eBriefs June 21, 2019
FRIDAY, JUNE 21, 2019
U.S. Supreme Court
The statute of limitations on a plaintiff’s claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983 based on the defendant’s alleged fabrication of evidence against him for use in a criminal proceeding began to run after he was acquitted
McDonough v. Smith; filed June 20, 2019
Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 18-485
The use of public funds to maintain a World War I memorial, consisting of a 32-foot tall Latin cross, does not violate the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause; retaining established, religiously expressive monuments, symbols, and practices is quite different from erecting or adopting new ones; the fact that a Latin cross originated as a Christian symbol and retains that meaning in many contexts does not change the fact that the symbol took on an added secular meaning when used in World War I memorials.
American Legion v. American Humanist Association; filed June 20, 2019
Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 17-1717
The extent to which a court is bound by the Federal Communication Commission’s final order depends on two factors: whether the order is the equivalent of a “legislative rule,” issued pursuant to statutory authority, or an “interpretive rule” which lacks the force and effect of law; and whether there was a prior opportunity to judicial review of the order.
PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton Harris Chiropractic, Inc.; filed June 20, 2019
Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 17-1705
Criminal Law and Procedure
The Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act did not unconstitutionally delegate legislative power when it authorized the Attorney General to “specify the applicability” of SORNA’s registration requirements to pre-Act offenders.
Gundy v. United States; filed June 20, 2019
Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 17-6086
Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
State of California v. Azar; filed June, 20, 2019
Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 19-15974
California Supreme Court
The state constitution permits a charter city to collect taxes from state universities that operate paid parking lots in the city.
City and County of San Francisco v. The Regents of the University of California; filed June 20, 2019
Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 2892
California Court of Appeal
The statute of limitations on a malpractice and unfair business practice suit against an accountancy organization did not begin to run until the date of the plaintiff’s actual injury from the organizations erroneous tax advice, which was the date the plaintiff a settlement with the Franchise Tax Board.
Moss v. Duncan; Fourth District, Div. One; filed June 20, 2019
Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 2901
Criminal Law and Procedure
To prove that a robbery was committed by means of fear, the prosecution must establish that the victim was placed in actual fear of injury; while an encounter with a supposed police officer might be frightening, this alone does not establish that any fear the victim suffered was fear of an injury.
People v. Montalvo; Third District; filed June 20, 2019
Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 2904
A prosecutor engaged in protected activity when he disclosed information to a governmental or law enforcement agency and to people with authority over him which he reasonably believed disclosed a violation of or noncompliance with federal and state law applicable to criminal prosecutions and prosecutors; although the prosecutor did not expressly state in his disclosures that he believed the county was violating or not complying with a specific state or federal law, Labor Code §1102.5(b) does not require such an express statement.
Ross v. County of Riverside; Fourth District, Div. One; filed June 20, 2019
Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 2914
A court erred in issuing a mutual restraining order when one party had not filed a separate written request for such an order as required by Family Code §6305.
In re Marriage of Ankola; Sixth District; filed June 20, 2019
Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 2920