Skip to main content

Sexual Act with a Minor Conviction Affirmed, and Criminal, Civil Procedure and Civil Rights Matters

By FindLaw Staff on July 21, 2010 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

In US v. Jandreau, No. 09-2839, the court of appeals affirmed defendant's conviction for engaging in a sexual act with a minor, holding that the government was entitled to prove up its case with relevant evidence, which included the paternity evidence at issue, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting it.

Frevert v. Ford Motor Co., No. 09-2531, involved an action against Ford Motor Company alleging wrongful discharge under the Missouri common law public policy exception to the employment at-will doctrine.  The court of appeals affirmed summary judgment for defendant, holding that plaintiff's complaint never alleged a violation of a specific legal provision and whether such legal provision involved a clear mandate of public policy, and plaintiff's belated affidavit discussing alleged violations of law directly contradicted both his complaint and interrogatories.

Langford v. Norris, No. 09-1862, concerned an action by inmates under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 against various defendants, including several current and former Arkansas Department of Correction officials, the company that provides medical services in Arkansas prisons, and a prison doctor, alleging that defendants violated the Eighth Amendment by acting with deliberate indifference to their serious medical needs.  The court partially affirmed the denial of summary judgment to certain defendants, holding that 1) there was no evident basis for finding that the issues presented in the medical defendants' appeal qualified as inextricably intertwined with the relevant collateral claim; 2) if defendant knew that plaintiff's serious medical needs were not being adequately treated, yet remained indifferent, he may be held personally liable.  However, the court reversed in part on the ground that plaintiffs' state law claims failed because a bare allegation of willful and wanton conduct would not suffice to prove malice.

Sun Bear v. US, No. 09-2992, concerned defendant's appeal from the district court's dismissal of his motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2255.  The court of appeals reversed, holding that defendant's Utah conviction for attempted theft of a vehicle did not qualify as a crime of violence, and therefore, in light of Begay, the sentencing court erred by applying the career offender sentencing guideline.

Related Resources

Copied to clipboard