Legal News

Case Summaries

Criminal Law & Procedure

[08/20] US v. Hicks
In a prosecution for being a felon in possession of a firearm and possession of a firearm not registered to defendant, denial of a motion to suppress is vacated and case remanded where: 1) defendant did not object to a search of his home by police; 2) defendant was not removed from the home for the specific purpose of preventing him from objecting to a search; 3) defendant's girlfriend freely and voluntarily consented to the search; but 4) further factfinding was required to determine if officer's statement to girlfriend that he would get a warrant if consent was not given was based on a reasonable belief that he could, in fact, obtain a warrant.

[08/20] US v. Vinyard
Vacatur of defendant's guilty plea and sentence for manufacturing, possessing, and possessing with intent to distribute methamphetamine is vacated, and writ of mandamus issued ordering reinstatement of that sentence, where: 1) jeopardy had attached at sentencing, creating the possibility of a double-jeopardy challenge if the government subjected defendant to a new trial and therefore making the normal appeal process an inadequate remedy; 2) release of defendant pending re-trial, and the possibility of acquittal at a second trial, constituted irreparable harm; 3) the district court erred in applying Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a) to correct its own alleged errors in sentencing defendant; and 4) the district court violated Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(e) by setting aside defendant's guilty plea.

[08/20] US v. Reed
Convictions for being a felon and a drug user in possession of a firearm are affirmed over claims that: 1) consent to search defendant's residence given by a co-tenant was invalid; and 2) a proposed jury instruction was improperly denied.

[08/20] US v. Cannon
Conviction and sentence for distributing crack cocaine are affirmed over objections that: 1) there was insufficient evidence to convict given the failure of recording equipment that was to audiotape the drug transaction; 2) deposition testimony of an unavailable witness used against defendant was prejudicial and violated defendant's Sixth Amendment rights; and 3) the judge used a preponderance of the evidence standard to find drug quantities that subjected defendant to a mandatory minimum sentence.

[08/20] US v. Branch
Conviction and sentence for drug- and firearm-related offenses is affirmed where: 1) there was no question that the police were allowed to detain defendant after witnessing him commit a traffic violation; and 2) during this detention the police formed a "reasonable suspicion" of ongoing criminal activity that justified extension of the traffic stop; and 3) defendant's other claims were without merit.

More...

Family Law

[08/19] In re Aaron D.
Termination of mother's parental rights to her two children is affirmed over claims of error that: 1) the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction over this case under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) because Texas had jurisdiction over custody determinations involving the children and the California juvenile court did not contact the Texas court to resolve jurisdiction; 2) mother did not receive proper notice of the Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.261 selection and implementation hearing; and 3) the court erred in finding the children adoptable because of their special developmental needs, physical ailments, and psychosocial issues.

[08/19] In re David H.
Minor's removal from his mother's home is affirmed where there was substantial evidence that, at the time of a July 2007 hearing, the child faced a substantial risk of serious physical harm from mother because there was a substantial risk that mother would resort to physical violence in disciplining him.

[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.

More...

Injury & Tort Law

[08/20] Boschetto v. Hansing
The sale of one automobile via the eBay website, without more, does not provide sufficient "minimum contacts" to establish jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant in the forum state.

[08/20] Theme Promotions, Inc. v. News Am. Mktg. FSI
In a case involving, inter alia, whether right of first refusal agreements between a publisher of advertising tools and packaged goods companies violate California antitrust and tort law, judgment in the matter is affirmed primarily as the jury verdict in favor of plaintiff was supported by substantial evidence in the record.

[08/20] Soto-Lebron v. Federal Express Corp.
In a matter brought by former employee against defendant FedEx following his termination, grant of FedEx's motion for judgment as a matter of law on the slander and libel claims is affirmed where: 1) the evidence introduced in support of the slander claim "does not rise to more than informal rumors" circulating among employees, for which FedEx cannot be held liable; and 2) there was sufficient evidence to support liability for libel. Case is remanded for new trial on damages for the libel claim where admission of irrelevant evidence tainted the jury's damage calculation and that taint was not cured by remittitur. Denial of defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim is reversed where former employee-plaintiff did not introduce any evidence suggesting that a subsequent employer or potential employer treated him adversely as a result of the defamatory statements made by FedEx.

[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.

More...