Jump to Navigation

Legal News Headlines

Case Summaries

Criminal Law & Procedure

[03/09] Zia Trust Co. v. Montoya
In an action for excessive force brought by family members of a man defendant-officer shot and killed while responding to a domestic disturbance, denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is affirmed where the court could not say that a van fifteen feet away, which according to the plaintiffs was clearly stuck on a pile of rocks, gave defendant probable cause to believe that there was a threat of serious physical harm to himself or others that would justify his use of force.

[03/09] US v. Wise
Defendant's firearm possession sentence is affirmed where: 1) defendant's prior conviction under Utah law for failure to stop at the command of a police officer was a "crime of violence" under the Sentencing Guidelines; and 2) the district court erred in not assigning criminal history points for one of defendant's prior convictions, but that error did not invalidate defendant's sentence.

[03/09] In re Victor L.
In a conviction of a minor for possession of specified illegal weapons, juvenile court's order placing the defendant on probation with various conditions is affirmed for the most part with the exception of: 1) the restrictions on defendant's right to associate with individuals disapproved of by his probation officer or his parents is unconstitutionally vague and will be modified to include a personal knowledge requirement; 2) restrictions on defendant's presence "where dangerous or deadly weapons or firearms or ammunitions exist" is unconstitutional as due process requires that the probationer be informed in advance whether his conduct comports with or violates a condition of probation; and 3) to the extent the second Internet condition prohibits any "use of" or "access to" an Internet-enabled computer, it conflicts with the other two conditions, thereby making the combination of conditions unconstitutionally vague.

Read More

Evidence

[03/09] US v. Stearn
Following a grand jury indictment of defendants for federal narcotics and weapons offenses, district court's order granting in part motions to suppress evidence in favor of defendants is, with one irrelevant exception, reversed in its entirety where: 1) the magistrate judge had a substantial basis for determining that probable cause existed to search the apparent residence of a confirmed drug dealer; 2) although closer probable cause questions are presented by the searches of other residences, each search is upheld under the Leon good faith exception as each warrant was sufficiently colored in probable cause to justify the executing officers' good faith reliance; and 3) the suppression of a defendant's saliva sample as "fruit of poisonous tree" is reversed as the defendant failed to prove a primary invasion of his own Fourth Amendment rights.

[03/09] US v. Salem
In a prosecution of defendants for wire fraud and receiving stolen funds, district court's sentences based on relevant conduct findings are remanded as the district court made findings as to the reasonableness of the co-schemers' acts only, but it made no finding as to the scope of the jointly undertaken criminal activity under U.S.S.G. section 1B1.3(a)(1)(B).

[03/09] In re: Omnicom Group, Inc. Secs. Litig.
In a securities class action alleging that defendants fraudulently accounted for a transaction, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs failed to prove loss causation because their expert's testimony did not suffice to draw the requisite causal connection between the information in the article at issue and the fraud alleged in the complaint; and 2) the generalized investor reaction of concern causing a temporary share price decline was far too tenuously connected -- indeed, by a metaphoric thread -- to the transaction to support liability.

Read More

Judges & Judiciary

[06/30] ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES ASS'N, INC. v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY
The Court denied plaintiff's petition for writ of mandate to disclose records relating to reimbursement of travel expenses for judges and management employees of the Court pursuant to the California Public Records Act, because the Act did not apply to the requested disclosure.

[06/28] US v. PARKER
Evidence seized under a warrant issued by a trial commissioner who was also an administrative assistant at the county jail was properly excluded, because the commissioner was not a neutral and detached party.

[06/08] PEOPLE v. PESCADOR
A judge, substituted into a trial following three days of testimony, can fairly and competently preside without first reading all prior testimony, as long as he familiarized himself with pertinent portions of the record before making specific rulings.

Read More

Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Users may not download or reproduce a substantial portion of the AP material found on this web site. AP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.

Client Testimonials

Read more about what our clients have to say about our firm and the quality service and attention to detail that we offer each of our clients.

Testimonial # 1 - "Mr. Manikas worked tirelessly to defend our son and delivered results far beyond our expectations . We highly recommend Mr. Manikas , he is a specialist and professional on both sides our legal system. His expierence as a former prosecutor gives his clients an added advantage during the legal defense process. His in-depth knowledge and keen attention to detail leaves no 'stone unturned' when preparing for a case. Kyle Manikas is a rising star attorney that judges are made from! Have no doubt he will give you the best legal service in the state of Virginia ."

Testimonial #2 - "Kyle Manikas is an excellent criminal defense attorney and trial lawyer . He successfully defended a member of my family against multiple unfair felony charges in a complicated case that took several days to try. Mr. Manikas is an incredibly hard worker. He knows the law and prepares meticulously . He made strategic use of legal tools that other lawyers we had consulted never mentioned were available. He is a masterful litigator in the courtroom . In this case, he achieved a remarkably positive outcome , even earning compliments from the judge for his outstanding work. Mr. Manikas also was a skillful negotiator on other unrelated charges. In addition, Kyle was a wise, calming advisor during very stressful times. From the first time we talked with him, he gave us hope . He was always prompt in returning phone calls and kept us well-informed of his progress and thinking. There was never any doubt that he honestly cared about his client and about providing the best possible legal representation that he could. He proved himself to be trustworthy and effective . I have the highest regard for Mr. Manikas and absolutely recommend him to anyone who needs legal help. We couldn't have asked for a better lawyer ."

More Testimonials »

Legal News Headlines

Fairfax, Virginia Office
10513 Judicial Drive, Suite 203
Fairfax, VA 22030
Map and Directions
Phone: 703-873-7473
Toll Free: 888-503-8075

Tysons Corner, Virginia Office
1660 International Drive, Suite 400
McLean, VA 22102
Map and Directions
Phone: 703-873-7473
Toll Free: 888-503-8075

Manikas Law LLC

FirmSite® by FindLaw, a Thomson Reuters business.