Appellate Law & Practice

This blog is devoted to appellate law and will provide case summaries and links to articles on appellate advocacy. Please send your news and views to Appellate [at] gmail [dot] com. We also welcome new contributors. Email us if you are interested.

Thursday, November 18, 2004

CA10 (11.18.04)

The Tenth Circuit ruled today against Dr. Exum, former head of the United States Olympic Committee’s drug control program in Exum v. United States, 03-1256 and 03-1280. Exum claimed he was passed over for the director's job of the anti-doping agency because he is black. The court ruled Exum didn't prove that he formally applied for the job or that he was discriminated against. Rather, it seems the director's job was phased out with the creation of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, which switched doping control from the USOC to an independent agency.

In Woodruff v. Covington, 02-7040 and 02-7051, the court said employee doctors of an Indian health clinic are not federal employees within the meaning of the Federal Torts Claims Act and thus not entitled from immunity from malpractice suit. Defendant doctors argued the clinic is an administrative entity within the Indian Health Service. The court rejected that interpretation and also found that the doctors were not within the government’s day-to-day control.

In United States v. Artez, 03-4166, the court found that a search of an alleged drug dealer’s home pursuant to warrant was supported by probable cause. Officers searching for narcotics turned up an short barrel shotgun and charged Leon with possessing an unregistered gun. The district court suppressed the evidence, but the Tenth Circuit reversed.

And in another gun possession case, United States v. Griffin, 03-7052, the defendant's probation officer testified that the defendant—a convicted felon—knew he was prohibited from possessing firearms under the terms of his probation. The district court admitted the probation officer's testimony over Defendant's objection that the evidence was irrelevant and would cause undue prejudice. The Tenth Circuit affirmed.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger

Google
WWW http://appellatepractice.blogspot.com