         |
 |
 |
 |
   
|
 |
 |
Top Headlines [05/16] McCain courts NRA in gun shop visit [05/16] Yahoo seeks to conceal parts of shareholder suit [05/16] Intel agencies seek help recruiting new immigrants [05/16] Lawsuit: Immigration raid violated workers' rights [05/16] FDA orders Texas plant to shut down, recall smoked seafood More... Litigation [05/15] Judge: Countrywide shareholders' suit can proceed [05/14] IAC, Liberty resolve spinoff legal skirmish [05/09] ArcelorMittal sues Esmark over aborted steel mill sale [05/09] Government asks court to block wider testing for mad cow [05/08] Dan Rather files amended lawsuit against CBS over his firing More... Real Estate [05/16] Whitestone REIT to Pay Quarterly Dividend of $0.15 Per Share in Three Monthly Payments of $0.05 Per Share [05/16] DVL, Inc. Reports Results of Operations for the Quarter Ended March 31, 2008 [05/16] M.D.C. Holdings' Presentation at the Seventh Annual JMP Securities Research Conference to be Webcast Live [05/16] In PA, Home Prices Falling Plus Unemployment Rising Could Equal Further Foreclosures [05/16] Surprise rebound in housing, outlook still shaky More... Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Users may not download or reproduce a substantial portion of the AP material found on this web site. AP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing. Case Summaries Criminal Law & Procedure [05/16] US v. Williams In a prosecution for wire fraud and federal funds theft, defendant's conviction is affirmed where: 1) each count of defendant's convictions satisfied the Blockburger test and did not violate the Fifth Amendment Double Jeopardy Clause; 2) neither the district court's admission of evidence nor its final jury charge constituted error; and 3) sufficient evidence supported defendant's convictions. However, the sentence is vacated and remanded where the district court's factual findings did not justify an application of upward adjustments for aggravated role or for abuse of trust. [05/16] Reese v. Herbert In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action for damages wherein plaintiff alleged various claims of police misconduct in arresting him, order denying plaintiff's motion to leave to file a second amended complaint and disallowing an expert witness affidavit is affirmed, but summary judgment for defendant on basis of qualified immunity is reversed where: 1) the additional utility extracted from reviewing defendants' records and consulting an expert did not justify plaintiff's delay in seeking leave to amend; 2) the expert affidavit was properly excluded, as plaintiff's failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 26 was both unjustified and harmful to the defendants; but 3) the district court erred by failing to review the full record on summary judgment and misapplied the legal standards for summary judgment. [05/14] Justice v. State of Delaware In an appeal from a conviction for rape-related offenses raising the issue of whether detective-witness's statement about obtaining defendant's date of birth from an "Automated Criminal Justice System" constituted a "prejudicial outburst" warranting a mistrial, the Delaware Supreme Court rules that although the prosecutor's question and detective's answers could have been better phrased, the trial judge's curative instruction rendered any error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. More... Family Law [05/15] In re Marriage Cases In an action challenging California's ban on gay marriage, the state Supreme Court rules that the California Constitution must be interpreted to guarantee the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples. The laws at issue are unconstitutional to the extent each statute reserves the designation of "marriage" exclusively to opposite-sex couples and denies same-sex couples access to that designation. The purpose underlying differential treatment of opposite-sex and same-sex couples embodied in California's current marriage statutes, the interest in retaining the traditional and well-established definition of marriage, is not a compelling state interest for purposes of the equal protection clause. [05/12] In re Marriage of Holtemann In a dispute about the legal effect of a spousal property transmutation agreement executed during marriage, judgment finding the underlying agreement effectuated a transmutation of husband's separate property into community property is affirmed where: 1) the unambiguous language in the parties' agreement evinced that the husband intended to, and did transmute his separate property; 2) nothing in the record suggested that the husband was misinformed or misled in light of the requisite express, unequivocal declarations of transmutations; and 3) his arguments for disparate treatment of his express declarations of transmutation based on his lack of separate counsel were unavailing, as he was fully advised of the consequences of failing to secure separate counsel, yet chose to proceed. [05/09] Baran v. Beaty In a case involving a mother who removed her minor son from Australia, denial of father's petition for return of the minor pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and the International Child Abduction Remedies Act of 1988 is affirmed where: 1) based on evidence of the father's propensity for violence, the district court did not err in concluding that returning the minor to Australia would expose him to a grave risk of psychological harm; and 2) because the court was not presented with any proposed undertakings that could ameliorate the risk of harm to the child under the circumstances presented, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition for return. More... |
|
|
Firm Overview |
Practice Areas |
FindLaw News |
Attorney Profiles |
Web Resource |
Forms |
Contact Us |
Firm Brochure |
Home |