Jonathan S Cole's Legal Cases (4)

Environmental and natural resources

Southern Dredging Co. v. United States

Sep 13, 1994

OUTCOME: summary judgmt is vacated:case remanded

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendant Department of the Army and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) appealed an order from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charles ... ton, granting summary judgment for plaintiff shipowner in its motion to remove its vessel from the list of violating facilities pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 15.10. OVERVIEW: The shipowner challenged the EPA's mandatory debarment (listing) of its vessel for former employees' Clean Water Act convictions, rendering the vessel ineligible for government contracts. The district court held that the vessel was improperly listed because the shipowner had not been convicted of the violation. On appeal, the court vacated the summary judgment for the shipowner and remanded because the district court failed to address the impact of prior contractual negotiations surrounding the shipowner's plea agreement on the government's ability to list the vessel. In the plea agreement, the government stated it would not seek additional criminal enforcement sanctions against the shipowner. Interpretation of the plea agreement was governed by private contract law, and the shipowner essentially argued that the government unilaterally modified the agreement by listing the ship, thereby penalizing it for the criminal convictions of its former employees. OUTCOME: The summary judgment for the shipowner in its suit to remove its vessel from a list of violators was vacated and the case was remanded.

Criminal defense

State v. Davenport

Jan 12, 1984

OUTCOME: Conviction reversed and remanded for new trial

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendant sought review of a decision from the Court of Appeals, Division One (Washington), which affirmed the trial court's judgment that defendant was guilty of second-degree burg ... lary of a residence. OVERVIEW: At defendant's trial, witnesses testified that they saw defendant and a third party carrying stolen property from the victim's residence. In his closing argument, defense counsel stated that there was no evidence that placed defendant in the residence. In rebuttal, the prosecutor stated that defendant's guilt was established because he was an accomplice. The State had not charged defendant with accomplice liability. The trial court overruled defendant's objection. The jury requested further instruction on accomplice liability but went home overnight without the requested instruction. The appellate court held that the prosecutor's comment was improper but that the error was harmless. On further appeal, the court rejected the State's assertion that the prosecutor had made a fair reply to defense counsel's argument because defense counsel had properly summarized the evidence and the instructions. The State's comment was an incorrect statement of the law because the jury had not been instructed on accomplice liability. The error was not harmless because defendant was denied a fair trial, and the record supported that the jury considered the prosecutor's misstatement.

Criminal defense

State v. Mark, 36 Wn. App. 428; 675 P.2d 1250; 1984

Jan 11, 1984

OUTCOME: Court reduced restitution that defendant must pay.

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendant appealed from an order of the Superior Court for King County (Washington), which ordered him to pay a certain amount of restitution after his jury conviction for grand lar ... ceny. OVERVIEW: Defendant was convicted of grand larceny for submitting reimbursement claims to the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) for medicines neither dispensed nor prescribed. He received a deferred sentence conditioned in part on payment of restitution to DSHS in an amount to be determined in a post-trial hearing. A restitution hearing was held, and defendant was ordered to pay $ 230,000 in restitution based on an audit performed over a three-year period.. On appeal, the court ordered the amount of restitution to be reduced to $ 93,000 because Wash. Rev. Code § 9.95.210 limited the scope of restitution to the precise offense as charged, and did not allow the trial court discretion to order restitution for the damages arising from the general scheme for which defendant was convicted. Defendant's larceny conviction covered 13 months, and not 3 years; thus, restitution had to be limited to the specific 13-month period charged. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering restitution, and that defendant was afforded all procedural process that was due.

Government contracts

Town of Fallsburg, NY v. United States

N/A

OUTCOME: Summary Judgment granted for U.S.

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff town and defendant Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) filed cross motions for summary judgment in the town's action seeking reinstatement or reinstitution of federal gr ... ant funding awarded to the town by the EPA for construction of a wastewater collection and conveyance system to upgrade the existing sewage plant under the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C.S. §§ 1281-1299. OVERVIEW: The EPA grant contemplated a contract for the purchase of equipment to maintain the sewage treatment facilities. The town was administered by a town board and the town supervisor, who served as the project manager. The equipment contract was awarded to a business connected with the town supervisor's family. The town supervisor had no ownership interest in the business, but drew a small salary from it. After suspecting a conflict of interest, the EPA withheld payment under the grant. The town supervisor was eventually convicted of mail fraud for executing the bonding instrument needed for the equipment contract on behalf of the business and held guilty of fraudulently accelerating payments to the business. The court affirmed the EPA's decision, reviewed the administrative decision under an arbitrary and capricious standard, and held that the town negligently failed to avoid a conflict of interest under 40 C.F.R. § 33.300(a), failed to exercise the degree of care required to effectively manage its public trust under 40 C.F.R. § 30.210, and failed to prohibit the appearance or actuality of favoritism in the awarding and administration of the contract as required by the grant. OUTCOME: The court granted the EPA's motion for summary judgment, sustained the EPA's decision to withhold federal grant funding to the town, and denied the town's motion for summary judgment.

Transform legal challenges into solutions.

Connect now to review your situation.

The Avvo Rating explained

The Avvo Rating explained