Case Summaries

Family Law

[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).

[03/04] In re E.O.
Juvenile court's denial of a father's request for presumed father status is affirmed as the only provision of Family Code section 7611 that might possibly apply is subdivision (d) which states that a man is a presumed father if he "receives the child into his home and openly holds out the child as his natural child," and here, the father did not establish that he came within this or any of the categories set forth in Family Code section 7611.

[03/03] Mendoza v. Ramos
In a father's petition to modify custody and support orders of his four children, the court's judgment is affirmed where: 1) trial court's refusal to attribute income because the mother was receiving CalWORKs was proper; and 2) the father's rights were not violated as neither parties requested testimony.

[02/26] In Re Marriage of MacManus
In marital dissolution proceedings, trial court's order reallocating back child support to back spousal support is affirmed as, the order was not an abuse given the trial court's broad discretion to consider the "big picture" concerning the parties' assets and income available for support in light of the marriage standard of living.

[02/26] In re Marcos G.
In dependency proceedings, an order denying a father's 388 petition and terminating his parental rights is affirmed where: 1) although there was a failure to follow certain notice provisions, the error was not prejudicial; and 2) father's section 388 petition was not an abuse of discretion.

More...

Environmental Law

[03/09] Native Ecosystems Council v. Tidwell
In an action challenging the Forest Service's approval of a project to update grazing allotments in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where: 1) because the Forest Service's environmental assessment was based on a nonexistent management indicator species, its habitat proxy analysis was not reliable; and 2) the Forest Service failed to take the requisite "hard look" at the project as required by the National Environmental Policy Act.

[03/08] Kane Cty. v. US
In an appeal from the denial of plaintiffs' motion to intervene in an action brought by Kane County, Utah, to quiet title to several purported rights-of-way across federal public lands, the order is affirmed where: 1) even assuming plaintiffs had an interest in the quiet title proceedings at issue, plaintiffs failed to establish that the U.S. could not adequately represent plaintiffs' interest; and 2) the denial of permissive intervention was not arbitrary and capricious.

[03/08] Morris v. US Nuclear Reg. Comm'n.
In a petition for review of a license granted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to conduct in situ leach mining for uranium on four sites in northwest New Mexico, the petition is denied where: 1) the clear language of 10 C.F.R. section 20.1301(a)(1) supported the NRC's decision to focus only on the licensed operation; 2) the National Environmental Policy Act did not prohibit approval of projects with negative cumulative effects; it only required that the agency consider and disclose such effects; and 3) there was no evidence in the administrative record to support petitioners' assertion that the NRC based its adoption of the nine-pore-volume restoration effort on economic reasons.

[03/04] MacClarence v. EPA
In a petition for review of the EPA's order denying petitioner's request that the EPA object to the issuance of a Clean Air Act Title V permit for pollutant-emitting activities at an oil and gas processing facility, the petition is denied where: 1) the EPA Administrator's conclusion that petitioner failed to provide adequate information to support his claim that the entire facility should be aggregated was not arbitrary or capricious; and 2) the Administrator's order denying the petition properly set forth petitioner's burden under 42 U.S.C. section 7661d(b)(2), stating that "to justify exercise of an objection by EPA to a title V permit pursuant to section 7661d(b)(2), a petitioner must demonstrate that the permit is not in compliance with the requirements of the CAA" and later concluding that "the general allegations of the Petitioner in the April 2004 Petition . . . fail to demonstrate a basis for Petitioner's claim that Revision 1 to the GC 1 Permit violates the CAA . . . ."

[03/01] Friends of Glendora v. City of Glendora
In plaintiff's claim that the city violated the CEQA when it assessed a fee for her appeal to the city council of a planning commission decision, trial court's decision sustaining defendant's demurrer is affirmed as plaintiff does not indicate how she could amend her complaint to avoid the demurrer, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend.

[02/25] Parchester Vill. Neighborhood Council v. City of Richmond
Trial court's judgment granting plaintiffs' petition for writ of mandate and requiring the agreement (MSA) between a city and an Indian tribe to be vacated, set aside, and voided is reversed and remanded where: 1) the Tribe's casino is not a project of the city so as to trigger compliance with CEQA; 2) city's endorsement of the Tribe's fee-to-trust application is not the city's project; 3) by entering into the agreement, the city has not contracted away its power to consider the full range of alternatives and mitigation measures required by CEQA; and 4) negotiations for firehouse and transportation improvements are not subject to CEQA review.

More...

Military

[02/18] Honeywell Int'l, Inc. v. US
In a patent infringement suit by Honeywell involving a patent related to passive night vision goggles that are compatible with a full color display when both are used in an airplane cockpit, decision of the Court of Federal Claims is reversed and remanded where: 1) the government has not proved by clear and convincing evidence that a claim of the patent-in-suit is invalid; 2) plaintiff has standing to assert a claim for just compensation under the Invention Secrecy Act; and 3) the first sale doctrine does not preclude plaintiff from recovering damages against the government for use of infringing systems in the F-16 aircraft.

[02/17] Bryant v. Military Dep't of the State of Miss.
In an action alleging retaliation against plaintiff for his reporting misconduct by the Mississippi Air National Guard, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff failed to point to specific facts showing there was a genuine issue whether the individual defendants acted under color of state law; 2) the class-based animus requirement of 42 U.S.C. section 1985(3) applied equally to causes of action under the second clause of section 1985(2); and 3) the continuing tort doctrine did not apply, and thus plaintiff's assault and battery claim was time-barred.

[02/10] US v. Whetzell
Defendant's firearm possession sentence is affirmed where the elements of defendant's prior offense of housebreaking, a military law offense, constituted a generic burglary crime, which is a crime of violence justifying a sentencing enhancement.

[01/14] Reynolds v. RehabCare Group E., Inc.
In an action claiming that defendant-employer discriminated against plaintiff based on her military status and failed to rehire her upon her return from active military duty, in violation of the Uniform Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed for the reasons stated by the district court.

[01/08] Barnick v. US
Judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims upholding the decision of the Air Force Board of Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) denying additional backpay and disability benefits is affirmed where: 1) the Court of Federal Claims did not err in concluding that the AFBCMR's failure to award additional incapacitation pay was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law; 2) the Court of Federal Claims did not err in finding that the AFBCMR's decision not to award claimant constructive active duty pay was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law; and 3) to the extent that claimant disagrees with the Air Force's decision not to reimburse certain expenses, the trial court's decision does not preclude claimant from filing another claim with the court.

[09/29] Janowski v. Div. of State Police
In plaintiff's suit claiming that the defendants violated state and federal statutes by termination his employment when he returned from active military duty, trial court's grant of defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is affirmed as, the trial court correctly held that neither 20 Del. C. section 905, nor 29 Del. C. section 5105 explicitly waives sovereign immunity, as the Delaware Constitution and Uniformed Service Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) require.

More...