Texas Tech Law Review     

1802 Hartford Ave
Lubbock, TX 79409
ph: (806) 742-3990 ext. 291

5th Circuit Highlights

Fifth Circuit Highlights

  • BLOOD IS THICKER THAN FEDERAL SENTENCING CONCERNS: UNITED STATES V. WHITELAW, NO. 50346, 2009 WL 2515670 (5TH CIR. AUG. 19, 2009) [view]

    By Justin Levy

  • COURT CONSTRUES INNOCENCE PROTECTION ACT BROADLY TO PERMIT DNA TESTING:
    UNITED STATE V. FASONO, NO. 08-60750, 2009 WL 2341990, (5TH CIR. JUL. 31, 2009) [view]

    By Jason Jordon 

     

  • PROTECTING THE RIGHT TO ALLOCUTION: UNITED STATES V. AVILA-CORTEZ, NO. 08-41219, 2009 WL 2882829 (5TH CIR. SEPT. 10, 2009) [view]

    By John Maniscalco

  • DEFINING “PURCHASE-MONEY SECURITY INTEREST” AS USED IN THE HANGING PARAGRAPH OF THE BANKRUPTCY CODE: FORD MOTOR CREDIT CO. V. DALE (IN RE DALE), NO. 08-20583, 2009 WL 2857998 (5TH CIR. SEPT. 8, 2009) [view]

    By Natalie Mahlberg 

     

  • WAVING GOODBYE TO POST-PLEA INDECISION:  THE ABILITY TO WAIVE A DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO SUPRESS PLEA NEGOTIATION STATEMENTS
    UNITED STATES V. SYLVESTER, NO. 08-30586, 2009 WL 2974219
    (5TH CIR. SEPT. 18, 2009) [view]

    By Steven Boening

  • A LOAN GONE BAD: THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DOES NOT BAR FORECLOSURE, AND SUBROGATION APPLIES ONLY WHEN THE SURETY DISCHARGES THE ENTIRE UNDERLYING OBLIGATION
    RABO AGRIFINANCE INC. V. TERRA XXI, LTD., NO. 08-10143, 2009 WL 3003670 (5TH CIR. SEPT. 22, 2009) [view]

    By Ezra Kuenzi

  • TO EXCLUDE OR NOT TO EXCLUDE, THAT IS THE QUESTION:  INSURANCE COMPANIES’ ABILITY TO SHIFT THE BURDEN OF PROOF BY NOT EXCLUDING A CUSTOMER ENTIRELY
    SMITH V. AM. FAMILY LIFE ASSURANCE CO. OF COLUMBUS, NO. 08-31032, 2009 WL 3066660 (5TH CIR. SEPT. 28, 2009) [view]

    By Todd Moody

  • WHAT’S RELEVANT CONDUCT FOR SENTENCING: THE PROSECUTORS ABILITY TO GROUP MULTIPLE CRIMINAL ACTS INTO ONE “EVENT” FOR PUNISHMENT PURPOSES
    UNITED STATES V. RHINE, NO. 08-10502, 2009 WL 3086574
    (5TH CIR. SEPT. 29, 2009) [view]

    By Andrew Howell

  • COLLEGE TOWN RESIDENTS UNSUCCESSFUL IN VOTE DILUTION CHALLENGE: FAIRLEY V. HATTIESBURG, MISS., NO. 08-60942, 2009 WL 3088313 (5TH CIR. 2009) [view]

    By Bryan Dotson

  • YOU DO THE CRIME, YOU DO DOUBLE THE TIME? THE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION ACT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE EX POST FACTO PUNISHMENT: UNITED STATES V. YOUNG, NO. 08-51047, 2009 WL 3192872 (5TH CIR. OCT. 7, 2009) [view]

    By Kaitlyn Cichowski

  • LOOPHOLE OR SHIELD?: PROTECTING THE RIGHT TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY FOR POLICE OFFICERS ACTING UNDER REASONABLE BELIEF WHEN VIOLATING THE FOURTH AMENDMENT
    MANIS V. LAWSON, NO. 08-30987, 2009 WL 3298078 (5TH CIR. OCT. 15, 2009) [view]

    By Lynn Taylor

  • CHECK YOUR GUN’S SERIAL NUMBER BEFORE COMMITTING YOUR NEXT CRIME: UNITED STATES V. PEREZ, NO. 08-40917, 2009 WL 3321506 (5TH CIR. OCT. 16, 2009) [view]

    By Christopher Jeansonne

     

  • SEATBELTS, SWEAT, AND NO SHOPPING BAGS: REASONABLE SUSPICION LACKING FROM BORDER PATROL STOP
    UNITED STATES V. RANGEL-PORTILLO, NO. 08-40803, 2009 WL 3429563 (5TH CIR. OCT 26, 2009) [view]

    By Daniel Durell

  • Your Firearm was not in or Affecting Interstate Commerce?  It Doesn’t Matter:  Hernandez v. Holder, 2009 WL 5125456
    (5th Cir. Dec. 30, 2009) [view]

    By Jenny Parker

  • A PROSECUTOR IS NOT A DETECTIVE:
    PROSECUTORS WHO PERFORM
    INVESTIGATORY FUNCTIONS TYPICALLY PERFORMED BY POLICE ARE NOT ENTITLED TO PROSECUTORIAL IMMUNITY
    HOOG-WATSON V. GUADALUPE COUNTY, TEX., NO. 08-50077,
    2009 WL 4828742 (5TH CIR. DEC. 16,
    2009) [view]

    By Jonathan Cone

     

  • APPLYING BATSON IN TEXAS STATE COURTS: PEREMPTORY JURY STRIKING IN VOIR DIRE  
    DETERMINED TO BE RACE-BASED
    HAYES V. THALER, NO. 08-10057, 2010 WL 183395  (5TH CIR. JAN. 19, 2010)
    [view]

    By Margaret Tung

  • THE PROBLEM OF PROXIMATE CAUSE: ASSIGNING RESTITUTION UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 2259:
    IN RE AMY, 591 F.3D 792 (5TH CIR. DEC. 29, 2009) [view]

    By Skyler Stuckey

  • A DEAL’S A DEAL: PLEA AGREEMENTS MAY NOT BE ACCEPTED OR REJECTED ON A PIECEMEAL BASIS 
    UNITED STATES V. SELF,
    596 F.3D 245 (5TH CIR. FEB. 3, 2010) [view]

    By Sarah Heep

  • REGULATING THE RETAILERS: DOES TEXAS'S THREE-TIER SYSTEM FOR REGULATING THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES VIOLATE THE  DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE?
    SIESTA VILLAGE MARKET L.L.C. V. STEEN, 595 F.3D 249 (5TH CIR. JAN. 26, 2010) [view]

    By Callie Bailey

Join us in celebrating TTLR Online's latest feature!

Each week TTLR Online will feature staff-written Highlights summarizing two of the Fifth Circuit's latest decisions. 

 Stay practical with TTLR Online!

 

Copyright 2009-2010 Texas Tech Law Review. All rights reserved.

 

 

1802 Hartford Ave
Lubbock, TX 79409
ph: (806) 742-3990 ext. 291