Can a President Who Is Reelected After Being Acquitted in One Impeachment Case be Retried by a Subsequent Senate?

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR

Illinois law dean and professor Vikram David Amar considers whether a President who has been impeached and acquitted may, if reelected, be retried by a subsequent Senate. Amar acknowledges that it is unclear whether the Fifth and Sixth Amendments’ criminal procedural protections apply to impeachment proceedings, but he offers two key reasons that re-litigation of impeachment allegations after presidential reelection would be improper.

Read More

Halyard Health, Inc. v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.

Docket: B294567(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: January 2, 2020

Judge: Baker

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure

After Kimberly-Clark spun off its healthcare division to create a new Delaware company called Halyward Health, Halyward filed suit in Los Angeles Superior Court seeking a declaratory judgment that it did not have to provide indemnity for the punitive damages awarded in a recently filed class action concerning surgical gowns sold by Kimberly-Clark. The Court of Appeal held that the indemnification dispute was not sufficiently related to California for courts of the state to exercise personal jurisdiction over Kimberly-Clark. In this case, the litigation did not arise out of or relate to Kimberly-Clark's medical gown sales and marketing in California. Furthermore, the distribution agreement was not a "California-directed" contract conferring personal jurisdiction. Therefore, the court affirmed the trial court's grant of Kimberly-Clark's motion to quash the service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction.

People v. Lowery

Docket: F076484(Fifth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: January 2, 2020

Judge: Herbert I. Levy

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

Defendants Lowery and Green were convicted of four counts of second degree robbery and for being felons in possession of a firearm. Lowery received an aggregate prison term of 24 years eight months; Green received an aggregate prison term of 41 years; and the trial court imposed fees, fines and, assessments on both defendants. The Court of Appeal rejected defendant's contention that this matter must be remanded so the sentencing court may exercise its discretion to strike or dismiss their respective firearm enhancements pursuant to Senate Bill No. 620. The court held that a remand was not warranted on the SB 620 issue or on the issue of whether Green's five-year sentence enhancement should be stricken. The court held that, based on the sentencing record, it was abundantly clear that the trial court would not have exercised its discretion to strike or dismiss any of these enhancements. In the published portion of this opinion, the court held that defendants forfeited their claim relying on People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157. The court ordered a clerical error to be amended in the respective abstracts of judgment and otherwise affirmed defendants' respective judgments.