• CRIMINAL LAWS

United States v. Chapman

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. (Decided on 04.08.2010)

Receipt of stolen firearms - Unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition as previously convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 922(j) - Conviction - Challenge against thereto - Whether District Court committed procedural errors and improperly applied a specific offense characteristic under the advisory sentencing guidelines for possession of a firearm in connection with another felony offence

Held, a knowing recipient of stolen firearms in violation of § 922(j), like a felon in possession of stolen firearms, will not necessarily violate the Iowa felony theft statute, because the federal statute does not require value in excess of $1000 and Defendant also stands convicted of violating § 922(g) as a felon in possession of a firearm. Due to the "grouping rules" of USSG § 3D 1.2, the conviction under § 922(j) resulted in no incremental punishment under the advisory guidelines. PSR ¶ 32. English establishes that the four-level enhancement for felony theft is appropriate for a Defendant convicted under § 922(g), even when the firearms possessed unlawfully are also stolen. Nothing in a general presumption against "double counting" warrants allowing Defendant to avoid the enhancement approved in English because he sustained an additional conviction, under § 922(j). Hence,Court conclude that the district court committed no procedural error .

Mosley v. City of Chicago

United State 7 th Circuit court of appeal (Decided on. 29.07.2010)

Suit for arrest and prosecution for murder - Acquittal after five years during the course of Trial - Whether there was any evidence in the record that the officers withheld any materially favorable piece of evidence?

Held, there is no evidence in the record that the officers withheld any materially favorable piece of evidence, and even assuming that a Brady violation could occur when a trial ends in acquittal, this claim cannot rise to the level described in Bielanski v. County of Kane, 550 F.3d 632 (7th Cir. 2008)

Suit for arrest and prosecution for murder - Malicious Prosecution - Whether District Court erred in concluding that the Defendants had probable cause to press forward with the prosecution?

Held, District Court did not err in concluding that the Defendants had probable cause to press forward with the prosecution. In order to prevail on a malicious prosecution claim under Illinois law, the Plaintiff must prove: (1) the commencement or continuance of judicial proceedings by the Defendant against the Plaintiff; (2) a lack of probable cause for those proceedings; (3) malice in instituting the proceedings; (4) termination of the proceedings in the Plaintiff's favor; and (5) damages resulting to the Plaintiff. The District Court concluded that the Defendants had probable cause to press forward with the prosecution and therefore Mosley could not maintain a claim for malicious prosecution.

• INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

Bimbo Bakeries Usa, Inc. v. Chris Botticella

United States Third Circuit (Decided on 29.07.2010)

Suit for preliminary injunctive relief - Seeking protection of its trade secrets involving Plaintiff's popular line of Thomas' English Muffins - District Court's grant of Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction affirmed - Whether the District Court erred in enjoining Appellant from working for one of competitors until after the Court resolved the merits of competitors's misappropriation of trade secrets claim against Respondent?

Held, Under the Pennsylvania Uniform Trade Secrets Act ("PUTSA"), which is applicable in this case, a trade secret is defined as: Information, including a formula, drawing, pattern, compilation including a customer list, program, device, method, technique or process that :

(1) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use. (2) Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.

The District Court also concluded that Bimbo would suffer irreparable harm absent injunctive relief because the disclosure of its trade secrets to Hostess would put Bimbo at a competitive disadvantage that a legal remedy could not redress. Further, the District Court concluded that the harm of Bimbo's trade secrets being disclosed to Hostess outweighed the harm to Botticella of not being able to commence employment at Hostess until the Court made a final determination of the merits following a trial, which it scheduled to start about two months from the date it issued the preliminary injunction. Court also agree with the District Court's conclusion that granting the preliminary injunction was consistent with the public interest. There are several public interests at play in this case. As noted by the District Court, there is a generalized public interest in "upholding the inviolability of trade secrets and enforceability of confidentiality agreements.