Latest 2 Cases: Ambassador Press, Inc. v. Durst Image Technology U.S., LLC (Business Law), United States v. Clausen (Criminal Law)

What Else Might Senate Republicans Have Done, Given That They’re Too Scared to Do the Right Thing?

NEIL H. BUCHANAN

UF law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan considers whether there is anything Senate Republicans might have done, instead of outright acquitting President Trump, to maintain the role of Congress as a coequal branch with the Executive. Buchanan proposes that under the text of the impeachment clauses, those Republican senators could have voted for removal—the necessary result of finding wrongdoing—but permitted Trump to run again in the election later this year.

Read More

Ambassador Press, Inc. v. Durst Image Technology U.S., LLC

Docket: 18-3017

Opinion Date: February 5, 2020

Judge: William Duane Benton

Areas of Law: Business Law

Ambassador Press filed suit against Durst Image for fraud, alleging that the printing press that was purchased from Durst Image did not have the speed or durability Durst Image represented at the time of the purchase. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of Durst Image's motion to dismiss, holding that the district court correctly determined that Ambassador Press did not plausibly allege common law fraud. The court also held that the district court properly determined that reliance was not pleaded with particularity and properly granted the motion to dismiss.

United States v. Clausen

Docket: 18-3081

Opinion Date: February 5, 2020

Judge: James B. Loken

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

After defendant pleaded guilty to assaulting a federal agent and damaging an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, the district court sentenced him to 60 months in prison and ordered him to pay restitution for the government's actual loss. In this case, defendant opened fire on a CBP helicopter, injuring a sheriff's deputy and causing extensive damage to the helicopter. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by granting an extension of time to finally determine the amount of restitution because the extension did not prejudice defendant's ability to challenge the government's restitution claim; the district court did not clearly err in finding that defendant's offense caused the claimed losses; and the district court did not clearly err in finding that the government substantiated its claim for restitution in the amount of $19,619.45.