Latest 7 Cases: Commonwealth v. Mitchell (Civil Rights), Rhoton v. Commonwealth (Civil Rights), Russell v. Johnson & Johnson Inc. (Consumer Law)

The Supreme Court Limbers Up to Aid and Abet Trump’s Coup

NEIL H. BUCHANAN

UF Levin College of Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan describes how the U.S. Supreme Court is readying itself to declare Trump the winner of the election. Professor Buchanan points out that no court acting in good faith would apply the text of the Constitution or existing Supreme Court precedents in a way that would allow any of this scheme to see the light of day, but based on what Justice Kavanaugh has written and what Justice Gorsuch strongly suggests, the Court might not even have that minimum amount of good faith.

Read More

If the Challengers Prevail on the Merits of the ACA California v. Texas Case, What is the Appropriate Remedy and What Effect Should the Ruling Have on the Entirety of the ACA? Part Four in a Series

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR, EVAN CAMINKER, JASON MAZZONE

In this fourth of a series of columns examining the California v. Texas case challenging the Affordable Care Act (ACA), Illinois law dean Vikram David Amar, Michigan Law dean emeritus Evan Caminker, and Illinois law professor Jason Mazzone consider what the appropriate remedy should be if the challengers prevail on the merits of the case. The authors explain why enjoining the 2017 amendment, which zeroed out the potential tax penalty for failure to maintain the specified health insurance coverage, is a more appropriate remedy than striking down the entire ACA.

Read More

The U.S. Supreme Court Cannot Determine the Election Result

AUSTIN SARAT, DANIEL B. EDELMAN

Amherst College Associate Provost Austin Sarat and attorney Daniel B. Edelman argue that there is nothing the Supreme Court can do to prevent governors from certifying slates of electors that actually reflect the vote of the people in their states. Sarat and Edelman explain why Bush v Gore is both inapplicable, and by its own terms, never supposed to be used as precedent.

Read More

Commonwealth v. Mitchell

Docket: 2019-SC-0087-DG

Opinion Date: October 29, 2020

Judge: Michelle M. Keller

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the court of appeals reversing Defendant's conviction for being a convicted felon in possession of a handgun on the grounds that the trial court erred in denying Defendant's motion to suppress, holding that the court of appeals erred in concluding that the Commonwealth's reasonable suspicion argument was precluded. In his motion to suppress, Defendant argued that the traffic stop in the case was impermissibly prolonged beyond its original purpose and violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The trial court denied the motion without addressing whether the officers had independent reasonable suspicion to extend the stop. The court of appeals reversed, concluding (1) the officers deferred completion of the stop beyond its original purpose for a purpose totally unrelated to the original stop; and (2) the Commonwealth was precluded from arguing reasonable suspicion of criminal activity as a justification for the extension. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the court of appeals (1) correctly held that Defendant's stop was impermissibly extended; but (2) erred in concluding that the Commonwealth's reasonable suspicion argument was precluded. The Court remanded the case to the trial court for additional factual findings and conclusions of law as to the officers' reasonable suspicion.

Rhoton v. Commonwealth

Docket: 2019-SC-0298-DG

Opinion Date: October 29, 2020

Judge: Michelle M. Keller

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's drug-related convictions, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress. After he was arrested and indicted, Defendant moved to suppress the evidence seized during a traffic stop, arguing that the law enforcement officer impermissibly prolonged the stop to facilitate a dog sniff search. The trial court denied the request. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the actions taken to facilitate the arrest of Defendant's passenger did not impermissibly extend his traffic stop, and therefore, the trial court correctly denied Defendant's motion to suppress the evidence resulting from the subsequent use of the narcotics dog.

Russell v. Johnson & Johnson Inc.

Docket: 2019-SC-0118-DG

Opinion Date: October 29, 2020

Judge: Wright

Areas of Law: Consumer Law, Drugs & Biotech, Personal Injury

In this lawsuit brought against Johnson & Johnson, Inc. and other entities (collectively, Defendants) alleging state tort claims due to injuries caused by a Class III medical device the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court granting Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings based on federal preemption of all claims, holding that, under Kentucky's notice pleading standards, the motion for judgment on the pleadings should have been denied. In their complaint, Plaintiffs asserted claims for, inter alia, strict liability negligence, and lack of informed consent. Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings based on federal preemption of all claims. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed all of Plaintiffs' claims. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, under Kentucky's notice pleading standard, Plaintiffs' complaint sufficiently put Defendants on notice of parallel claims under Kentucky law that may not be preempted.

Commonwealth v. Crowe

Docket: 2019-SC-0231-DG

Opinion Date: October 29, 2020

Judge: Michelle M. Keller

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the ruling of the trial court denying Defendant's motion to classify him as a domestic violence victim pursuant to Ky. Rev. Stat. 439.3401(5), holding that the evidence was sufficient to satisfy Defendant's burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he was a victim of domestic violence. Defendant pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the first degree for the death of his wife. Defendant moved the trial court to classify him as a domestic violence victim, which would reduce his parole eligibility from eighty-five percent of his sentence to twenty percent of his sentence. The trial court denied the motion, but the court of appeals reversed, concluding that Defendant successfully connected the physical and verbal domestic violence he experienced to the crime he committed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant proved that he was a victim of domestic violence in regard to the manslaughter of his wife.

Hodge v. Commonwealth

Docket: 2019-SC-0137-TG

Opinion Date: October 29, 2020

Judge: Vanmeter

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court denying Defendant's motion for DNA testing with respect to hair found at the residence of the victims whom Defendant was convicted of murdering, burglarizing, and robbing, holding that the trial court did not err. Defendant was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. This appeal concerned Defendant's motion seeking DNA testing of hair that was found in the victims' home. The trial court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed after noting that Defendant's DNA arguments have been raised and rejected by both the Supreme Court and the federal courts, holding that no reasonable probability existed that the DNA testing and analysis would produce exculpatory evidence.

Ray v. Commonwealth

Docket: 2019-SC-0164-MR

Opinion Date: October 29, 2020

Judge: Lambert

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sixty-five-year sentence for attempted murder, first-degree robbery, and other crimes, holding that the trial court did to err by denying two of Defendant's directed verdict motions and that there was no error in Defendant's sentencing phase. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court committed reversible error when it denied his directed verdict motions for first-degree robbery and first-degree wanton endangerment and that his sentencing phase was unfairly tainted by incorrect information regarding parole eligibility. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) this Court overrules precedent requiring defendants to comply with the "second rule" of preservation; (2) in order to preserve an alleged directed verdict issue for appeal, criminal defendants must move for a directed verdict at the close of the Commonwealth's evidence and renew the directed verdict motion at the close of all evidence; (3) the trial court did not err by denying Defendant's motions for directed verdict; (4) even though testimony by the Commonwealth's sole witness in the sentencing phase regarding first-degree wanton endangerment was clearly false, the error was not palpable; and (5) the Commonwealth's misstatement of parole eligibility during its closing argument did not constitute manifest injustice resulting in palpable error.

Taylor v. Commonwealth

Dockets: 2019-SC-0066-MR, 2019-SC-0138-TG

Opinion Date: October 29, 2020

Judge: Vanmeter

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of wanton murder and four counts of first-degree wanton endangerment, holding that the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's motion for a directed verdict. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erroneously denied his motions for a directed verdict on the wanton murder and wanton endangerment charges because the evidence was insufficient to establish "aggravated wantonness" and to prove that his conduct caused the victim's death. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Commonwealth met its burden of persuasion, and therefore, the trial court did not err by denying Defendant's motion for a directed verdict of acquittal on the charges.