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

Suit for Expulsion of Disabled Minor Child Against Private School Not Time-Barred, Plus, Labor & Criminal Law Matters

By FindLaw Staff on August 25, 2010 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

US v. Payton, 09-3930, concerned a challenge to the district court's denial of defendant's motion for sentence reduction, in a prosecution of defendant for possessing approximately 5.44 grams of cocaine base with the intent to distribute.  In affirmin, the court held that, a defendant convicted of crack-related charges, but sentenced as a career offender under U.S.S.G. section 4B1.1, is not eligible for a reduction based on Amendment 706.


US v. Mobley, 08-4641, concerned a challenge to a conviction of defendant for conspiracy to commit mail, wire, and bank fraud and aggravated identity theft.  In affirmin, the court held that, before entering judgment on defendant's guilty plea, the district court had a factual basis to conclude that defendant knowingly and unlawfully used his wife's social security number "during and in relation to" wire fraud.  Further, defendant has not demonstrated that the district court committed plain error in determining that he understood the nature of the charges against him.

Teamsters Local Union No. 89 v. Kroger Co., 09-5534, involved a union's suit against an employer to compel arbitration for violating the parties' collective bargaining agreement (CBA) by subcontracting out operations to third parties employing non-union members.  In affirming the district court's grant of the union's motion for summary judgment, the court held that neither defendant's subcontracting nor the parties' execution of the Letter of Understanding demonstrates an intent to exclude union's subcontracting grievances from arbitration under the agreement.  Also, defendant has failed to rebut the presumption in favor of arbitrability and the district court correctly compelled arbitration.

Daoud v. Davis, 08-1673, concerned a challenge to the district court's denial of defendant's petition for habeas relief, involving the issue of whether defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his Miranda rights, in defendant's challenge to his conviction for the first degree murder of his mother.  In affirming, the court held that, because a defendant does not have to understand every possible consequence of a waiver, and the evidence demonstrates that defendant had an understanding of his rights, the Michigan Supreme Court's conclusion that his waiver was knowing and intelligent was not an unreasonable application of federal law.  The court also held that the Michigan Court of Appeal's conclusion that trial counsel's performance was not deficient was not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.

Bishop v. Children's Ctr. for Developmental Enrichment, 09-3383, involved plaintiffs' suit against a private school and others, seeking relief under the Rehabilitation Act and Ohio law for the expulsion of their disabled minor son from defendant-school.  In reversing the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants on the ground that the suit was time barred, the court remanded as the plaintiffs had until August 31, 2007, to file their claims under the Rehabilitation Act or section 1983, and the district court concluded that the claim accrued and the statutory period began running on August 31, 2005.  Thus, both the minor child and plaintiffs' federal law claims were subject to minority tolling and therefore not barred by the statute of limitations.  Also, district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' state law claims is reversed and remanded.

Babler v. Futhey, 09-4455, involved plaintiffs' suit against the United Transportation Union (UTU) Executive Board and its officers, arising from a power struggle among UTU international officers relating to the UTU's proposed merger with the brought under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA).

In affirmin the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction in favor of plaintiffs, the court held that the plaintiffs have a high probability of success on the merits of their LMRDA claim.  The court held that the district court did not clearly err in finding that plaintiffs face a threat of irreparable harm caused by their removal from office by the executive board, nor in determining that the harm to defendants and others is outweighed by the threat of substantial harm to UTU members caused by the potential chilling effect on their willingness to exercise their LMRDA rights.  The court also held that the public interest weighs in favor of protecting plaintiffs' individual rights as set forth in the LMRDA.  Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction.

Related Resources:

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