Skip to main content
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location
Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select

Find a Lawyer

More Options

Arbitration, Civil Rights, Constitutional, and Criminal Matters

By FindLaw Staff on March 10, 2010 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

Cameron v. N.Y., No. 08-5937, involved an action for false arrest and malicious prosecution.  The court of appeals reversed summary judgment for defendant-officers, on the grounds that 1) prosecutors' opinions as to probable cause and complaining officers' credibility are irrelevant in virtually all cases involving claims of malicious prosecution; and 2) the introduction of such evidence was not harmless because it provided strong external validation for propositions that otherwise would have come in only from the defendants' mouths.

Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. v. VCG Special Opportunities Master Fund Ltd., No. 08-6090, concerned an appeal from the district court's order granting plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and enjoining defendant from proceeding with an arbitration initiated against plaintiff before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.  The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the "serious questions" standard for assessing a movant's likelihood of success on the merits remained valid in the wake of recent Supreme Court cases, and neither the district court's assessment of the facts nor its application of the law supported a finding of abuse of discretion.

TJS of N.Y., Inc. v. Smithtown, No. 08-2789, concerned an action seeking an injunction and declaratory judgment to the effect that defendant-town's zoning ordinance did not give plaintiff adequate alternative sites on which to locate its adult entertainment business.  The court of appeals vacated the denial of an injunction for plaintiff on the grounds that the First Amendment required courts to consider the adequacy of alternative sites available when the ordinance is challenged, not at the time the ordinance is passed.

In US v. Gardner, No. 08-4793, the court of appeals affirmed defendant's drug and firearm convictions, on the grounds that, when a defendant acquires a firearm using drugs as payment, he possesses the firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 924(c)(1)(A).

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.

Or contact an attorney near you:
Copied to clipboard