stamp, and provided certificates of compliance despite knowing the tubes did not meet required military specifications. The court determined that these actions caused false claims to be submitted to the government, resulting in liability for forfeitures and double damages under the Act. The core reasoning rested on the defendants' knowledge that the tubes were destined for a government contract and their deliberate creation of false markings and documentation to misrepresent the tubes as new and qualified.

  criminal lawbusiness & regulatory

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (5,414 words)

• Urbano v. McCorkle

  District Court, D. New Jersey · 1972-07-27 · cited 8×

  The case involved a New Jersey prisoner, Robert F. Urbano, who sued eleven prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging denial of procedural due process when he was placed in administrative segregation without written notice of charges or an opportunity to respond. After the defendants stipulated that the required hearing had not been provided, the only remaining issue was whether compensatory damages were due for the approximately 664 days in segregation. The court found that the conditions of confinement in segregation were not materially different from those in the general population and that the officials had acted in good faith without bad faith or punitive intent. It therefore held that no compensatory damages were warranted, applying the defense that officials are not charged with predicting future developments in constitutional law.

  criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (1,608 words)

• United States Ex Rel. Burt v. Yeager

  District Court, D. New Jersey · 1972-05-09 · cited 6×

  This case involved a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 filed by Edward A. Burt, who was convicted by a New Jersey jury of second-degree murder and sentenced to 25-30 years in prison. Burt argued that his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination were violated when the prosecution, during cross-examination and summation, referenced his failure to provide an exculpatory account to police while in custody, thereby penalizing him for remaining silent after arrest. The court reviewed the trial record and determined that these references improperly used his post-custody silence against him at trial. It distinguished the situation from Harris v. New York, which permits impeachment with prior inconsistent statements, and held that the conduct violated Miranda protections. The court granted the writ but stayed its execution for 90 days to permit retrial or appeal.

  criminal law

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (4,591 words)

• Urbano v. McCorkle

  District Court, D. New Jersey · 1971-11-17 · cited 41×

  The case involves a New Jersey state prisoner serving a life sentence who sued eleven prison officials under the Civil Rights Act and diversity jurisdiction, alleging that his October 1968 transfer from Trenton State Prison to the prison hospital and later to punitive segregation at Rahway was maliciously intended to punish him for prior legal actions on behalf of himself and other inmates and to chill his constitutional right of access to the courts. The court granted partial summary judgment to the defendants on these claims. It reasoned that prison officials had statutory authority to transfer inmates for institutional safety, that the plaintiff had been represented by counsel and permitted contact with his attorney within hours of the transfer, and that no genuine issue of material fact existed as to any intent to deny court access or impose arbitrary punishment.

  civil rightscriminal law

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (5,871 words)