The Carroll Law Firm

Legal News & Cases

News

Civil Rights Crime

Civil Rights

[08/13] Uneasy relations: China and the foreign press
[08/21] Piece of black history rests with Arkansas church
[08/26] Charge dismissed in case of dog registered to vote
[08/07] Wash. letter carrier going full kilt ahead
[08/27] Lesbian activist Del Martin dies at 87

More...


Crime

[08/22] Typo fixers get probation for damaging rare sign
[08/21] Wis. woman arrested, booked over library fines
[08/21] Fla. deputies Taser Plop-Plop the unruly emu
[08/21] Man arrested just 12 hours after release from jail
[08/21] Illinois sheriff does jail time - voluntarily

More...

Case Summaries

Family Law Criminal Law & Procedure

Family Law

[08/22] In re A.C.
Order terminating parental rights is affirmed where: 1) the dependency court's noncompliance with section 372 standing alone does not violate the parent's due process rights; and 2) the error is subject to a harmless error standard.

[08/22] Iglesias v. Mukasey
Petition for review of BIA's denial of motion to reopen the case is denied where: 1) petitioner's allegation that BIA had ignored evidence put forth by petitioner regarding his marriage to an American citizen was an allegation of legal error subject to appellate review; but 2) petitioner did not provide clear and convincing evidence that his marriage was bona fide.

[08/21] Combs v. Homer-Center Sch. Dist.
In a suit by parents who home-school their children seeking declaratory relief and a permanent injunction to prohibit the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania from requiring plaintiffs to comply with reporting and review requirements, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the challenged statute was a neutral law of general applicability, subject to rational basis review, and was constitutional as it rationally furthered legitimate state interests; 2) plaintiffs did not assert a valid "hybrid-rights" claim under which, as a potential violation of both free-exercise rights and the parental right to direct a child's education, the law might be subject to greater scrutiny; 3) plaintiffs' claims did not fall under the narrow exception of Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), requiring heightened scrutiny when parents challenge compulsory-education laws on religious grounds; and 4) having disposed of all federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims under the Religious Freedom Protection Act.

[08/21] US v. Carson
Sentence for conspiring to transport a minor across state lines for the purpose of unlawful sexual activity and interstate travel to engage in illicit sexual conduct is affirmed where, for purposes of applying a sentencing enhancement, the minor victim was properly determined to be in defendant's custody, care, or supervisorial control, despite argument that the victim's mother's presence gave her sole custody and control.

More...


Criminal Law & Procedure

[08/27] US v. Allen
A conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm and a felon in possession of ammunition is affirmed over claims that: 1) the district court erred in permitting two witnesses to be improperly impeached; and 2) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction.

[08/27] US v. Hogan
A conviction and sentence for conspiracy to distribute meth, possession with intent to distribute meth, and distribution of meth, is affirmed over claims that the district court erred in denying his motions to suppress and for acquittal, and in sentencing him to 188 months' imprisonment.

[08/27] US v. Espinosa
A sentence for drug- and firearm-related offenses is affirmed over defendant's claim that the district court erred when, for purposes of determining the advisory sentencing range, it grouped only conspiracy and manufacturing counts, but not firearms counts.

[08/27] US v. Wessels
In a case wherein defendant was convicted and sentenced for unauthorized use of a credit card, and later had her supervised release revoked and was sentenced again, the judgment is affirmed over a Fifth Amendment due process challenge.

More...

The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation. Lynn Carroll is responsible for the content of this site. The Principal Office is located in Dallas, Texas.

Copyright © 2008 by The Carroll Law Firm. All rights reserved. You may reproduce materials available at this site for your own personal use and for non-commercial distribution. All copies must include this copyright statement.