This case concerns the U.S. government's request to extradite James Joseph Smyth to the United Kingdom to serve the remainder of a 1978 sentence for attempted murder following his escape from a Northern Ireland prison. The court denied certification for extradition under Article 3(a) of the U.S.-U.K. Supplementary Extradition Treaty, which bars surrender if the individual would face prejudice, punishment, or detention due to race, religion, nationality, or political opinions. After permitting discovery and an inquiry into the requesting country's criminal justice system, the court granted Smyth rebuttable presumptions of systematic retaliatory harm by security forces because the U.K. refused to produce relevant documents such as the Stalker-Sampson and Stevens reports. Based on evidence of physical intimidation, collusion with paramilitaries, and mistreatment of prisoners, the court concluded that Smyth had established he would face such prejudice if returned.
The case involves a state prisoner who filed a pro se complaint against a federal Secret Service agent, alleging that the agent ordered prisons to censor or restrict the prisoner's legal mail following an interview about a letter the prisoner wrote. The court recharacterized the action as a Bivens claim against a federal official rather than one under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. It found that the complaint stated a cognizable First Amendment claim regarding mail censorship but dismissed the due process claim for denial of access to the courts because the plaintiff did not allege any actual injury, while granting leave to amend within 30 days. The request to proceed in forma pauperis was held under submission pending any amendment.
In this case, American Economy Insurance sought a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify its insured, Reboans, Inc., in a lawsuit brought by Hunting World for trademark infringement, counterfeiting, and related claims arising from Reboans selling counterfeit products. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurance company, holding that there was no coverage under the commercial general liability policy for advertising injury. The reasoning was that the claims did not arise from the misappropriation of advertising ideas or style of doing business, as the core issue was the sale of counterfeit goods rather than any advertising activity covered by the policy.
The case concerned claims by passengers injured in an aborted takeoff and crash of a Trans World Airlines international flight, seeking damages for physical injuries and emotional distress under the Warsaw Convention after removal from state court. The court addressed TWA's motions for partial summary judgment, ruling that the Warsaw Convention provides the exclusive basis for recovery and preempts state law claims. It determined that claims for emotional distress alone are barred by the Supreme Court's decision in Eastern Airlines v. Floyd, and that emotional distress damages require physical manifestations of injury, while also precluding punitive damages under the Convention. The reasoning relied on the text of the Warsaw Convention, precedents interpreting it, and the lack of sufficient evidence or timeliness issues in plaintiffs' opposition.
In United States v. Hill, the defendants were charged in a federal indictment with carjacking under 18 U.S.C. § 2119 (Count One) for taking a motor vehicle by force while possessing a loaded firearm, and with using or carrying a firearm during a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (Count Two) based on the same conduct. The defendants moved to dismiss Count Two, arguing that the two counts punished the same offense in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Applying the Blockburger test, the court found that each statute required proof of essentially the same elements—possession and use of a firearm in the forcible taking of a vehicle—making them the same offense for double jeopardy purposes, with no clear congressional intent to allow cumulative punishments. The court therefore granted the motion and dismissed Count Two of the indictment.
This case involves insurance companies, including Fireman’s Fund, Federal Insurance, and Interstate, seeking declaratory relief against CoBank regarding their obligations under policies issued to XLS, Inc. (successor to Lawrence Systems) to cover an arbitration award stemming from losses CoBank incurred due to misrepresentations in inventory certificates under a 1986 Certified Inventory Control Service agreement. CoBank filed a counterclaim seeking to enforce coverage. The court granted the insurers’ motions for summary judgment on their complaints and partial summary judgment on the counterclaim, while denying CoBank’s motion for partial summary judgment. The reasoning centered on the absence of coverage under the policy terms for the underlying claims, including no duty to defend, the effect of prior arbitration findings via collateral estoppel, and the insured’s failure to meet cooperation or other policy conditions.