General News

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.

Read More