News

Business

[02/07] Key states move closer to foreclosure-abuse deal
[02/07] Glencore, Xstrata agree on merger terms
[02/07] Oracle rejects $272M SAP award, wants new trial

More...

[Newsedge BETA] Tax Law

[05/12] EU cancels planned tariffs on U.S. imports after Congress repeals export tax breaks
[05/12] House balks at Senate's cigarette tax
[05/12] IRS state sales tax deduction left for another day

More...

Case Summaries

Criminal Law & Procedure

[02/07] Farmer v. McDaniel
On petition for a writ of habeas corpus to challenge a death sentence that Nevada sought to reimpose on the basis of statutory aggravating circumstances different from those used in imposing an earlier invalid death sentence, the district court's denial of the petition is affirmed, as the state’s renewed attempt to seek a death sentence on grounds present in the defendant's first sentencing is not barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

[02/06] People v. Murray
In a prosecution of a 17-year-old for first degree murder and attempted murder that resulted in conviction and a sentence of life without parole, the judgment is affirmed as modified, where: 1) life-without-parole sentences are not categorically barred by the Eighth Amendment or article I, section 17 of the California Constitution; 2) the sentence was not unconstitutionally disproportionate when the nature of the crimes was measured against various mitigating circumstances; and 3) the trial court did not abuse its sentencing discretion or violate the defendant's due process rights when it sentenced him.

[02/06] US v. Reyes-Bonilla
In a prosecution for being a deported alien found in the United States without permission, the conviction is affirmed, where: 1) the defendant was deprived of the opportunity for judicial review of his prior removal order, and was exempt from the administrative-remedies exhaustion requirement because did not validly waive his right of appeal; and 2) the defendant was not properly advised of his due process right to counsel nor did he waive this right; but 3) this due process violation was not per se prejudicial; and 4) the defendant could not demonstrate that he had a plausible claim to relief at the time of removal proceedings, so he was not actually prejudiced as a result of the due process violations, and entry of the removal order was not fundamentally unfair.

[02/06] Richardson v. Branker
On a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 USC section 2254, the district court's judgment is: 1) reversed, insofar as it granted the petition, where the district court erred in considering the petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under a de novo standard of review, and the state court did not hold unreasonably that the petitioner failed to demonstrate prejudice under Strickland; and 2) affirmed, insofar as it awarded summary judgment against the petitioner on his claims that the state withheld exculpatory evidence from him before trial, and that because he was mentally retarded, his sentence of death violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments.

More...

Probate Trusts

More...

Tax Law

[01/24] TIFD III-E, Inc. v. US
In a suit by a taxpayer partner challenging IRS notices of adjustment reallocating a large percentage of the partnership's income for the years 1993 to 1998 to the taxpayer away from two Dutch banks that had purchased an interest in the partnership, and imposing a penalty for underpayment, the district court's judgment in favor of the taxpayer is reversed, where: 1) the banks' interest was not a capital interest for purposes of qualifying them as partners within the meaning of IRC section 704(e)(1); and 2) the taxpayer failed to point to substantial authority supporting its position, so that the government was entitled to impose a penalty on the taxpayer for substantial understatement of income.

[01/23] Goldman v. California Franchise Tax Board
In a suit seeking a refund of interest a husband and wife paid in 2004 on a state income tax deficiency for the 2000 tax year, the trial court's denial of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and grant of summary judgment for the Franchise Tax Board (FTB) is affirmed, where under Revenue and Taxation Code section 19116(e) the interest on the amount paid with their return was not suspended because they were obligated to report federal tax adjustments to the FTB under Revenue and Taxation Code section 18622(a).

[01/20] In re US
In a case in which a taxpayer sought and was granted discovery of protected tax return information of non-parties, the government's petition for a writ of mandamus directing the Court of Federal Claims to vacate its order compelling disclosure is granted, where: 1) the Claims Court was generally without statutory authority to compel disclosure of confidential taxpayer information; and 2) an exception to the statutory prohibition for situations in which the treatment of an item reflected on the tax return is directly related to the resolution of an issue in the proceeding was inapplicable.

[01/19] US v. Brown
On consolidated appeals of a husband and wife convicted of various offenses stemming from their refusal to surrender after conviction on tax-evasion charges, their convictions are affirmed, where: 1) there was no reasonable cause to believe that the husband was mentally incompetent, and therefore the district court was not required to sua sponte order a formal competency hearing and evaluation; 2) evidence of the husband's beliefs that his previous tax trial was a sham and that tax laws are unconstitutional was properly disallowed, and thus his constitutional right to present a defense was not impaired; 3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence alleged to be hearsay; 4) there was no merit in any of the wife's assertions of evidentiary error, and thus her trial was not tainted by cumulative error; 5) there was no reversible error in the jury instructions or the verdict form in articulating the offense at 18 USC section 924(c); 6) the trial judge's decision to question jurors in chambers did not violate the wife's constitutional right to be present at trial or her right to a public trial.

More...