Skip to main content

Home/ Groups/ Nyefrank
Nye Frank

California Codes - California Attorney Resources - California Laws - 0 views

  •  
    Court Opinions US Supreme Court US Tax Court Board of Patent Appeals State Laws Alabama Arizona California Florida Georgia Illinois Indiana Massachusetts Michigan Nevada New Jersey New York North Carolina Oregon Pennsylvania Texas Virginia Washington US Code Copyrights Crimes Labor Patents Shipping US Constitution Preamble Art. I - Legislative Art. II - Executive Art. III - Judicial Art. IV - States' Relations Art. V - Mode of Amendment Art. VI - Prior Debts Art VII - Ratification California Codes Legal Research Home > California Lawyer Sponsored Links California Constitution . (Cal. Const.) California Business and Professions Code . (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code) California Civil Code . (Cal. Civ. Code) California Code of Civil Procedure . (Cal. Civ. Proc.) California Commercial Code . (Cal. Com. Code) California Corporations Code . (Cal. Corp. Code) California Education Code . (Cal. Educ. Code) California Elections Code . (Cal. Elec. Code) California Evidence Code . (Cal. Evid. Code) California Family Code . (Cal. Fam. Code) California Financial Code . (Cal. Fin. Code) California Fish and Game Code . (Cal. Fish & Game Code) California Food and Agricultural Code . (Cal. Food & Agric. Code) California Government Code . (Cal. Gov't Code) California Harbors and Navigation Code . (Cal. Harb. & Nav. Code) California Health and Safety Code . (Cal. Health & Safety Code) California Insurance Code . (Cal. Ins. Code) California Labor Code . (Cal. Lab. Code) California Military and Veterans Code . (Cal. Mil. & Vet. Code) California Penal Code . (Cal. Penal Code) California Pr
Nye Frank

220 F.3d 1096 - 0 views

  • The Sentencing Commission has only issued "advisory policy statements" applicable to revocations of probation and supervised release instead of mandatory guidelines. U.S.S.G. Ch. 7, Pts. A1, A3(a); see also United States v. George, 184 F.3d 1119, 1121 (9th Cir. 1999) ("Because the Commission has not yet issued guidelines relating to revocation of supervised release or changed its view that the Chapter 7 policy statements are merely advisory, we see no reason to reduce the flexibility of district courts in sentencing supervised release violators."). We have held that a district court, when revoking supervised release, has discretion to go outside the suggested sentencing range of the policy statements up to the statutory maximum listed in 18 U.S.C. S 3583(e)(3). See George, 184 F.3d at 1122-23 (finding no error where the district court considered the 7to 13-month range in the policy statements of Chapter 7, rejected it, and sentenced the defendant to 23 months imprisonment). The policy statement range for Musa's violation of the conditions of his supervised release is three to nine months, see U.S.S.G. S7B1.4, but the statutory maximum, as previously noted, is three years, see 18 U.S.C. S 3583(e)(3).
Nye Frank

My Bookmarks tagged tort - 0 views

  •  
    SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE In Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1, the California Supreme Court did away with the tort of intentional spoliation of evidence: ...we hold that there is no tort remedy for the intentional spoliation of evidence by a party to the cause of action to which the spoliated evidence is relevant, in cases which, as here, the spoliation victim knows or should have known of the alleged spoliation before the trial or other decision on the merits of the underlying action.... [18 Cal.4th 1, 17-18; fn. omitted.]
Nye Frank

JAAPL -- Search Result - 0 views

shared by Nye Frank on 29 Jul 09 - Cached
Nye Frank

Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress) - 0 views

  • 4. H.R.282 : To prevent Members of Congress from receiving any automatic pay adjustment in 2010.Sponsor: Rep Sestak, Joe [PA-7] (introduced 1/7/2009)      Cosponsors (None) Committees: House Administration; House Oversight and Government Reform Latest Major Action: 1/7/2009 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the Committee on House Administration, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Nye Frank

27. H.R.448 : To protect seniors in the United States from elder abuse by establishing ... - 0 views

shared by Nye Frank on 29 Jul 09 - Cached
  •  
    1. pecialized elder abuse prosecution and research programs and activities to aid ... Latest Major Action: 4/27/2009 Referred to House subcommittee. ... thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d111... - Cached - Similar - 2. View Bill | C-SPAN Congressional Chronicle, Created by Cable ... 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 ... To protect seniors in the United States from elder abuse by establishing specialized elder abuse prosecution and research programs and activities to aid victims of elder abuse, to provide training to prosecutors ... DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 448 . ... www.c-spanarchives.org/congress/?q=node/77535&id... - Cached - Similar - 3. Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress) H.R.448 : To protect seniors in the United States from elder abuse by establishing specialized elder abuse prosecution and research programs .... Latest Major Action: 1/27/2009 Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. ... www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d111... - Cached - Similar - 4. CD2 Trent Franks | Arizona Congress Watch H. R. 448, the Elder Abuse Victims Act, passed the House 397 - 25. The bill seeks to protect seniors in the United States from elder abuse by establishing specialized elder abuse prosecution and research programs and activities to aid victims of elder abuse, to provide training to prosecutors ... 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 ... www.azcongresswatch.com/?cat=18 - Cached - Similar - 5. [DOC] Intricate File Format: Microsoft Word - View as HTML The Elder Abuse Victims Act of 2009 (H.R.448), sponsored by Representative ... protect seniors in the United States from elder abuse by establishing specialized elder abuse prosecution and research programs and activities .... The amendment was proposed on April 23, 2009, and considered by the Senate on April 27. ... www.ncea.aoa.gov/NCEAroot/Main_Site/.../May_Newsletter.doc - Simi
  •  
    1. pecialized elder abuse prosecution and research programs and activities to aid ... Latest Major Action: 4/27/2009 Referred to House subcommittee. ... thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d111... - Cached - Similar - 2. View Bill | C-SPAN Congressional Chronicle, Created by Cable ... 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 ... To protect seniors in the United States from elder abuse by establishing specialized elder abuse prosecution and research programs and activities to aid victims of elder abuse, to provide training to prosecutors ... DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 448 . ... www.c-spanarchives.org/congress/?q=node/77535&id... - Cached - Similar - 3. Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress) H.R.448 : To protect seniors in the United States from elder abuse by establishing specialized elder abuse prosecution and research programs .... Latest Major Action: 1/27/2009 Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. ... www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d111... - Cached - Similar - 4. CD2 Trent Franks | Arizona Congress Watch H. R. 448, the Elder Abuse Victims Act, passed the House 397 - 25. The bill seeks to protect seniors in the United States from elder abuse by establishing specialized elder abuse prosecution and research programs and activities to aid victims of elder abuse, to provide training to prosecutors ... 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 ... www.azcongresswatch.com/?cat=18 - Cached - Similar - 5. [DOC] Intricate File Format: Microsoft Word - View as HTML The Elder Abuse Victims Act of 2009 (H.R.448), sponsored by Representative ... protect seniors in the United States from elder abuse by establishing specialized elder abuse prosecution and research programs and activities .... The amendment was proposed on April 23, 2009, and considered by the Senate on April 27. ... www.ncea.aoa.gov/NCEAroot/Main_Site/.../May_Newsletter.doc - S
Nye Frank

27. H.R.448 : To protect seniors in the United States from elder abuse by establishing ... - 0 views

  •  
    le Advanced Search Preferences Web Hide optionsShow options... Results 1 - 10 of about 161 for 27. H.R.448 : To protect seniors in the United States from elder abuse by establishing specialized elder abuse prosecution and research programs and a. (0.55 seconds) Search Results Results include your SearchWiki notes for 27. H.R.448 : To protect seniors in the United States from elder abuse by establishing specialized elder abuse prosecution and research programs and a. Share these notes Copy and paste this link into an email or IM: See a preview of the shared page 1. STOP ELDER ABUSE - SUPPORT VICTIMS ACT- HR 448 - The Petition Site To protect seniors in the United States from elder abuse by establishing specialized elder abuse prosecution and research programs and activities to aid ... www.thepetitionsite.com/.../support-the-elder-abuse-victims-act---hr-448 - Cached - Similar - 2. Stop Elder Abuse - PASS Elder Abuse Victims Act HR 448 - The ... To protect seniors in the United States from elder abuse by establishing specialized elder abuse prosecution and research programs and activities to aid .... 2:27 pm PDT, Jun 26, Susanne Prahl, Wisconsin Elder Abuse must be addressed! ... www.thepetitionsite.com/.../stop-elder-abuse---pass-elder-abuse-victims-act-hr-448 - Cached - Similar - 3. H.R.448: Elder Abuse Victims Act of 2009 - U.S.... OpenCongress To protect seniors in the United States from elder abuse by establishing specialized elder abuse prosecution and research programs and activities to aid ... www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h448/show - Cached - Similar - 4. Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress) H.R.448 : To protect seniors in the United States from elder abuse by establishing specialized elder abuse prosecution and research programs and activities to aid ... Latest Major Action: 4/27/2009 Referred to House subcommittee. ... thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin
  •  
    le Advanced Search Preferences Web Hide optionsShow options... Results 1 - 10 of about 161 for 27. H.R.448 : To protect seniors in the United States from elder abuse by establishing specialized elder abuse prosecution and research programs and a. (0.55 seconds) Search Results Results include your SearchWiki notes for 27. H.R.448 : To protect seniors in the United States from elder abuse by establishing specialized elder abuse prosecution and research programs and a. Share these notes Copy and paste this link into an email or IM: See a preview of the shared page 1. STOP ELDER ABUSE - SUPPORT VICTIMS ACT- HR 448 - The Petition Site To protect seniors in the United States from elder abuse by establishing specialized elder abuse prosecution and research programs and activities to aid ... www.thepetitionsite.com/.../support-the-elder-abuse-victims-act---hr-448 - Cached - Similar - 2. Stop Elder Abuse - PASS Elder Abuse Victims Act HR 448 - The ... To protect seniors in the United States from elder abuse by establishing specialized elder abuse prosecution and research programs and activities to aid .... 2:27 pm PDT, Jun 26, Susanne Prahl, Wisconsin Elder Abuse must be addressed! ... www.thepetitionsite.com/.../stop-elder-abuse---pass-elder-abuse-victims-act-hr-448 - Cached - Similar - 3. H.R.448: Elder Abuse Victims Act of 2009 - U.S.... OpenCongress To protect seniors in the United States from elder abuse by establishing specialized elder abuse prosecution and research programs and activities to aid ... www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h448/show - Cached - Similar - 4. Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress) H.R.448 : To protect seniors in the United States from elder abuse by establishing specialized elder abuse prosecution and research programs and activities to aid ... Latest Major Action: 4/27/2009 Referred to House subcommittee. ... thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin
Nye Frank

Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress) - 0 views

  • 27. H.R.448 : To protect seniors in the United States from elder abuse by establishing specialized elder abuse prosecution and research programs and activities to aid victims of elder abuse, to provide training to prosecutors and other law enforcement related to elder abuse prevention and protection, to establish programs that provide for emergency crisis response teams to combat elder abuse, and for other purposes.Sponsor: Rep Sestak, Joe [PA-7] (introduced 1/9/2009)      Cosponsors (5) Committees: House Judiciary; Senate Judiciary Latest Major Action: 2/12/2009 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  •  
    The Library of Congress > THOMAS Home > Bills, Resolutions > Search Results THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT GO TO Next Hit Forward New Bills Search Prev Hit Back HomePage Hit List Best Sections Help Contents Display Limited To: DATES FROM 01/01/2007-01/01/2010 31 Bills from the 111th Congress ranked by relevance on "probation " . 31 bills containing your phrase (or variants of its words) in the same order . Listing of 31 bills containing your phrase (or variants of its words) in the same order . 1 . CAN DO Act of 2009 (Introduced in House) [H.R.1303.IH] 2 . Ex-Offenders Voting Rights Act of 2009 (Introduced in House) [H.R.59.IH] 3 . MEGA (Introduced in House) [H.R.330.IH] 4 . Whereas there are approximately three million Americans employed within the justice system; (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House) [H.RES.45.EH] 5 . SERV Act (Introduced in Senate) [S.902.IS] 6 . SERV Act (Introduced in House) [H.R.2138.IH] 7 . Whereas there are approximately three million Americans employed within the justice system; (Introduced in House) [H.RES.45.IH] 8 . Safeguarding America's Seniors and Veterans Act of 2009 (Introduced in House) [H.R.746.IH] 9 . Managing Arson Through Criminal History (MATCH) Act of 2009 (Introduced in House) [H.R.1727.IH] 10 . Calling on the Government of Vietnam to release from prison, end the detention without trial, and cease the harassment and house arrest of the people who signed the Manifesto on Freedom... (Introduced in House) [H.RES.334.IH] 11 . Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the President of the United States should not issue pardons to senior members of his administration during the final 90 days... (Introduced in House) [H.RES.9.IH] 12 . National Criminal Justice Commission Act of 2009 (Introduced in Senate
Nye Frank

Diigo & Google - 0 views

Nye Frank

FindLaw | Cases and Codes - 0 views

  • To sustain a S 1983 civil rights action, a plaintiff must show "(1) that the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) that [such] conduct deprived the plaintiff of a federal constitutional or statutory right." 2 Wood v. Ostrander, 879 F.2d 583, 587 (9th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 938 (1990). Here, it is undisputed that defendants were acting under color of state law. At issue here is whether Officer Smith, the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department, or Sacramento County engaged in conduct that deprived Lewis of a federally protected righ
  • F.2d 272 (6th Cir. 1990) (noting that the Supreme Court's reasoning in Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), likely "preserve[d] Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process analysis for those instances in which a free citizen is denied his or her constitutional right to life through means other than a law enforcement official's arrest, investigatory stop or other seizure"), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 851 (1990).
  • But when a law enforcement officer arbitrarily acts to deprive a person of life and personal security in the course of pursuing his official duties, constitutional due process rights may be implicated. Daniels, 474 U.S. at 331 ("The touchstone of due process is protection of the individual against arbitrary action of government."). Section 1983 "contains no state-of-mind requirement independent of that necessary to state a violation of the underlying constitutional right." Daniels, 474 U.S. at 330 . See Daniels, 474 U.S. at 330 . The underlying constitutional rights at issue here are substantive due process rights to life and liberty or personal security. In Daniels, the Supreme Court held that where an official's or government entity's conduct constitutes mere negligence, no substantive due process violation occurs. Daniels, 474 U.S. at 328 . Daniels expressly left open the question whether something less than intentional conduct such as recklessness or gross negligence would suffice "to trigger the protections of the Due Process Clause." Id. at 334 n.3. But in City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989), the Court held that nonintentional government conduct can violate the Due Process Clause and thus lead to S 1983 liability. City of Canton held that a municipality may be liable for a failure to train its employees when such failure demonstrates "deliberate indifference to rights of persons with whom police come into contact." Id. at 388.
  • ...9 more annotations...
  • Five circuits have addressed S 1983 liability in the context of high-speed pursuits. These circuits have applied various labels to the standard of conduct that may lead to liability. See, e.g., Fagan v. City of Vineland, 22 F.3d 1296 (3rd Cir. 1994) (en banc) (overruling previous reckless indifference standard and adopting shocks the conscience standard); Medina v. City and County of Denver, 960 F.2d 1493, 1496 (10th Cir. 1992) (reckless disregard); Temkin v. Frederick County Comm'rs, 945 F.2d 716, 723 (4th Cir. 1991) (shocks the conscience), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1095 (1992); Roach v. City of Fredericktown, 882 F.2d 294, 297 (8th Cir. 1989) (holding gross negligence insufficient but not stating what standard should be applied); Jones v. Sherrill, 827 F.2d 1102, 1106 (6th Cir. 1987) (holding gross negligence or outrageous conduct sufficient in some circumstances). 4
  • In one such due process case, we held that either "gross negligence, recklessness, or `deliberate indifference'" was sufficient to state a substantive due process violation. Wood v. Ostrander, 851 F.2d 1212, 1214 (9th Cir. 1988) ("Wood
  • I"), reh'g granted and opinion modified by, 879 F.2d 583 (9th Cir. 1989) ("Wood II"), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 938 (1990). Relying on the standard set out in Wood I, we later held that "grossly negligent or reckless official conduct that infringes upon an interest protected by the Due Process Clause is actionable under S 1983." Fargo v. City of San Juan Bautista, 857 F.2d 638 (9th Cir. 1988). But Fargo's grossly negligent standard was explicitly based on Wood I, which was modified on rehearing and superseded by Wood II. In Wood II, we stepped back from the grossly negligent standard. We noted that an intervening Supreme Court decision, City of Canton, 489 U.S. 378 , had called into question this standard as set forth in Wood I and Fargo. Wood II, 879 F.2d at 588.
  • In Fargo, we defined gross negligence as "`more than ordinary inadvertence or inattention, but less perhaps than conscious indifference to the consequences.'" Fargo, 857 F.2d at 641 (quoting W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts S 34, at 212 (5th ed. 1984)). We also noted that an officer's state of mind is not an issue in a claim based on gross negligence, "although the contrary may be true where the claim involves recklessness." Id. at 642. Although we declined to decide whether an innocent state of mind would negate recklessness or "whether recklessness may be presumed conclusively from conduct," we did note that recklessness and deliberate indifference are equivalent in the sense that they both generally refer to conduct involving "a `conscious disregard' of public safety." Id. at 642 n.7. We also said that, "where state officials have notice of the possibility of harm, `negligence can rise to the level of deliberate indifference to or reckless disregard for' the victim." Id. (quoting Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344, 357 (1986) (Blackmun, J., dissenting)). Because we concluded that a triable issue of fact remained as to whether the police officer's conduct might have been grossly negligent, we found it unnecessary to determine whether the officer's conduct might have risen to the more culpable standard of recklessness. Id. at 643
  • In Wood II, we redefined the standard forS 1983 substantive due process violations by police officers. As explained above, we recognized that the Supreme Court's decision in City of Canton, 489 U.S. 378 , had called into question our decisions in Wood I and Fargo that gross negligence was sufficient. Wood II, 879 F.2d at 588. Analyzing the facts in Wood under City of Canton's deliberate indifference standard, we concluded that there remained a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the police officer in Wood had been deliberately indifferent to the plaintiff's interest in her personal security. Id. at 588.
  • Wood II makes clear that, in this circuit, an officer can be held liable for a S 1983 claim if that officer's conduct is delib erately indifferent to or in reckless disregard of a person's right to life and personal security.
  • Here, plaintiffs have alleged that Officer Smith violated the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department General Order regarding pursuits ("General Order")6 by instituting and then continuing the pursuit even when a reasonable officer would have known that to do so was in reckless disregard of Lewis's and Willard's safety. A violation of police procedures is relevant to determine whether a substantive due process violation has occurred. Fargo, 857 F.2d at 642. Police procedures are designed, in part, to guide officers when they engage in conduct that poses a serious risk of harm to either a suspect or to the general public. See id.
  • The General Order requires an officer to communicate his intention to pursue a vehicle to the sheriff's department dispatch center. But defendants concede that Smith did not contact the dispatch center. The General Order requires an officer to consider whether the seriousness of the offense warrants a chase at speeds in excess of the posted limit. But here, the only apparent "offense" was the boys' refusal to stop when another officer told them to do so. The General Order requires an officer to consider whether the need for apprehension justifies the pursuit under existing conditions. Yet Smith apparently only "needed" to apprehend the boys because they refused to stop. The General Order requires an officer to consider whether the pursuit presents unreasonable hazards to life and property. But taking the facts here in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, there existed an unreasonable hazard to Lewis's and Willard's lives. The General Order also directs an officer to discontinue a pursuit when the hazards of continuing outweigh the benefits of immediate apprehension. But here, there was no apparent danger involved in permitting the boys to escape. There certainly was risk of harm to others in continuing the pursuit.
  • In City of Canton the Supreme Court held that deliberate indifference was the minimum standard of culpability necessary to maintain a S 1983 due process action against a municipality for a policy or custom of inadequate training of police officers. City of Canton, 489 U.S. at 388 . The Court reasoned that a municipality's inadequate training of its employees can only constitute a "policy or custom" when such inadequate training "evidences a `deliberate indifference' to the rights of its inhabitants." Id. at 389. But the Court also specified that the deliberate indifference standard "does not turn upon the degree of fault (if any) that a plaintiff must show to make out an underlying claim of a constitutional violation." Id. at 388 n.8. City of Canton thus did not explicitly overrule our decisions in either Wood I or Fargo because they involved claims of substantive due process violations against individual police officers.
  •  
    The Supreme Court has held that "[w]here a particular amendment `provides an explicit textual source of constitutional protection' against a particular sort of government behavior, `that Amendment, not the more generalized notion of `substantive due process,' must be the guide for analyzing these claims." Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266 , 114 S. Ct. 807, 813 (1994) (plurality opinion) (quoting Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 (1989)).
  • ...1 more comment...
  •  
    The Supreme Court has held that "[w]here a particular amendment `provides an explicit textual source of constitutional protection' against a particular sort of government behavior, `that Amendment, not the more generalized notion of `substantive due process,' must be the guide for analyzing these claims." Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266 , 114 S. Ct. 807, 813 (1994) (plurality opinion) (quoting Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 (1989)).
  •  
    The Supreme Court has held that "[w]here a particular amendment `provides an explicit textual source of constitutional protection' against a particular sort of government behavior, `that Amendment, not the more generalized notion of `substantive due process,' must be the guide for analyzing these claims." Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266 , 114 S. Ct. 807, 813 (1994) (plurality opinion) (quoting Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 (1989)).
  •  
    The Supreme Court has held that "[w]here a particular amendment `provides an explicit textual source of constitutional protection' against a particular sort of government behavior, `that Amendment, not the more generalized notion of `substantive due process,' must be the guide for analyzing these claims." Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266 , 114 S. Ct. 807, 813 (1994) (plurality opinion) (quoting Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 (1989)).
« First ‹ Previous 101 - 120 of 551 Next › Last »
Showing 20 items per page