Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
ATTORNEY/CLIENT — FEES — CLASS-ACTION SUITS 04-7-2821 In re Cendant Corp. Litigation, U.S. Dist. Ct. (Walls, U.S.D.J.) (15 pp.) The judge awards $55 million in counsel fees to the lead plaintiffs’ counsel, about 20 percent of the $262 million he originally wanted to give them before the Third Circuit called him “over-generous.” [Filed Feb. 5, 2003.] CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE — SENTENCING — CHILD PORNOGRAPHY 14-8-2822 U.S.A. v. Parmelee, etc., Third Cir. (Wallach, Judge of the U.S. Court of Intl. Trade, sitting by designation) (19 pp.) The court agrees with the government that the District Court erred in sentencing defendant, and reverses the judgment of sentence imposed on defendant, convicted of possession of child pornography using media that traveled in interstate commerce for not only downloading child pornography from the Internet, but storing the materials on recordable compact discs to use later in trade or barter with others. This evidence supported the court’s finding that defendant trafficked in child pornography by receiving, transporting, shipping and/or advertising, in addition to merely possessing, pornographic images; however, because the District Court stated that it could find that the requirements for application of the cross-reference had been satisfied, and because the evidence presented at trial supported such a finding, the court should have then applied the trafficking cross-reference of the sentencing guidelines, and enhanced the applicable guidelines range accordingly, as recommended by the presentence report, notwithstanding the fact that defendant was convicted only of possession of materials depicting a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. [Filed Feb. 11, 2003.] GOVERNMENT — CHALLENGE TO MILITARY RECORDS — LIMITATIONS 21-8-2810 Green v. White, etc., Third Cir. (Becker, U.S.C.J.) (12 pp.) The District Court erred in dismissing, as time-barred, plaintiff’s suit seeking a correction of his military records. The issue is when plaintiff’s claim accrued, i.e., what counts as the final administrative determination from which date the six-year statute of limitations begins to run; while the secretary of the Army asserts that the claim accrued in 1982, when the Board for Correction of Military Records first rejected plaintiff’s application, the circuit panel agrees with the plaintiff that it accrued in 2000, when the board re-opened his case and rejected his request for reconsideration on the merits. [Filed Feb. 10, 2003.] [Digested at page 56.] IMMIGRATION LAW — REVOCATION OF CITIZENSHIP 51-7-2811 U.S.A. v. Reve, U.S. Dist. Ct. (Cooper, U.S.D.J.) (19 pp.) Where the defendant had been arrested for sexually assaulting a 14-year-old boy, and, before pleading guilty to endangering the welfare of a child and criminal sexual contact under N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(c)(5), he signed a naturalization application stating that he had never been “arrested, cited, charged, indicted, convicted, fined or imprisoned for breaking or violating any law,” his crimes were crimes of moral turpitude; since defendant has failed to rebut the government’s prima facie showing that he willfully concealed a material fact to procure his citizenship, summary judgment is awarded to the government on its claim to revoke the citizenship under 8 U.S.C. � 1451(a). Further, the government is not required to interview every naturalization applicant, and the alleged failure to interview defendant does not prohibit the government from showing that his actions were willful. [Originally filed Dec. 31, 2002.] [Amended opinion filed for publication Jan. 31, 2003.] PHYSICAN/PATIENT — AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT — PRISON MEDICAL CARE 29-8-2812 Natale, et ux. v. Camden Co. Correctional Facility, et al., Third Cir. (Ambro, U.S.CJ.) (15 pp.) The circuit court concludes that, because the plaintiffs’ medical-malpractice claim — regarding the defendants’ failure to properly deal with the inmate-plaintiff’s insulin-dependent diabetes, causing him to suffer a stroke — falls within the “common knowledge” exception to the affidavit of merit requirement, it rules that plaintiffs did not need to submit the affidavit of a medical expert. In addition, the court finds that plaintiffs produced sufficient evidence of a policy or custom at the defendant Prison Health Services, which deprived the male plaintiff of his right to adequate medical care, such that the defendant’s motion for summary judgment was survived. The findings of the District Court to the contrary on both issues are reversed, and the matter is remanded. [Filed Feb. 7, 2003.] [Digested at page 55.]

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.