The case involves The Real Truth About Obama, Inc. challenging Federal Election Commission regulations defining "express advocacy" and determining political committee status under the Federal Election Campaign Act, claiming they violate the First Amendment, particularly as applied to their planned advertisements criticizing Barack Obama's positions on abortion. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the FEC and DOJ, upholding the regulations and policy. The decision reasoned that Citizens United did not alter the relevant legal framework, and that RTAO's communications indicated a major purpose of defeating Obama's candidacy, justifying the application of political committee rules.
The case involves plaintiff John K. Goodrow alleging that defendants Friedman & MacFadyen, P.A. and attorney Johnie R. Muncy violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act during the foreclosure of his home by communicating directly with him despite knowing he had counsel, making false or misleading statements about the note holders, and conducting foreclosure without proper authority. The defendants moved to dismiss the claims, arguing they were not debt collectors, the communications were not in connection with debt collection, and other grounds. The court denied the motion, holding that the allegations sufficiently stated viable FDCPA claims under the relevant provisions.
The case involved defendant Iheanyi Frank Chinasa, who was charged with conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, multiple counts of mail and wire fraud, and obstruction of an official proceeding for allegedly using interstate carriers and communications to fraudulently obtain replacement computer parts from Cisco Systems through an unauthorized warranty program. After a jury convicted Chinasa on most counts, he moved for judgment of acquittal under Rule 29 or a new trial under Rule 33, arguing insufficient evidence to prove the conspiracy or fraud elements, lack of an overt act, erroneous jury instructions on intent and materiality, and prejudice from certain exhibits. The court denied the motion, holding that substantial evidence supported the verdict when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, that the instructions adequately covered the required elements without needing additions on overt acts or other points, and that no evidentiary errors justified a new trial under the interest-of-justice standard.
In United States v. Council, the defendant, charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm, filed a motion in limine to exclude the government's proposed expert testimony from a latent palm print examiner and from a patrol canine handler who located the gun. The court held a hearing and denied both challenges. Regarding the palm print examiner, the court found her qualified through training and experience, and determined that the ACE-V methodology she used satisfied the reliability standards of Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert despite critiques in the 2009 NRC report. As to the canine handler, the court ruled the testimony relevant to how the firearm was recovered and not unfairly prejudicial because the handler would not claim the dog made a definitive identification of human scent.
This case concerned challenges by two non-Virginia citizens, McBurney and Hurlbert, who were denied public records under Virginia's Freedom of Information Act (VFOIA) due to its citizens-only provision; McBurney sought child support enforcement documents from a state agency, while Hurlbert, a records retrieval business owner, requested real estate assessment records from a county. The plaintiffs argued that the restriction violated the dormant Commerce Clause and the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV. The court granted summary judgment to the state defendants and denied the plaintiffs' motion, upholding the provision. It reasoned that VFOIA serves the legitimate local purpose of promoting government transparency and accountability for Virginia citizens without economic protectionism or burdening a fundamental right under the relevant constitutional clauses.
This case involved a dispute over whether an Auto-Owners automobile insurance policy provided stacked uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage of $400,000 across four vehicles or a single $100,000 limit after the plaintiff was injured in a car accident with insufficient liability coverage from the at-fault driver. The plaintiff, a resident relative of the named insureds, argued the policy either affirmatively allowed stacking or was ambiguous and thus should permit it. The court granted Auto-Owners' motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's, ruling that the policy's Limit of Liability section clearly and unambiguously stated the per-person limit applied as the maximum regardless of the number of vehicles or premiums, with no internal inconsistencies on the declarations pages to create ambiguity under Virginia precedent.