Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff Oliver Rojas appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants Kenneth Anderson and Nicholas Wilson. Plaintiff brought claims against defendants, both police officers, under 42 U.S.C. 1983 following his arrest for attempting to assault one of the officers. Plaintiff was stopped when he was struggling to enter a house at three o'clock in the morning. Plaintiff told the officers he lived there (and showed that his driver's license listed the house's address), but the officers elected to take Plaintiff to a detoxification center due to his inebriated state. Plaintiff refused to comply with the officer's orders, and made an effort to free his arm from one of the officers' grasp; the officer construed this act as an attempt to hit him. Defendants handcuffed Plaintiff, and according to Plaintiff, after he had been removed from the patrol car with his hands and feet tied, Defendants picked him up and dropped him face-first onto the asphalt, causing him to split open his chin and fracture his jaw. The district court concluded that defendants' act of dropping plaintiff did not violate plaintiff's constitutional rights and therefore granted summary judgment in their favor. Finding no error in the district court's decision, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment. View "Rojas, et al v. Anderson, et al" on Justia Law

A dispute arose between Elm Ridge Exploration Company, LLC, an operator of oil and gas leases in New Mexico, and Fred Engle, who owned a majority of those leases. Elm Ridge sought to recover drilling expenses by foreclosing on Engle's lease interests. Engle counterclaimed, arguing that Elm Ridge had no authority to operate, and broadly that Elm Ridge breached its contractual and fiduciary duties. Engle also filed a third-party complaint against the previous operators, Central Resources, Inc. and Giant Exploration & Production Company. The district court dismissed two counts on Engle's counterclaim against Elm Ridge and the third-party complaint on statute of limitations grounds. After a trial on Engle's remaining counterclaim count (breach of contractual and fiduciary duties), a jury found that Elm Ridge breached the Operating Agreement and could not recover drilling expenses. The jury found that Engle still owed Elm Ridge for other drilling costs. The district court calculated Engle's share of the costs not attributable to the breach, and held Elm Ridge was entitled to a foreclosure order. Both parties appealed. Finding no error in the district court's calculation or ultimate disposition of the case, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Engle v. Elm Ridge Exploration Co." on Justia Law

Investors in Thornburg Mortgage, Inc. brought a class action against the mortgage originator alleging violations of the Securities Act based on omissions and misrepresentations in the stock offering documents. The district court dismissed on the grounds that it found no omissions or misrepresentations in the offering documents, and if there were, they were not material. Plaintiffs broadly challenged all of the district court's holdings. Finding no error in the district court's ruling, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Slater v. AG Edwards & Sons, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Kenneth Mikolon entered a conditional guilty plea to one count of possession of a firearm by a fugitive. He was sentenced to 209 days of time served. On appeal, defendant argued that the district court erred in refusing to suppress the incriminating statements he made after he was arrested but before he was advised of his Miranda rights. The trial court found the statements admissible under the public safety exception to Miranda, regardless that the government promised not to use the statements at trial. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the trial court's denial of defendant's motion. View "United States v. Mikolon" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant Benjamin Spence was convicted of possessing a firearm and ammunition after having been convicted of a felony. He received a 180 month prison sentence to be followed by four years' supervised release. He appealed the sentence, arguing the trial court failed to exclude proposed testimony of his father that he had never seen the gun he was alleged to have possessed, never saw it fired, and possessed it only for a brief time. Finding no error in the trial court's decision, and that the evidence presented was sufficient to support his conviction, the Tenth Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Spence" on Justia Law

Three New Mexico men kidnaped a disabled Navajo man and branded a swastika into his arm. The United States charged the three with committing a hate crime under 18 U.S.C. 249. The three men contended in district court that the Hate Crimes Act was unconstitutional, claiming Congress lacked the authority to criminalize purely intrastate conduct of this character. The government countered that the Thirteenth Amendment gave Congress the necessary authority. The district court agreed with the government. One of the men, Defendant William Hatch, then pled guilty while reserving his right to appeal. He now renews his challenge to the constitutionality of the Act. Like the district court, the Tenth Circuit concluded that Congress has power under the Thirteenth Amendment to enact section 249(a)(1). View "United States v. Hatch" on Justia Law

Pro se petitioner Peter Munis appealed a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order that dismissed his appeal of an immigration judge's denial of his request for discretionary removal. Petitioner overstayed his student visa and got a job without authorization which led to initiation of removal proceedings. Petitioner conceded the charge of removability, but sought discretionary relief, arguing that his marriage to an American citizen was grounds to adjust his status, and without relief, would pose an extreme hardship to his wife. The government raised petitioner's criminal history as grounds for removal. The IJ denied relief and the BIA dismissed his appeal. Finding that the BIA's discretionary denial of a waiver of inadmissibility or adjustment of status absent a legal or constitutional question was unreviewable, the Tenth Circuit dismissed petitioner's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "Munis v. Holder" on Justia Law

Police detained Appellant Nathan Briggs and found he was carrying a handgun. He would later be charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. In pleading guilty, Appellant reserved the right to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to suppress the weapon. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, appellant argued the police violated his Fourth Amendment rights by the detention. Finding that appellant's detention was constitutional, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress. View "United States v. Briggs" on Justia Law

Defendant Kenneth Neilson appealed his sentence for interfering with administration of internal revenue laws. Specifically, he contended that the district court erred in selecting the sentencing guideline under which his sentence would be calculated. Finding no abuse of discretion in picking the most appropriate guideline to match defendant's crime, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. View "United States v. Neilson" on Justia Law

The Rural Water District Number 4 of Douglas County, Kansas and the City of Eudora were in a dispute over water rights. The District contended that Eudora was trying to poach its customers. Because the District was burdened by a USDA-guaranteed loan, Eudora's actions potentially implicated federal law which prohibits municipalities from poaching rural water district customers while the federal loan is in repayment. The District sued the City under 42 U.S.C. 1983; the case went to trial and a jury awarded damages to the District. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit vacated the verdict, finding that the District violated a Kansas statute that prevented rural water district from obtaining USDA loan guarantees unless the guarantee was "necessary." Soon after the appeal, the Kansas legislature amended the statute and removed the "necessary" requirement. The district court then ruled that the amendment did not apply retroactively, and denied summary judgment to both parties. The retroactivity question was certified to the Tenth Circuit, who upheld the district court's conclusion that the amended state statute did not apply retroactively. Therefore, the District was still bound by the "necessary" requirement. View "Rural Water District No. 4 v. City of Eudora" on Justia Law