Skip to main content

Are you a legal professional? Visit our professional site

Search for legal issues
For help near (city, ZIP code or county)
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location

Title VII Case Involving a Professor's Allegedly Racially Harassing Emails, and Criminal, Attorney's Fees and Immigration Matters

Article Placeholder Image
By FindLaw Staff on May 20, 2010 1:45 PM

Rivera-Cuartas v. Holder, No. 07-74999, involved a petition for review of the BIA's order removing petitioner from the U.S.  The court of appeals granted the petition, on the ground that Arizona Revised Statutes section 13-1405, which criminalizes sexual conduct with a minor under eighteen years of age, did not constitute an aggravated felony for the purposes of immigration law.

Rodriguez v. Maricopa Cty. Cmty. Coll. Dist., No. 08-16073, concerned a Title VII action claiming that defendant public university administrators failed to take immediate or appropriate steps to prevent a professor from sending allegedly racially harassing emails.  The court of appeals reversed the denial of qualified immunity, holding that plaintiffs' objection to the professor's speech was based entirely on his point of view, and it was axiomatic that the government could not silence speech because the ideas it promoted were thought to be offensive.

Maxwell v. Roe, No. 08-55534, involved a murder prosecution, in which the court of appeals reversed the denial of petitioner's habeas petition, on the ground that the trial court's holding that petitioner was competent to stand trial, in light of the evidence before the trial court at the time of petitioner's 1998 trial, was an unreasonable determination of the facts and an unreasonable application of the Supreme Court's clearly established law in Pate and Drope.

Grove v. Wells Fargo Fin. California, Inc., No. 08-56964, involved plaintiff's appeal from the district court's award of fees and costs in plaintiff's Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) action against a bank.  The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, holding that: 1) plaintiff failed to comply with the local rules governing motions for taxable costs; and 2) given plaintiff's failure to meet his burden to show that the fees sought were at prevailing rates, the district court acted within its discretion when it adopted defendant's suggested hourly rates and rejected plaintiff's.

Related Resources

Find a Lawyer

More Options