Case Summaries
Family Law
[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.
[08/08]
Jonathan L. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County
In a dependency proceeding involving the legality of, and restraints upon, home schooling in California, denial of motion requiring children to attend public or traditional private school is vacated and remanded where: 1) California statutes permit home schooling as a species of private school education; and 2) the statutory permission to home school may constitutionally be overridden in order to protect the safety of a child who has been declared dependent. (Opinion on rehearing)
[08/07]
In re Esperanza
Orders denying petitions for modification under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 and order terminating parental rights under section 366.26 are reversed where the juvenile court has jurisdiction to review the social services agency's denial of a criminal records exemption for abuse of discretion.
[08/06]
US v. Flores-Villar
The circuit court rejects challenges under the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment's due process clause on the basis of age and gender to two former sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which impose a five-year residence requirement, after the age of fourteen, on U.S. citizen fathers, but not on U.S. citizen mothers, before they may transmit citizenship to a child born out of wedlock abroad to a non-citizen.
[08/04]
Aguilera v. Alaska Juris F/V
In the context of general maritime law and injured seamen, the circuit court rules that maintenance and cure payments are subject to withholding for child support obligations, so long as those payments constitute income under relevant state law.
[08/04]
Barzilay v. Barzilay
In an action brought by father seeking the return to Israel of the children from his marriage to mother under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, a decision to abstain under the Younger doctrine is reversed and remanded for a determination on the merits where: 1) as neither parent filed a Hague petition in state court, Hague Convention issues were not properly or fully raised in that proceeding; and 2) thus, it was an abuse of discretion to abstain.
[08/04]
Stanley v. Stanley
In a divorce case, modification of a stipulated property division order is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the trial court properly considered the parties' changed circumstances in deciding to reopen and revise the property division order; but 2) under federal law, husband's Social Security disability benefits may not be transferred or assigned to a former spouse in a property settlement.
[08/01]
Life Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Ortiz
In a case involving an interpleader action over the life insurance proceeds for an officer killed in the line of duty involving circumstances in which decedent's ex-wife was the designated beneficiary, a judgment awarding the life insurance proceeds to the estate for intestate division among his new wife and decedent's two sons is reversed and remanded where: 1) ex-wife's expectancy interest survived the divorce, and thus the district court erred when it relied on decedent's post-divorce intent to terminate her expectancy interests; and 2) decedent's original designation of his ex-wife remained valid under applicable law and the policy terms.
[07/30]
In re Marriage of Ramirez and Llamas
Judgment annulling husband's second marriage to same woman is affirmed where the marriage was found void because of fraud relating to the fact that husband married wife even though he had begun a love affair with wife's sister prior to the second marriage, that he intended to continue even after remarriage.
[07/28]
Gates v. Texas Dep't of Protective and Regulatory Servs.
Summary judgment for various governmental entities and employees accused of performing unconstitutional child abuse investigations is affirmed where: 1) certain Fourth Amendment claims resulting from the seizures of plaintiffs' children failed because the exigent-circumstances doctrine applied; 2) where there were Fourth Amendment violations, individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity; 3) a Fourteenth Amendment due-process claim failed under the same analysis as the Fourth Amendment claims; 4) section 1983 claims against individual supervisors failed for either lack of evidence or qualified immunity; 5) section 1983 claims against government entities failed for lack of evidence of a policy or custom of constitutional violations; 6) claims under the Texas Constitution were subject to the same analysis as the federal claims; and 7) there was no abuse of discretion in the denial of requests for declaratory relief or a permanent injunction. (Republished opinion)
More...
|
