Challenge to Constitutionality Uruguay Round Agreements Act Rejected - Criminal Law - U.S. Tenth Circuit
U.S. Tenth Circuit - The FindLaw 10th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries Blog

Challenge to Constitutionality Uruguay Round Agreements Act Rejected

Plus Criminal, Employment and Tort Cases

Golan v. Holder, No. 09-1234, involved an action challenging the constitutionality of Section 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act ("URAA"), which granted copyright protection to various foreign works that were previously in the public domain in the U.S.  The court of appeals reversed summary judgment for plaintiffs, on the grounds that 1) the government's interest in securing protections abroad for American copyright holders satisfied this substantial government interest standard; 2) Congress had substantial evidence from which it could reasonably conclude that the ongoing harms to American authors were real and not merely conjectural; and 3) there was substantial evidence from which Congress could conclude that Section 514 would alleviate these harms to American copyright holders.

In US v. Salazar, No. 09-3073, a firearm possession prosecution, the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court's order suppressing defendant's firearm, on the grounds that 1) defendant was not seized until he submitted to the police's show of authority by obeying the command to get out of his truck; and 2) at the time that defendant submitted to the officer's authority, the officer had reasonable suspicion to detain him.

In Sines v. Wilner, No. 09-1347, a firearm possession prosecution, the court of appeals affirmed the denial of petitioner's habeas petition, holding that 1) defendant's remedy under 28 U.S.C. section 2255 was not inadequate or ineffective; 2) defendant could have appealed the district court's dismissal of his motion; and 3) defendant's notice of appeal could not be construed as encompassing the denial of his section 2255 motion, because the notice did not evince an intent to appeal that denial.

Fredericks v. Jonsson, No. 09-1169, involved an action against a licensed psychologist for failing to warn plaintiffs of the danger posed by one of the psychologist's patients.  The court of appeals affirmed summary judgment for defendant, holding that 1) Colorado's mental health-professional liability statute, Colo. Rev. Stat. section 13-21-117, applied in the circumstances of this case and 2) the statute did not require defendant to warn plaintiffs because the patient had not communicated to defendant any serious threat of imminent physical violence against them.

Medlock v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., No. 09-5109, concerned an action alleging federal claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and his correlative Oklahoma "Burk tort" claim.  The court of appeals affirmed summary judgment for defendant, holding that it was not the employer's burden to negate any possible contributory role played by age in the challenged adverse action but, conversely, the employee's burden to show that age was the "but for" cause of the action.

Related Resources