- [04/10] Police: Phoenix area man killed wife over HIV fear
- [04/10] Maine hermit suspected in 1,000 burglaries caught
- [04/10] Colorado officials find more court errors
- [04/10] Judge fines Costa $1.3M for Concordia wreck
- [04/09] NM school bus crashes into embankment; driver dead
- [04/09] NTSB probes case of texting helicopter pilot
- [12/07] Judge aims to resolve Apple-Samsung legal dispute
- [12/07] Fla. police: Man left baby in pit bull's care
- [12/07] Black boxes in cars raise privacy concerns
Hofmann v. Sender
The district court's determination that the parties' children were habitually resident in Canada under the Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA), and, therefore, were ordered returned to Canada for further legal proceedings, is affirmed, where: 1) this appeal has not been rendered moot by the fact that the children have been returned to Canada pursuant to the district court's order; and 2) for purposes of the Hague Convention, the parties' last shared intent with respect to their children's residence was that they reside in Canada.
In re I.J.
A father's prolonged and egregious sexual abuse of his own child may provide substantial evidence to support a finding that all his children are juvenile court dependents, and here the father's abuse of his daughter supports a determination that his sons are juvenile court dependents.
Granger v. Misercola
The Family Court's order awarding petitioner periodic four-hour visits at the prison where he resided, with his child, who was then three years old, is affirmed, where: 1) the lower courts used the appropriate legal standard, applying the rebuttable presumption in favor of visitation and considering whether respondent rebutted the presumption through showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that visitation would be harmful to the child; and 2) there is support in the record for the finding that the travel would not be harmful to the welfare of the child, and that petitioner made efforts to establish a meaningful relationship with the child.
McBurney v. Young
Virginia's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which grants Virginia citizens access to all public records, but grants no such right to non-Virginians, does not violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause, which protects only those privileges and immunities that are "fundamental," nor does it violate the dormant Commerce Clause.
Injury & Tort Law
Institution of Cetacean Research v. Sea Shepherd Conservation Society
In suit brought under the Alien Tort Statute, by Japanese researchers who hunt whales alleging piracy against defendants, orders denying injunction and dismissing piracy claims are reversed and remanded, where the district court: 1) erred in dismissing plaintiff's piracy claims because the activities that plaintiff alleges defendant has engaged in are clear instances of violent acts for private ends, the very embodiment of piracy; 2) abused its discretion in denying the injunction because a) plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, b) defendant's dangerous acts if committed often enough, will inevitably lead to harm, which could easily be irreparable, c) the balance of equities favors plaintiff, and d) there is a strong public interest in the health of the marine ecosystem and the safety of international waterways; and 3) abused its discretion in denying the injunction based on unclean hands. (Amended opinion)
VRCompliance LLC v. Homeaway, Inc.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in staying plaintiffs' action seeking declaratory relief that it was not committing violations asserted by defendants in an earlier filed state law action, pending the resolution of the earlier parallel state lawsuit filed by defendants, where plaintiffs had every opportunity to procure a federal forum by removing defendants' first filed state suit rather than by bringing a separate federal action in an entirely separate federal district.
Painter's Mill Grille, LLC v. Brown
The district court properly dismissed plaintiffs' complaint alleging that defendant-landlord and its agents, motivated by racial animus, interfered with plaintiffs' business and its opportunity to sell the restaurant, including its leasehold interest, in violation of federal statutes and state tort principles, where: 1) plaintiff principals do not have standing because they elected to conduct their business through a limited liability company; and 2) plaintiff company did not set forth sufficient facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face, for any of its causes of action.
Ronay Family L.P. v. Tweed
Order denying defendants' petition to compel arbitration of plaintiff's claims for damages related to defendant's provision of advice concerning plaintiff's purchase of investments offered by CapWest Securities, Inc., is reversed and remanded, where: 1) defendants may enforce the arbitration clause of the account agreement between plaintiff and CapWest as agents or third party beneficiaries; 2) even though CapWest became defunct and under FINRA Rule 12202 lost its right to enforce the arbitration clause, defendants nevertheless retained their rights to do so; and 3) the matter is remanded to the trial court for further consideration of plaintiff's argument that the trial court has discretion to deny the motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2(c) .
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.