Archive for the ‘United States Courts’ Category

Survey Finds Infrequent Social Media Use by Jurors

July 31, 2014 Comments off

Survey Finds Infrequent Social Media Use by Jurors
Source: United States Courts

Social media use by jurors, and the problems resulting from it, remains a relatively infrequent occurrence, according to a survey of U.S. district judges.

Nearly 500 judges in all 94 districts responded to a Federal Judicial Center survey assessing jurors’ use of social media. The findings were published in May 2014.

Among other questions, the survey asked the judges for their strategies for curbing social media use by jurors in trials and jury deliberations. For the first time, too, judges were asked about the use of social media by attorneys.

Of the 494 judges responding to the survey, the majority of judges explained to jurors in plain language why social media is banned. This strategy must be effective; only 33 of the 494 judges reported any detectable instances of jurors using social media – and then in only one or two of their cases and mainly during trials.

Jurors access Facebook and personal blogs more often than instant messaging services. Six judges reported that a juror divulged confidential information about a case. Additionally, three judges reported that a juror communicated or attempted to communicate directly with participants in the case and two jurors revealed aspects of the deliberation process.

Judges generally learned of the inappropriate use of social media from other jurors, court staff, or attorneys in the case. Most judges cautioned a juror when social media use was discovered, but some removed the juror from the jury, while still others dealt with the juror post-trial. One juror was held in contempt of court.

Hat tip: INFOdocket

About these ads

Bankruptcy Filings Down 12 Percent in Calendar Year 2013

February 14, 2014 Comments off

Bankruptcy Filings Down 12 Percent in Calendar Year 2013
Source: United States Courts

In calendar year 2013, there was a 12 percent drop in cases filed in federal bankruptcy courts. During the 12-month period ending December 31, 2013, 1,071,932 bankruptcy cases were filed, down from the 1,221,091 bankruptcy cases filed in calendar year 2012.

Verizon v. Federal Communications Commission (net neutrality)

January 16, 2014 Comments off

Verizon v. Federal Communications Commission (PDF)
Source: U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia

For the second time in four years, we are confronted with a Federal Communications Commission effort to compel broadband providers to treat all Internet traffic the same regardless of source—or to require, as it is popularly known, “net neutrality.” In Comcast Corp. v. FCC, 600 F.3d 642 (D.C. Cir. 2010), we held that the Commission had failed to cite any statutory authority that would justify its order compelling a broadband provider to adhere to open network management practices. After Comcast, the Commission issued the order challenged here—In re Preserving the Open Internet, 25 F.C.C.R. 17905 (2010) (“the Open Internet Order”)—which imposes disclosure, anti-blocking, and anti-discrimination requirements on broadband providers. As we explain in this opinion, the Commission has established that section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 vests it with affirmative authority to enact measures encouraging the deployment of broadband infrastructure. The Commission, we further hold, has reasonably interpreted section 706 to empower it to promulgate rules governing broadband providers’ treatment of Internet traffic, and its justification for the specific rules at issue here—that they will preserve and facilitate the “virtuous circle” of innovation that has driven the explosive growth of the Internet—is reasonable and supported by substantial evidence. That said, even though the Commission has general authority to regulate in this arena, it may not impose requirements that contravene express statutory mandates. Given that the Commission has chosen to classify broadband providers in a manner that exempts them from treatment as common carriers, the Communications Act expressly prohibits the Commission from nonetheless regulating them as such. Because the Commission has failed to establish that the anti-discrimination and anti-blocking rules do not impose per se common carrier obligations, we vacate those portions of the Open Internet Order.

2012 Report Shows More Repeat Bankruptcy Filers

October 23, 2013 Comments off

2012 Report Shows More Repeat Bankruptcy Filers
Source: U.S. Courts

During calendar year 2012, 1.1 million bankruptcy petitions were filed by individuals with primarily consumer debt. Filers had a median average monthly income of $2,743, most filed under chapter 7, and for more debtors in 2012 this was not the first time they had filed for bankruptcy.

These and other statistics on individuals filing for bankruptcy in 2012 under chapters 7, 11, and 13 are found in the annual report (pdf) required by the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA) of 2005 and now available online.

When Cities Go Bankrupt

July 19, 2013 Comments off

When Cities Go Bankrupt
Source: U.S. Courts

The City of Detroit has declared bankruptcy under Chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code. Chapter 9 provides for reorganization of municipalities, which includes cities and towns, as well as villages, counties, taxing districts, municipal utilities, and school districts.

Chapter 9 filings are not common. From 1991-2012 there were 217 Chapter 9 bankruptcies filed nationwide, with 20 filed in FY 2012. The majority of the cases have been for utility districts and not sovereign government entities.

United States v. Apple Inc. (ebook price fixing)

July 12, 2013 Comments off

United States v. Apple Inc.
Source: U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York

This Opinion explains how and why the prices for many electronic books, or “e-books,” rose significantly in the United States in April 2010. Plaintiffs the United States of America (“DOJ”) and thirty-three states and U.S. territories (the “States”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), filed these antitrust suits on April 11, 2012, alleging that defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple”) and five book publishing companies conspired to raise, fix, and stabilize the retail price for newly released and bestselling trade e-books in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 (“Sherman Act”), and various state laws. These cases represent two of four related actions brought before this Court alleging the same e-books price-fixing conspiracy between Apple and the publishers. The publishers are Hachette Book Group, Inc. (“Hachette”), HarperCollins Publishers LLC (“HarperCollins”), Holtzbrinck Publishers LLC d/b/a Macmillan (“Macmillan”), Penguin Group (USA), Inc. (“Penguin”), and Simon & Schuster, Inc. (“Simon & Schuster” or “S&S”) (collectively, “Publisher Defendants”).

Only Apple proceeded to trial; the Publisher Defendants have settled their claims with both the DOJ and the States. This Opinion presents the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law following the bench trial that was held from June 3 to 20, 2013 to resolve the issue of Apple’s liability and the scope of any injunctive relief. As described below, the Plaintiffs have shown that Apple conspired to raise the retail price of e-books and that they are entitled to injunctive relief. A trial on damages will follow.

Wiretap Report 2012

July 1, 2013 Comments off

Wiretap Report 2012
Source: U.S. Courts
From press release:

In calendar year 2012, a total of 3,395 orders authorizing the interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications, or wiretaps, were approved by state and federal judges. The Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AO) is required by statute to report to Congress the number of federal and state applications for orders authorizing or approving wiretaps. The 2012 Wiretap Report and previous annual reports are available online, along with responses to frequently asked questions.

For the 2012 reporting period, January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012, 97 percent of all wiretaps were authorized for “portable devices,” a category that includes cellular telephones and digital pagers. In addition, 87 percent of all 2012 applications for intercepts cited illegal drugs as the most serious offense under investigation. As of December 31, 2012, a total of 3,743 persons had been arrested and 455 persons had been convicted as a result of interceptions reported as terminated.

The Wiretap Report does not include data on interceptions regulated by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. The AO is not authorized to collect or report this data.

No report to the AO is needed when an order is issued with the consent of one of the principal parties to the communication. No report is required for the use of a pen register unless the pen register is used in conjunction with any other wiretap devices whose use must be recorded.

Forty-eight jurisdictions, including the federal government, the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and 44 states, have laws authorizing courts to issue orders permitting wire, oral, or electronic surveillance.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 899 other followers