PRO

Robert Don Lohbeck's Legal Cases (4)

Call for a FREE consultation Call (505) 908-9138 View Profile

Personal injury

William Stump Smith v Robert Gonzales

Jul 25, 2000

OUTCOME: Won

In 1977, the State of New Mexico tried Smith for the kidnapping and murder of two women. The trial court declared a mistrial due to the jury's inability to reach a unanimous verdict. In 1978, a second ... jury acquitted Smith of the kidnapping charges, but convicted him of two counts of first degree murder. The trial judge sentenced Smith to two consecutive terms of life imprisonment. On appeal, the New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed Smith's convictions. 3 In 1983, Smith, through new counsel, filed a motion for post-conviction relief in the state trial court claiming, inter alia, that the prosecution had failed to disclose exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). The court denied his motion in February 1984, and Smith filed a state petition for a writ of habeas corpus in May 1984. The state trial court summarily dismissed the petition in 1987, and the New Mexico Supreme Court denied review. In 1988, Smith filed a federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. The federal district court dismissed Smith's petition with prejudice, and Smith appealed. 4 On March 7, 1995, we held that the prosecution had failed to disclose several pieces of relevant material exculpatory evidence, thereby violating Smith's constitutional due process right to a fair trial. Smith v. Secretary of N.M. Dep't of Corrections, 50 F.3d 801, 835 (10th Cir. 1995). We vacated Smith's conviction and remanded the case to the district court. Id. We instructed the district court on remand "to enter an order directing the State of New Mexico, within ninety (90) days of the entry of that order, to either grant Mr. Smith a new trial or, in the alternative, to order his permanent release from custody." Id. 5 The State of New Mexico granted Smith a new trial and tried him for a third time. The jury could not reach a unanimous verdict, and the trial court once again declared a mistrial. On April 21, 1996, New Mexico state prosecutors filed a nolle prosequi indicating that they would not prosecute Smith's case further. The State released Smith from prison on the same day. 6 On February 19, 1999, Smith filed the instant suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, seeking compensatory and punitive damages for defendants' violations of his constitutional rights. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing that Smith's civil suit is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The district court granted defendants' motion and dismissed the suit with prejudice. Smith filed a timely appeal.

Civil rights

Archuleta v LaCuesta, NM State Police

Jul 02, 1999

OUTCOME: Won

The Estate of Marvin Archuleta (Estate) appeals the district court's grant of partial summary judgment and the denial of its motion for reconsideration under Rule 1-060(B)(1) NMRA 1999. Partial summa ... ry judgment was granted to New Mexico State Police Officers Wesley LaCuesta, Ronald Densinger, and John Denko for the Estate's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) claim that the officers violated Archuleta's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure in using excessive force resulting in Archuleta's death. We hold that there are genuine issues of material fact concerning what occurred the night of the shooting and reverse the order granting summary judgment for Officer LaCuesta. We also reverse and remand for reconsideration the order of summary judgment for Officers Hensinger and Denko because it appears that the district court did not assess these claims independently from the claim against Officer LaCuesta. - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nm-court-of-appeals/1415496.html#sthash.RF9VHx0F.dpuf

Civil rights

Archuleta v LaCuesta, NM State Police

Dec 03, 1997

OUTCOME: Won

Plaintiff Rose Archuleta originally filed this action in New Mexico state court, seeking damages for violations of federal and state law. After Defendants removed the case to federal district court, Ar ... chuleta filed a motion to remand the action to state court. The district court granted the motion, ruling that the Eleventh Amendment barred some of the claims in federal court and further that the entire action, including the federal claims not barred by the Eleventh Amendment, should be remanded because removal was not authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Defendants seek to appeal the remand, or, alternatively, if we determine that the remand order is reviewable but not appealable because it is not a final order, they apply for a writ of mandamus reversing the remand. Because the district court remanded this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c), however, we do not have the power to review the remand order either through appeal or mandamus. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). Consequently, we dismiss the appeal and the application for mandamus.

Aviation

Continental Airlines v. McDonnell Douglas

Dec 07, 1989

OUTCOME: Won

This action was commenced by plaintiff and respondent Continental Airlines, Inc. (Continental), in the Los Angeles Superior Court on December 3, 1979, and alleged, against defendant and appellant McDon ... nell Douglas Corporation (Douglas), causes of action for negligence, strict liability, deceit, breach of warranty and breach of contract. In 1980, Douglas filed a complaint in the federal court seeking a declaration that the exculpatory provision of Article 12 of its Purchase Agreement with Continental was valid and barred Continental's action. Continental counterclaimed, raising essentially the same claims presented in its state court lawsuit. In early 1985, the federal court granted a partial summary judgment in favor of Douglas, confirming the validity of the contract's exculpatory clause. The court's ruling, which was made final, foreclosed Continental's state claims based on negligence, strict liability and implied warranty under principles of res judicata. fn. 1 However, the federal court stated it made no ruling with regard to Continental's claims for breach of the contract's Warranty nor its Service Life Policy, since they were not properly presented in the motion. The trial in the superior court began on September 26, 1985, on Continental's fraud, breach of express warranty and breach of contract (the Service Life Policy) claims. At the conclusion of plaintiff's case, a nonsuit motion was made by Douglas; it was later granted only with respect to the breach of warranty cause of action. The case was submitted to the jury on five different fraud theories and one breach of contract theory, based on the Service Life Policy. On January 30, 1986, the jury returned verdicts in favor of Continental for $17 million on its claims for (1) fraud by misrepresentation, (2) fraud by nondisclosure of known facts and (3) negligent misrepresentation. The jury returned verdicts in favor of Douglas on Continental's claims for (1) fraud by concealment and, (2) fraud by making a promise without intent to perform. On the [216 Cal. App. 3d 399] breach of the Service Life Policy claim, the jury awarded Continental damages of $13.4 million. On March 19, 1986, the trial court denied Douglas's motions for new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict. In response to the jury's determination that prejudgment interest was appropriate, the trial court awarded Continental interest at the rate of 7 percent from March 1, 1978, to January 1, 1983, and at 10 percent thereafter, on the fraud and breach of contract awards. Judgment was granted on the higher fraud award and, alternatively, on the breach of contract award, in the event the fraud verdicts did not withstand an appeal. This appeal is from that judgment. fn. 2 We affirm the judgment as modified.