Case Summaries
Family Law
Criminal Law & Procedure
Immigration Law
Uniform Commercial Code
Family Law
[07/01]
Jenkins v. Jenkins
In a petition under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction seeking the return of Petitioner's son to her custody in Israel, judgment for Respondent is affirmed where Petitioner failed to establish that there was an actual "removal or retention" by Respondent or that the alleged retention was "wrongful."
[06/26]
Charisma R. v. Christina S.
In a child custody dispute, trial court orders declaring plaintiff a presumed parent of the child and establishing a schedule for reunification is affirmed where: 1) substantial evidence supports the finding that the Family Code sec. 7611(d) parentage presumption applies, as the record shows that plaintiff actively participated in the child's conception and cared for her following birth, the limited duration of her parenting of the child does not defeat plaintiff's claim to presumed parent status, and plaintiff received the child into her home and openly held her out as her natural child; 2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding there is no basis to rebut the parentage presumption as substantial evidence supports the finding that the Elisa B. factors are present and that plaintiff actively participated in the child's conception with the understanding she would parent with defendant, and no other facts justified rebuttal of the parentage presumption; and 3) defendant's equal protection claim fails as she has not shown that a case involving a man in plaintiff's circumstances would be decided any differently under the law, and failed to meet her burden of showing that the order declaring plaintiff the second parent was an unconstitutional infringement of her state and federal rights to substantive due process.
[06/25]
Batlan v. Bledsoe
In a bankruptcy trustee's motion to avoid a transfer made pursuant to a state court judgment dissolving the Debtor's marriage, the order denying the trustee's motion is affirmed where, under Oregon law, a party who challenges a dissolution judgment must allege and prove "extrinsic fraud," and the trustee failed to do so.
[06/24]
P. v. Sweeney
In an action involving a trial court order committing defendant to Porterville State Hospital, the trial court erred where: 1) due process rights are violated when the trial court determines that the charges pending against defendant involved death, great bodily injury, or an act which poses a serious threat of bodily harm to another person under Welfare and Institutions Code sec. 6500 as it is a matter for a jury; and 2) before a jury determines whether a person meets the criteria of Welfare and Institutions Code sec. 6500, the trial court must instruct the jury to find whether the person's mental retardation is a substantial factor in causing serious difficulty in controlling their dangerous behavior. However, the appeal is dismissed as moot since the commitment order has expired.
[06/24]
Richmond Med. Ctr. for Women v. Herring
In a challenge to a restriction on late-term abortions, summary judgment for Plaintiff is reversed where: 1) the hypothetical situation posited by Plaintiff did not present a sufficiently frequent circumstance to render the statute wholly unconstitutional for all circumstances; and 2) Plaintiff did not present sufficiently concrete circumstances in which the as-applied challenge could be resolved.
More...
Criminal Law & Procedure
[07/02]
US v. Pepper
Sentence for drug crimes is affirmed where: 1) this court's prior remand did not require the district court to grant defendant a 40 percent downward departure for substantial assistance as the remand was a general remand for resentencing and did not place any limitations on the discretion of the district court judge in resentencing; 2) the court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to grant more than a 20 percent reduction based on defendant's substantial assistance; 3) the court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's request for a downward variance based on his post-sentencing rehabilitation and the cost of his incarceration; and 4) defendant's sentence was not unreasonable.
[07/02]
US v. Davis
Conviction for firearms possession is affirmed where: 1) the search of defendant's vehicle without a warrant was permissible under the Fourth Amendment as it was lawful search incident to arrest, and thus firearm found in vehicle was admissible; and 2) the court properly ruled that the search was permissible under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement as well.
[07/02]
US v. Schmidt
Conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition is affirmed where: 1) the district court had jurisdiction over the offense as defendant's possession of a firearm manufactured out of country and ammunition manufactured out of state was sufficient to satisfy 18 U.S.C. sec. 922(g)(1)'s required nexus to interstate commerce; and 2) defendant's sentence was not unreasonable.
[07/02]
US v. Lee
Sentence for aiding and abetting assault with intent to rob a post office is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err in overruling defendant's objections to the sentencing enhancements without requiring the government to present any evidence as there was sufficient evidence in the record to support each of the enhancements; and 2) the court did not err in imposing an enhancement under Guidelines sec. 2B3.1(b)(4)(B), as one of his accomplices struck a woman attempting to leave the post office during the robbery, thereby physically restraining the victim.
[07/02]
Roubideaux v. North Dakota Dep't of Corr. and Rehabilitation
In a sex discrimination action brought by female prison inmates, district court grant of summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the female inmates had standing to challenge the constitutionality of the two challenged gender-explicit statutes; 2) the evidence in the record raises no inference of gender discrimination in the decision-making process because the statutes in question substantially relate to the important government objective of providing adequate segregated housing for female inmates, and any equal protection claim arising out the inmates' previous housing was mooted by their transfer to the Correction and Rehabilitation Center; 3) prison industry assignments were not subject to Title IX as the primary purpose of the program is employment, not education; and 4) the vocational education programs were within the scope of Title IX, and the district court did not err in finding that any differences in the programs offered men and women were a function of the location of the facilities and not gender discrimination.
More...
Immigration Law
[07/02]
Chibwe v. Holder
Petition for review of an order denying asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture is denied where: 1) the present does not have jurisdiction to review the agency's decision that plaintiff's asylum application was untimely; and 2) the agency did not err in denying their request for withholding of removal, as plaintiff's failed to cite any evidence in the record which would support a finding that they faced a threat because of their membership in a particular social group or any other relevant statutory ground if they were returned to their home country.
[07/02]
Cendrawasih v. Holder
Petition for review of an order denying asylum is denied where plaintiff failed to establish that she had a well-founded fear future persecution, as the country conditions in Indonesia without more do not qualify a Christian Indonesian for asylum, and the individual difficulties plaintiff has faced are a series of isolated incidents no greater than those faced by other Indonesian Christians have been found insufficient to warrant asylum.
[07/02]
Hassan v. Holder
Petition for review of an order denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture is denied where: 1) the agency's adverse credibility determination, based on material inconsistencies between plaintiff's asylum application and hearing testimony, is supported by substantial evidence; and 2) substantial evidence supports the agency's finding that plaintiff failed to show failed to show past political persecution, and failed to show a well-founded fear of future persecution.
[07/02]
Nguyen v. Holder
In a petition for review of the BIA's order removing Petitioner from the U.S. for committing a "crime of violence," the petition is granted where the theft of an automobile under the California grand theft statute is not a "crime of violence" under 18 U.S.C. section 16(b).
[06/30]
Zheng v. Holder
Petition for a review of an order affirming both an order of removal and the concomitant denial of a cross-application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture is denied where plaintiff failed to prove that she had a well-founded fear of future persecution, and the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision to deny the application for asylum was supported by substantial evidence.
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...
|
