Case Summaries
Family Law
Criminal Law & Procedure
Immigration Law
Uniform Commercial Code
Family Law
[03/15]
In re S.A.
Juvenile court's order declaring petitioner's daughter a dependent of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300(d), following the court's true finding by clear and convincing evidence on the sexual molestation allegation by petitioner, is affirmed where: 1) petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim fails as he lacks standing to assert the child's statutory right to be represented by competent counsel when that right is personal to the child; and 2) the petitioner's remaining contentions lack merit.
[03/11]
Schaar v. Lehigh Valley Health Servs., Inc.
In plaintiff's suit against her former employer for violation of the FMLA, summary judgment in favor employer is vacated and remanded as an employee may satisfy her burden of proving three days of incapacitation through a combination of expert medical and lay testimony. Here, when expert medical opinion of a doctor that plaintiff was incapacitated for two days because of her illness is combined with plaintiff's lay testimony that she was incapacitated for two additional days, it necessarily follows that a material issue of fact exists as to whether plaintiff suffered from a serious health condition.
[03/11]
A.H. v. Sup. Ct.
A father's writ of mandate seeking relief from a juvenile court order terminating his family reunification services and setting a permanency hearing is denied as the court correctly weighed and considered all relevant factors under all three code provisions, including the father's incarceration, in making its decision and the court's reasoning was logical and amply supported by the record.
[03/05]
People v. Warwick
Conviction of defendant of child abuse and neglect and jury's true finding on the enhancement that she personally inflicted great bodily injury on her child is affirmed as, when she gave birth to her son in her bedroom and concealed the birth causing severe injuries, defendant inflicted great bodily injury on her child.
[03/05]
Doe v. S. Carolina Dep't of Soc. Servs.
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action brought by a minor child and her adoptive parents against defendant, an Adoption Specialist with the South Carolina Department of Social Services (SCDSS), alleging violations of their substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and state law claims against SCDSS under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act (SCTCA), judgment is affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded where: 1) when a state involuntarily removes a child from her home, thereby taking the child into its custody and care, the state has taken an affirmative act to restrain the child's liberty, triggering the protections of the Due Process Clause and imposing "some responsibility for the child's safety and general well being"; 2) because it would not have been apparent to a reasonable social worker in defendant's position that her actions violated the Fourteenth Amendment, she is entitled to qualified immunity; 3) prospective adoptive parents have no substantive due process right to the disclosure of a child's history of sexual abuse; and 4) district court's grant of defendants' motion for summary judgment on the state law claims for gross negligence against SCDSS is vacated and remanded for consideration of the applicability of section 15-78-60(25).
More...
Criminal Law & Procedure
[03/16]
US v. Myers
Defendant's sentence for failing to register as a sex offender in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 2250(a) is affirmed where: 1) the harm of defendant's prior conviction was not fully accounted for by either Guideline at issue alone, so no double-counting occurred; and 2) even if double-counting occurred in this case, it was permissible because the Sentencing Commission intended the result, and the offense level and criminal history sections address different concerns.
[03/16]
US v. Rector
Defendant's convictions for possessing, distributing, and receiving child pornography are affirmed where defendant's prosecution did not violate the Speedy Trial Act because the district court properly held that a continuance would serve the ends of justice by allowing: 1) the defendant to retain new counsel; and 2) counsel to seek admission to the district and prepare for trial.
[03/16]
US v. Bronzino
Conviction of defendant for aiding and abetting money laundering and sentence to two years' probation and a $2500 fine are affirmed where: 1) sufficient evidence supported the first element of aiding and abetting as it is apparent that defendant's involvement in and contribution to the unlawful activity as "teacher" or "director" is more analogous to one's role as "catalyst" than that of a disinterested provider of information; and 2) there is sufficient evidence to warrant a reasonable inference by a rational trier of fact that defendant joined in principal's unlawful intent.
[03/16]
US v. Wallace
Conviction and sentence of defendant for perjury, conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute oxycodone, and use of a communication facility to facilitate a drug crimes is affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded where: 1) the district court's conviction is affirmed as defendant waived her right to separate trials on the drug and perjury counts and suffered no constitutional harm as a result of all charges being tried together in a single trial; 2) denial of defendant's Rule 29 motion for acquittal on the perjury counts is affirmed as sufficient evidence supports a finding that defendant's statement in the first trial was false and material; and 3) defendant's sentence is procedurally unreasonable as the district court's failure to comply with section 3553(c) affected defendant's substantial rights.
[03/15]
People v. Townsend
Trial court's judgment committing defendant to the Department of Mental Health for treatment as a mentally disordered offender (MDO) under the mentally disordered offender (MDO) Act for his conviction of possessing destructive devices is affirmed as possession of a "Molotov cocktail" is an offense involving an implied threat to use force or violence under the MDO Act.
More...
Immigration Law
[03/12]
Juarez v. Holder
Petition for review BIA's decision that petitioners' untimely applications and failure to provide the required biometrics meant they had abandoned their applications for relief is denied where: 1) the petitioners were given ample time to file their applications for relief and provide biometrics and did not have good cause for their delay; and 2) the IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying their motion for a continuance; and 3) IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying their requests for relief because of their failure to comply with these application prerequisites.
[03/11]
Tijani v. Holder
Petition for review of the BIA's denial of petitioner's asylum application is granted in part where the court was required to remand to the BIA to address the questions of whether petitioner would be in danger of persecution on account of his religion or would be entitled to other relief. However, the petition is denied in part where petitioner's credit card fraud in violation of Cal. Penal Code section 532a(1) constituted a crime of moral turpitude.
[03/11]
Villa-Londono v. Holder
A Colombian National's request for review BIA's denial of her applications for withholding of removal and related relief is denied as the IJ's adverse credibility determination is supported by specific and persuasive findings. Moreover, with the petitioner's testimony discredited, there is very little evidence in the record to support petitioner's asylum claim.
[03/10]
Vila v. US Atty. Gen.
In a petition for review of the BIA's denial of petitioner's application for a waiver of inadmissibility, the petition is denied where, because petitioner's approved I-140 visa petition did not make him a lawful resident under section 212(h) when the Immigration and Naturalization Service formally approved his application for adjustment, petitioner did not lawfully reside continuously in the U.S. for the seven years preceding the initiation of his removal proceedings on October 25, 2003.
[03/09]
Sadhvani v. Holder
A petition for review by a native of Togo of the BIA's denial of his motion to reopen asylum application is denied as the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's motion based on the statutory requirement that one must be present in the United States to be eligible for asylum, and here, because petitioner was removed pursuant to a valid order of removal, he no longer can pursue his asylum application.
More...
Uniform Commercial Code
[06/25]
BRASHER'S CASCADE AUTO AUCTION v. VALLEY AUTO SALES AND LEASING
The former version of the California Uniform Commercial Code requires a merchant buyer to adhere to reasonable commercial standards to obtain the status of a buyer in the ordinary course of business for purposes of section 9307.
[05/26]
PROPULSION TECHS. v. ATWOOD CORP.
An agreement to manufacture boat parts is unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds as a transaction in goods with no ascertainable quantity term, thus the claim for fraud in the inducement cannot survive.
[04/12]
CHATSKY & ASSOCS. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY (BANK OF AM. CORP.)
The one-year limitations period of Code of Civil Procedure section 340(c), rather than the three-year limitations period of California Uniform Commercial Code section 4111, applies to claims by depositors against their bank for payment of forged checks written on the depositors' accounts.
[01/22]
HICKS v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY (KAUFMAN & BROAD HOME CORP.)
If set forth in conspicuous and understandable language, a disclaimer of the implied warranty of quality is enforceable. The trial court correctly concluded that written disclaimers in the sales and express warranty documents provided to the home buyers preclude their claim for breach of implied warranty.
[12/19]
DALLAS AEROSPACE, INC. v. CIS AIR CORP.
Summary judgment was properly granted to defendant on claims of breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation. The sale contract for a used aircraft engine had not been modified; its terms were not unconscionable; it disclaimed any representation as to the engine's airworthiness, which was in any event easily discoverable by plaintiff; no special relationship existed between the parties.
More...
|
