Skip to main content

Suit Regarding Termination of Plaintiff's Employment as Sheriff, and Criminal and Government Benefits Matters

By FindLaw Staff on September 15, 2010 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

In Dahl v. Rice County, No. 09-1210, an action alleging constitutional violations resulting from plaintiff's termination as a deputy sheriff, the court affirmed summary judgment for defendants where 1) there was no evidence that this single incident of the sheriff losing his temper represents a policy of the sheriff or of Rice County; 2) plaintiff was not "informing the public" that the department was engaged in "misfeasance, malfeasance or nonfeasance," but rather he focused on the sheriff's unpleasant demeanor; and 3) there was no evidence that the sheriff was authorized to assault employees, as would be necessary for him to prevail on a claim of procedural due process.

In Hurd v. Astrue, No. 08-3701, plaintiff's appeal from the denial of his application for supplemental security income benefits based on an administrative law judge's finding that he was not disabled, the court affirmed where 1) the ALJ understandably sought additional information from plaintiff's expert after he had received all the evidence, but the expert did not respond; and 2) the expert offered little more than a conclusory statement that was unsupported by medical evidence.

In US v. Kieffer, No. 09-3138, the court affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for mail fraud and making false statements, holding that 1) evidence of defendant's acts outside the District of North Dakota were "inextricably intertwined" with, and "intrinsic" to, the allegations in the superseding indictment; 2) it was not clear or obvious that the prosecutor was commenting indirectly on defendant's failure to testify; and 3) the record was replete with evidence to show defendant voluntarily and intentionally devised a scheme to defraud others into believing he was a licensed attorney and collecting substantial "fees" from them.

In US v. Perdoma, No. 09-3394, the court affirmed defendant's conviction for possession with intent to distribute fifty grams or more of a substance containing methamphetamine where 1) because the officer had probable cause to believe that defendant possessed marijuana in violation of Nebraska law, defendant's arrest did not violate the Fourth Amendment; and 2) the search was a valid search incident to arrest.

Related Resources

Copied to clipboard