Latest Legal News

Case Summaries

Family Law

[08/14] Lemons v. Bradbury
In an action brought by voters who signed a referendum, which sought a statewide vote on a legislative act establishing same-sex domestic partnerships, challenging the Oregon Secretary of State's procedures for verifying referendum petition signatures, denial of permanent injunctive relief for plaintiffs is affirmed where the Secretary's procedures for verifying sampled referendum petition signatures did not violate plaintiffs' equal protection and due process rights.

[08/12] Choin v. Mukasey
Russian native's petition for review of a decision denying her application for adjustment of status and ordering her removed is granted where: 1) the BIA erroneously interpreted the "as a result of the marriage of the nonimmigrant" language in INA section 245(d); 2) the plain language of section 245 is ambiguous; 3) nothing in the plain language of section 245(d) suggests that an application that was valid when submitted should be automatically invalid when a petitioner's marriage ends by divorce two years later; and 4) the statute also does not require the automatic removal of immigrants whose marriages end in divorce while their applications for adjustment of status are under agency consideration.

[08/11] Vale v. Avila
Grant of father's petition to return his children to Venezuela under the International Child Abduction Remedies Act is affirmed where the childrens' place of habitual residence was properly determined to be Venezuela, and the custody rights held by father under Venezuelan law were violated by mother's removal of the children to the US.

[08/08] Jonathan L. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County
In a dependency proceeding involving the legality of, and restraints upon, home schooling in California, denial of motion requiring children to attend public or traditional private school is vacated and remanded where: 1) California statutes permit home schooling as a species of private school education; and 2) the statutory permission to home school may constitutionally be overridden in order to protect the safety of a child who has been declared dependent. (Opinion on rehearing)

[08/07] In re Esperanza
Orders denying petitions for modification under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 and order terminating parental rights under section 366.26 are reversed where the juvenile court has jurisdiction to review the social services agency's denial of a criminal records exemption for abuse of discretion.

[08/06] US v. Flores-Villar
The circuit court rejects challenges under the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment's due process clause on the basis of age and gender to two former sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which impose a five-year residence requirement, after the age of fourteen, on U.S. citizen fathers, but not on U.S. citizen mothers, before they may transmit citizenship to a child born out of wedlock abroad to a non-citizen.

[08/04] Stanley v. Stanley
In a divorce case, modification of a stipulated property division order is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the trial court properly considered the parties' changed circumstances in deciding to reopen and revise the property division order; but 2) under federal law, husband's Social Security disability benefits may not be transferred or assigned to a former spouse in a property settlement.

More...

Injury & Tort Law

[08/19] Oltman v. Holland Am. Line, Inc.
In an action alleging that plaintiffs both contracted a serious gastrointestinal illness on a cruise ship operated by defendants, summary judgment for defendants is reversed where a contractual one-year limitations period should have been equitably tolled based on plaintiffs' timely filing of a state court action and their prompt filing in federal court after the state action was dismissed based on a forum selection clause.

[08/19] Fellner v. Tri-Union Seafoods, L.L.C.
In a class-action suit alleging injury caused by methylmercury and other harmful compounds in defendant's canned tuna products, grant of a motion to dismiss is reversed and remanded where: 1) the FDA had not enacted a pervasive regulatory scheme regarding mercury in tuna that would preempt plaintiff's state-law claims; 2) the FDA's decision not to require warning labels on tuna was not a conclusive determination preempting a state failure-to-warn claim; and 3) the FDA had not expressly rejected mercury warnings as misbranding under federal law.

[08/19] Joyce v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.
In a suit by shareholders of a telecommunications company alleging that defendant, while advising the company during its acquisition by another company, failed to advise plaintiffs on minimizing their exposure to financial losses, grant of a motion to dismiss is affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part where: 1) plaintiffs were bringing a direct action on their own behalf, not a derivative one on behalf of the corporation, and to that extent had standing; but 2) plaintiffs' constructive fraud claim required them to allege that defendant owed them a fiduciary duty, but no such duty never arose.

[08/19] King v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co.
In a malicious prosecution suit alleging that defendant fired plaintiff without probable cause to believe that she had stolen train tickets, denial of plaintiff's discovery motion and summary judgment for defendants are affirmed where: 1) a determination by the System Board of Adjustment that plaintiff had stolen from defendant did not preclude litigation of that question in the context of the malicious prosecution suit; but 2) plaintiff failed to produce evidence of the date on which defendant had filed a criminal complaint against her, and thus would not be able to prove her claim that defendant lacked probable cause at the time of the filing.

[08/19] US v. Flaherty
In an action brought under the False Claims Act alleging that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provided a reimbursement check to defendant as a result of a fraudulent scheme, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where qui tam actions cannot be brought pro se.

[08/19] Garcia v. Vanguard Car Rental USA, Inc.
In wrongful death claims brought by plaintiff-estates against defendant rental car companies, grant of summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the Graves Amendment, a federal tort reform statute which purports to shield rental car companies from certain vicarious liability suits, preempts the tort claims at issue; and 2) the statute is within the boundaries of Congress's Article I powers.

[08/18] Grieveson v. Anderson
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit claiming that plaintiff was beaten by other inmates and that his safety and medical needs were neglected by jail staff while plaintiff was a pretrial detainee, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part where: 1) dismissal of defendant-city did not effectuate the dismissal of defendants-county employees; 2) plaintiff failed to present evidence to support his claims against defendants in their official capacity demonstrating that defendants had acted pursuant to an official custom or policy; 3) with respect to all but one of his claims of deliberate indifference to safety needs, plaintiff did not demonstrate that individual defendants knew of risks to plaintiff's safety posed by other inmates; and 4) genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether individual defendants were deliberately indifferent to plaintiff's medical needs, and as to whether defendants could be held liable on a state-law negligence claim.

More...