Legal News

Case Summaries

Family Law

[02/07] Perry v. Brown
In a challenge to Proposition 8, a California ballot initiative approved by the voters amending the state constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry, the district court's judgment invalidating the initiative is affirmed, with the following rulings: 1) the proponents of Proposition 8 had standing to bring the appeal on behalf of the State of California, whose people must be allowed to defend in federal courts the validity of their use of the initiative power; 2) however, Proposition 8 violated the Equal Protection Clause of the federal constitution, as the people may not employ the initiative power to single out a disfavored group for unequal treatment and strip them, without a legitimate justification, of a right as important as the right to marry; and 3) the district court properly denied a motion to vacate the judgment, as the trial judge, who had been in a same-sex relationship for ten years, had no obligation to recuse himself or to disclose any personal conflict.

[02/03] In re Gabriel K.
On appeal from an order of the juvenile court declaring minors to be dependent children and denying the request of their mother for reunification services, the order is affirmed, where: 1) the juvenile court's denial of further reunification services to the mother for her younger son was consistent with the legislative intent and thus, fell within the spirit of the reunification services statute; 2) the evidence before the juvenile court supported its conclusion that the mother failed to make reasonable efforts to treat her drug issues; and 3) the mother demonstrated no basis for setting aside the juvenile court's decision to deny reunification services.

[02/02] Southerland v. City of New York
In a suit under 42 USC Section 1983 asserting that a New York City children's services caseworker entered the plaintiffs' home unlawfully and effected an unconstitutional removal of children into state custody, the district court's grant of summary judgment to the defendant caseworker is: 1) affirmed with respect to the dismissal of the father's substantive due process claim; but 2) vacated with respect to the father's and his children's Fourth Amendment unlawful-search and Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claims and the children's unlawful-seizure claim, where the district court wrongfully concluded that the caseworker was entitled to qualified immunity with respect to all of the claims against him.

[02/02] Marriage of Walker
In a family court proceeding in which the recipient of a California State Teachers' Retirement System (CalSTRS) disability allowance challenged earlier family court orders awarding a community property interest in the allowance to his former spouse, the family court's denial of the appellant's motion to set aside the earlier orders is reversed, where the family court erred as a matter of law in concluding that the recipient had made "no mistake" in agreeing that his spouse had a community property interest in his disability allowance and thus should not have denied his motion on this basis.

Read More

Injury & Tort Law

[02/09] Delgado v. Pawtucket Police Dep't
In a state law tort action over which the federal district court retained supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing the plaintiffs' federal claims, the district court's grant of a defense motion for judgment as a matter of law is affirmed, where: 1) the district court appropriately exercised its discretion to retain jurisdiction over the case; 2) the district court was correct to reject the plaintiffs' construction of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 32(a)(4)(C) and to refuse to admit a witness's deposition where it had found that he was available for live testimony; 3) there was no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision to deny the plaintiffs' mid-trial request for a continuance so they could procure the witness's live testimony through a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum; and 4) there was no error in the allowance of the defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law, absent sufficient evidence on the issue of breach of duty.

[02/08] Howard v. Omni Hotels Management Corp.
In a personal injury action after the plaintiff slipped in a bathtub at a hotel: 1) the district court's grant of summary judgment to the bathtub manufacturer is affirmed, where the evidence produced by the plaintiff, both expert and lay opinion, was insufficient to establish any triable issues of fact on his claims of negligence and product liability; and 2) the district court's grant of the plaintiff's motion for a new trial on his allegations against the hotel is reversed, where the undisputed facts supported only one legal conclusion, that the plaintiff would not be able to prevail on his premises liability or negligence theories, because he could not demonstrate the hotel was placed on sufficient actual or constructive notice of any dangerous condition of the bathtub.

[02/07] Getchell v. Rogers Jewelry
In a slip-and-fall action, summary judgment in the defendant's favor is reversed, where the plaintiff produced evidence from which a reasonable inference could be drawn that the dangerous condition was created by the negligence of the defendant or its employees, so that the defendant could be charged with notice of the dangerous condition.

[02/03] Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Co. v. Roberts
In a suit brought by an insurer seeking a declaratory judgment that it was required to indemnify its insured for no more than 40 percent of a state court judgment because it had covered its insured for no more than 40 percent of the time in which the state court plaintiff was exposed to lead poisoning, the district court's judgment is: 1) affirmed in part, where it was correct in allocating the insurer's liability using the pro-rata time on-the-risk, and its decision to use the plaintiff's date of birth as the starting point for the period in which she was exposed to lead poisoning was sound; and 2) reversed in part, where the district court erred in holding the insurer liable for 24 months of coverage rather than 22, since under the insurance contract, coverage ended when the property was sold.

Read More