Quantcast

Tag Archives: Judge Julius N. Richardson

False Claims Act suit triggers ‘medical incident’ coverage (access required)

Where the policy covers “damages resulting from a claim arising out of a medical incident,” a false claims act suit alleging billing for services that were not rendered was within the scope of coverage because the “failure to render” services ...

Read More »

On second try, defendant may file for habeas based on new evidence (access required)

Evidence disclosed by the Commonwealth of Virginia in October 2016 that could not have been previously discovered through due diligence supported the defendant’s arguments that, but for a constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found him guilty of first-degree ...

Read More »

Failure to address argument for sentencing variance was in error (access required)

Although the defendant’s legal objection to the criminal history calculation was addressed by the sentencing judge, it was error to not address the defendant’s equitable argument for a variance from the sentence for illegal reentry. Background Apolonio Torres-Reyes pleaded guilty ...

Read More »

No error in rejecting ‘substantially similar’ claims and arguments in habeas (access required)

Where the claims and arguments in a death row inmate’s habeas petition did not “fundamentally alter” those previously rejected by the post-conviction court, the district court did not err in rejecting them under a deferential standard of review. A new ...

Read More »

Brady material would not have changed trial’s outcome (access required)

Where the state failed to turn over Brady materials and the state court appeared to apply an incorrect standard when reviewing a petitioner’s post-conviction application, there was another ground sufficient to sustain the decision to deny his application. In addition, the ...

Read More »

Sprint customer contract found ambiguous (access required)

Where Sprint argued that Wireless Buybacks, by purchasing phones from Sprint’s customers for resale, tortiously interfered with contracts between Sprint and its customers, the contracts were found to be ambiguous on whether the practice was forbidden. Background Besides providing cellular ...

Read More »