Case Summaries

Family Law

[06/24] Doe v. Reed
In a First Amendment case arising out of a state law extending certain benefits to same-sex couples, involving a challenge to the Washington Public Records Act based on its provision permitting the disclosure of referendum petition signers' names and addresses, the Ninth Circuit's reversal of the district court's preliminary injunction in favor of plaintiffs is affirmed where disclosure of referendum petitions does not as a general matter violate the First Amendment.

[06/23] In re Marriage of Hartman
Trial court's denial of wife's motion to vacate an order restraining her from interfering with ex-husband's child custody time is affirmed as the restraining order is neither ambiguous nor overbroad.

[06/22] In re Kyle E.
In juvenile dependency proceedings, the juvenile court's visitation order is reversed and remanded as it unlawfully delegated the responsibility of whether or not the father's visitation would occur at all to the Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services.

[06/18] Elliot v. Carcieri
In a class action lawsuit on behalf of foster care children who are under the legal custody of Rhode Island's Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF), claiming that systematic deficiencies in the state's child welfare and foster care systems deprived the plaintiffs of their rights under the U.S. Constitution and several federal statutes, district court's judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the Next Friends lacked capacity to sue on behalf of plaintiffs is reversed where: 1) the district court erred in finding that the state appointed guardians ad litem or CASA advocates precluded plaintiffs from filing suit by a Next Friend; 2) under the circumstances of the case, Rule 17(c) allows federal courts discretion to appoint a Next Friend to represent the children in federal court; and 3) the proposed Next Friends are suited to represent the children in this case.

[06/17] Estate of Charania v. Shulman
In a tax deficiency case, the judgment of the tax court is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the tax court's judgment that all of the Citigroup shares were the separate property of the decedent for federal estate tax purposes and, thus, were includable in his gross taxable estate is affirmed, as the rule of De Nicols is that a change in marital domicile does not, in itself, effect a change in the marital property regime governing the spouses' rights in personal property acquired throughout the course of the marriage; but 2) the tax court's approbation of the late-filing penalty was in error and is therefore reversed.

[06/15] In re D.R.
In the County Social Services Agency's appeal from a juvenile court's order denying the agency's motion to terminate the de facto parent status of respondent, and granting the application of respondent's partner for de facto parent status, the order is affirmed where: 1) the juvenile court had the authority to determine that respondent's conduct constituted serious physical abuse, but conclude that the single incident of misconduct found to have occurred did not rise to the level warranting termination of his de facto parent status; and 2) the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to terminate respondent's de facto parent status.

More...

Environmental Law

[06/21] Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms
In an action challenging the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's (APHIS) decision to approve the unconditional deregulation of Roundup Ready Alfalfa (RRA), a variety of alfalfa genetically engineered to tolerate the herbicide Roundup, the Ninth Circuit's affirmance of judgment for plaintiffs is reversed where: 1) plaintiffs had standing to seek injunctive relief, and defendants had standing to seek the Court's review of the Ninth Circuit's judgment affirming the entry of such relief; and 2) the district court abused its discretion in enjoining APHIS from effecting a partial deregulation and in prohibiting the planting of RRA pending the agency's completion of its detailed environmental review.

[06/18] Biodiversity Conservation Alliance v. Bureau of Land Mgmt.
In several environmental and citizens' groups challenge to a 2003 Bureau of Land Management resource management plan amendment allowing natural gas development in Wyoming's Powder River Basin, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where the Bureau reasonably concluded that phased development was impractical and would not meet the project's purposes, and this ground was an adequate basis for the Bureau's decision

[06/18] Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone of Nev. v. US Dept. of Interior
In an action claiming that the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) approval of a mining company's amendment to a plan of operations for an existing mineral exploration project in Nevada violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Historic Preservation Act, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where 1) the BLM did not violate NEPA by approving the amendment without knowing the precise locations of drill sites, access roads, and other project activities; and 2) given the uncertainty of the exploration activities, the BLM imposed mitigation measures designed to adequately protect cultural resources in all phases of the amendment. However, the order is reversed in part where BLM's analysis of the cumulative impacts of the proposed amendment and the project was insufficient, and therefore violated NEPA.

[06/18] Tomlinson v. County of Alameda
Trial court's denial of plaintiffs' petition for a writ of administrative mandate, challenging a decision of a county to approve a subdivision development is reversed as the project was not exempt from CEQA review as the county used the wrong legal standard in applying the exemption and substantial evidence does not show the proposed subdivision satisfied the exemption's criteria.

[06/17] Curd v. Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC
In a suit brought by fishermen against a defendant for negligently spilling pollutants and hazardous contaminants into a pond, the judgment of the Second District is quashed as commercial fishermen have both a statutory and common law cause of action for economic losses proximately caused by the negligent release of pollutants despite the fact that the fishermen do not own any property damages by the pollution.

[06/17] San Diego Navy Broadway Complex Coalition v. City of San Diego
In a nonprofit organization's petition for writ of mandate claiming that defendant-city violated CEQA in determining that no further environmental review of a project was required, the trial court did not err in denying the plaintiff's amended petition as the city was not required to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR regarding the potential impact of a redevelopment project called the Navy Broadway Complex Project on global climate change because the city did not grant a discretionary approval that would provide it with the authority to address the project's impact on this environmental issue.

More...

Military

[06/23] Barhoumi v. Obama
In a habeas petition filed by a Guantanamo Bay detainee, the denial of the petition is affirmed where: 1) the district court's alleged failure to comply with its case management order did not require reversal; 2) the district court did not clearly err in relying on a diary recovered at a confidential location for its finding that petitioner was part of an al-Qaida associated force.

[06/22] Schaefer v. McHugh
In former Army lawyer's action arguing that the Army Correction Board's decision rescinding plaintiff's discharge from the Army was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the Board reasonably concluded that plaintiff was not lawfully discharged from the Army on September 14, 2001; 2) plaintiff failed to show that he suffered any prejudice from the Army's alleged error regarding which entity could technically revoke the authorization for his discharge; and 3) Article 3(b) applied only to individuals who were actually "discharged from the armed forces" and then returned to the military to face court-martial.

[06/18] Obaydullah v. Obama
In a habeas petition challenging the lawfulness of petitioner's detention at the Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the district court's order staying the petition is reversed where the prolonged delay in adjudicating petitioner's petition was inconsistent with the Supreme Court's teaching in Boumediene v. Bush that a detainee at Guantanamo Bay was entitled to a prompt habeas corpus hearing.

[06/17] M. Maropakis Carpentry, Inc. v. US
In plaintiff's breach of contract suit against the government under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), arising from a contract awarded by the Navy to replace windows and a roof at a Naval warehouse building, decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing the complaint and grant of the government's counterclaim for liquidated damages is affirmed where: 1) the Court of Federal Claims correctly dismissed plaintiff's claim for lack of jurisdiction as plaintiff did not meet the jurisdictional prerequisites of a claim against the government for contract modification under the CDA; and 2) the grant of summary judgment to the government on its counterclaim for liquidated damages is affirmed as the court correctly held that it lacked jurisdiction over plaintiff's claim for time extensions and because plaintiff's extension claim was the only defense asserted against the government's counterclaim for liquidated damages.

[06/17] US v. Rendon
In a prosecution of defendant for child pornography, a denial of a motion to suppress evidence as the fruits of an unconstitutional search of defendant's MP3 player conducted by the military while he was a private in the U.S. Army is affirmed as, because defendant's MP3 player was inspected pursuant to a valid military inspection, contraband discovered during the course of that inspection could be seized and turned over to civilian authorities.

[06/16] Wysocki v. Int'l Bus. Mach. Corp.
In plaintiff's action against his former employer, IBM, for violation of the Uniform Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), alleging IBM refused to properly reintegrate him as a data administrator after returning from military service in Afghanistan, district court's decision to convert IBM's motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment and granting it is affirmed where: 1) it was not an abuse of discretion for the district court to determine that plaintiff had notice that the motion to dismiss might be converted into a motion for summary judgment and that he had a reasonable opportunity to present materials outside the pleadings; and 2) a release is valid because, although 38 U.S.C. section 4302 applies to a waiver of all procedural rights, section 4302 does not prevent plaintiff from releasing his USERRA rights.

More...