News

Case Summaries

Family Law

[02/15] In re K.P.
The juvenile court's termination of parental rights of both parents over their son is affirmed, where substantial evidence supported the juvenile court's findings and the court did not abuse its discretion in declining to apply the parent-child relationship exception to the statutory preference for adoption.

[02/14] In re A.A.
In a case in which an incarcerated mother's parental rights were terminated, the juvenile court order of termination is affirmed, where: 1) the juvenile court was not required to consider placing the child with the mother where she was not a nonoffending parent and where custody had previously been removed upon a finding of risk that had not been alleviated; and 2) the mother presented no material change of circumstances to justify a modification of the dispositional order where she was still incarcerated at the time of the petition.

[02/14] In re Michael G.
On parents' appeal of orders terminating their parental rights over their son under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, the findings and orders of the juvenile court are affirmed, where: 1) although the juvenile court erred when it did not order a brief continuance of the hearing to allow time to receive the child's psychological evaluation and an updated report from his therapist, the error was harmless in light of other evidence supporting the finding that the child was likely to be adopted within a reasonable time; and 2) there was ample evidence to support the juvenile court's finding there were no applicable exceptions to termination of parental rights.

[02/10] Marriage of Thorne
In marital dissolution proceedings involving the division of property interests in the husband's military pension, the trial court's modification of the judgment to divide the pension according to the "time rule" is reversed, where: 1) the trial court had no jurisdiction to modify the judgment under the relevant statutes of limitations; 2) the omitted-asset exception to the statutes of limitation did not apply, as the words of the judgment expressly divided the entire pension; and 3) the extrinsic-mistake exception did not apply, as the judgment was not unlawful and any mistake by the wife was intrinsic.

Read More

Government Benefits

[02/22] Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California, Inc.
In consolidated cases challenging statutory Medicaid rate reductions by the state of California that were approved by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), judgments of the Ninth Circuit are vacated and the cases are remanded to permit the parties to argue before the Ninth Circuit in the first instance the question whether the respondents may maintain Supremacy Clause actions, where the CMS approval may require the respondents to seek review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) rather than in a Supremacy Clause action against California.

[02/03] Sauer v. Dep't of Education
In a suit by a California state agency seeking review of an arbitration award that made it liable to a blind vendor for failing to sue the federal General Services Administration (GSA) to vindicate the rights of the vendor to conduct business on federal property, the district court's judgment affirming the award is reversed, where: 1) the arbitration panel committed a legal error when it interpreted the Randolph-Sheppard Vending Stand Act as requiring the state agency to bring an action against GSA, and that the agency's failure to do so made it liable for compensatory damages; and 2) because the arbitration panel's ruling was not in accordance with law, it had to be set aside under the Administrative Procedure Act.

[01/31] Fowlkes v. Thomas
On a prisoner's postjudgment motion for an order directing the Social Security Administration (SSA) to re-tender a check for retroactive supplemental Social Security benefits that he was owed, the district court’s denial of the motion is affirmed, as: 1) the No Social Security Benefits for Prisoners Act bars the SSA from making any payment to an incarcerated individual covered by the Act, regardless of when the underlying obligation to pay the individual arose; and 2) the Act is not impermissibly retroactive, because it alters only the procedure and timing by which certain individuals receive their retroactive Social Security benefit payments, and does not affect their substantive right to those benefits.

[01/27] Hutcherson v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System Administration
In a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that Arizona's Medicaid agency had no right at all to recover from an annuity purchased by a husband so that his institutionalized wife could obtain Medicaid coverage or, alternatively, had no right to recover for any costs incurred for the wife's care after the husband's death, the district court's grant of the defendant's motion for summary judgment is affirmed, where: 1) the federal Medicaid Act allows states to reach a deceased community spouse's annuity for costs incurred on behalf of an institutionalized spouse; and 2) nothing in the language of the Act was inconsistent with permitting the state agency to recover from the annuity expenses incurred after the husband's death.

Read More

Injury & Tort Law

[02/21] Dahar v. Holland Ladder & Manufacturing Co.
On a claim under Labor Law section 240(1) brought by a worker injured when he fell from a ladder in a factory while cleaning a product manufactured by his employer, the Supreme Court's grant of summary judgment dismissing the claim, affirmed by the Appellate Division, is affirmed, where the plaintiff was not engaged in an activity the statute protects.

[02/21] Posner v. Lewis
In an action for prima facie tort and tortious interference with prospective contractual relations stemming from pressure and influence exerted by the defendants upon school officials who denied the plaintiff tenure, the order of the Appellate Division denying the defendants' motion to dismiss is affirmed, where the absolute immunity from civil liability for instigating official action articulated in Brandt v Winchell, 3 NY2d 628 (1958) could not be extended to protect the alleged course of conduct, which involved blackmail, intimidation and threatening conduct allegedly directed at the plaintiff.

[02/21] Thomas H. v. Paul B.
In a defamation action alleging that the defendants falsely and maliciously stated that the plaintiff had raped and molested the defendants' daughter, the Appellate Division's grant of summary judgment to the defendants is reversed In light of factual discrepancies, where: 1) under the circumstances alleged, a reasonable listener would have understood that the defendants intended to label the plaintiff as a child rapist; and 2) the alleged statements would be actionable even if they were couched in the form of an opinion and even if they were derived from what the defendants' daughter told them.

[02/17] American States Insurance Co. v. LaFlam
In a dispute over whether an insurance company was liable to pay a settlement amount under an uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) policy issued to an injured driver's employer and containing provisions that imposed a three-year contractual limitations period on UM/UIM claims and specified that the limitations period began to run on the date of the accident, the following question is certified to the Rhode Island Supreme Court: In light of the UM/UIM statute and Rhode Island public policy, would Rhode Island enforce the two provisions of the contractual limitations clause in this case?

Read More