Insurance Policy Ambiguous Under Virginia Law, and Criminal and Insurance Issues
Macey v. Carolina Cas. Ins. Co., No. 08-6067, involved an action against an insurance policy for coverage of an underlying suit against corporate directors for breach of fiduciary duty. The court of appeals reversed summary judgment for defendants, on the ground that the directors and officers insurance policy at issue was ambiguous under Virginia law.
Torraco v. Port Auth., No. 08-1768, concerned a challenge to the actions taken by defendant-police officers when plaintiffs attempted to transport unloaded firearms in checked baggage through various New York airports. The court of appeals affirmed summary judgment for defendants, holding that 1) 18 U.S.C. section 926A was not enforceable through 42 U.S.C. section 1983; (2) plaintiffs' rights to be free from false arrest were not violated; and (3) plaintiffs' rights to travel were not infringed.
In US v. Whitten, No. 07-1320, the court of appeals affirmed defendant's murder and racketeering convictions on the grounds that 1) the evidence was sufficient to support a jury finding that he had acted with any of the motives required for conviction under the VICAR statute; and 2) there was no abuse of discretion in the district court's control of a witness's recross examination. However, the court reversed defendant's death sentence on the ground that two arguments made to the jury by the prosecution -- both bearing on the critical issues of remorse, acceptance of responsibility, and future dangerousness -- impaired defendant's constitutional rights.
- Full Text of Macey v. Carolina Cas. Ins. Co., No. 08-6067
- Full Text of Torraco v. Port Auth., No. 08-1768
- Full Text of US v. Whitten, No. 07-1320
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.