This case involves a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by Morrison, who was convicted in a bench trial of rape and related charges after the admission of a bedsheet containing sperm and hair evidence seized without a warrant. The petitioner claimed ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to conduct discovery or timely move to suppress the evidence, which the State concedes was obtained unconstitutionally. On remand from the Supreme Court to apply the prejudice standard from Strickland v. Washington, the district court held that counsel's errors were prejudicial, as the improperly admitted evidence was central to the prosecution's case in a close factual dispute and there was a reasonable probability of acquittal without it. The court rejected the State's arguments that such claims are not cognizable on habeas or that testimony from the trial judge could be used to assess prejudice, and it granted the writ ordering a new trial.
The case involved an unincorporated association of property developers challenging Hoboken Ordinance V-51, which required landlords to notify the city of apartment vacancies over 30 days and imposed daily fines for units vacant over 60 days unless a waiver was granted for maintenance, improvements, or family occupancy; the ordinance aimed to address a shortage of affordable rental housing by preventing 'warehousing' of units. Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that the ordinance violated federal constitutional and statutory rights and was preempted by New Jersey state law on condominium conversions. The court dismissed the complaint, as amended, finding no basis for the federal claims. The decision rested on the absence of any enforcement actions under the ordinance prior to suit, the plaintiffs' failure to demonstrate concrete injury or ripe claims, and the ordinance's exemptions and waiver provisions not triggering federal violations on their face.
In Anyanwu v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, Nigerian petitioners facing deportation after overstaying and working without authorization sought a stay from the INS Deputy District Director pending their motion to reopen and asylum application, claiming the journalist husband faced persecution due to ties to a government overthrown in a 1983 coup. The INS denied the stay, deeming the asylum claim frivolous and finding no health risks to their child from return. The court granted a preliminary injunction staying deportation, holding that the denial constituted an abuse of discretion under the applicable regulation because the director's summary rejection failed to seriously weigh evidence of potential harm, including letters from relatives and human rights reports documenting arbitrary arrests and prison conditions in Nigeria. The court emphasized that discretion narrows where human life is at stake and that deportation would moot the asylum claim. The decision was issued under habeas review as a non-final order not directly appealable to the circuit court.
The case concerns James Morgart's suit against Union Mutual Life Insurance Company alleging breach of his general agency agreement, which allowed termination on 30 days' notice, based on alleged written and oral promises not to terminate so long as sales quotas were met; the complaint also included claims for promissory estoppel, fraud, and other theories arising from the 1983 termination of all such contracts. The court had previously denied dismissal of the contract, estoppel, and fraud claims. On the pending motions, the court vacated a magistrate's order directing application of Maine law because the magistrate lacked jurisdiction over the choice-of-law issue and denied summary judgment, holding that genuine factual disputes existed as to whether Morgart's election of early retirement constituted voluntary relinquishment of his claims and whether a subsequent emeritus agreement extinguished any surviving rights under the original agency contract.
This case involved multiemployer pension plans under ERISA and the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act, where Progressive Supermarkets withdrew from two union pension funds upon liquidating its assets in 1983 and was assessed over $750,000 in withdrawal liability. The plaintiffs, the unions and pension funds, sued to compel Progressive to make interim payments pending arbitration and to hold that Progressive and a related partnership, B.E.G.M. Associates, constituted a single employer due to common control through shared ownership by William Margulis and his family trusts. The court granted the plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment and denied the defendants' motion, ruling that ERISA requires ongoing payments during disputes and that the entities qualified as a single employer under the statute's attribution rules for ownership interests exceeding 50 percent. The defendants' constitutional challenge to the withdrawal liability provisions was rejected as the court enforced the statutory mandates for payment and single-employer treatment.
This case involves a dispute over a commercial lease for a New Jersey service station property, under which Shell Oil held a right of first refusal if the owner T&TR received a bona fide offer to sell, as well as a separate purchase option. T&TR sold the property to Herb C. Enterprises in 1985 for $198,250 without notifying Shell, in violation of the lease, and Shell sued for specific performance to compel conveyance of the property at that price. The court granted Shell's motion for summary judgment, ordering Herb C. to convey the property to Shell. It reasoned that specific performance is available against a purchaser with constructive notice of the lessee's rights under the lease, that the defendants could not deny the bona fide nature of the sale given the sworn statements in the deed and tax filings, and that Herb C. could not assert defenses unavailable to T&TR.
