News
Top Headlines
- [02/22] Prop. 8 backers seek review of gay marriage case
- [02/22] Consumer-finance watchdog probes overdraft fees
- [02/22] W.Va. mine boss charged with fraud in deadly blast
Supreme Court
Case Summaries
Probate Trusts
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.
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.
Criminal Law & Procedure
[02/21] Kawashima v. Holder
In removal proceedings against resident aliens who were convicted of willfully making and subscribing a false tax return under 26 USC section 7206(1) and aiding and assisting in the preparation of a false tax return under 26 USC section 7206(2), the orders of removal are affirmed, as violations of sections 7206(1) and (2) are crimes "involv[ing] fraud or deceit" under 8 USC section 1101(a)(43)(M)(i) and are therefore aggravated felonies subjecting the respondents to removal when the loss to the government exceeds $10,000.
[02/21] Howes v. Fields
On petition for habeas corpus challenging the admissibility of a confession given while the prisoner was questioned by corrections officers within a prison, the Sixth Circuit's granting of habeas relief is reversed, where: 1) there is no categorical rule that isolation from the general prison population, combined with questioning about conduct occurring outside the prison, makes any such interrogation custodial per se; and 2) under the circumstances, the respondent was not taken into custody for Miranda purposes, so his confession was admissible.
[02/21] US v. Banki
In a prosecution for offenses involving transfers of money from Iran, the convictions are: 1) affirmed as to two counts, where: a) the indictment was not constructively amended; and b) there was no prejudice from an alleged impermissible variance between the evidence and the charge; and 2) vacated as to the other counts, where: a) the district court erred by failing to instruct the jury that non-commercial remittances to Iran, including family remittances, are exempt from the Iranian Transactions Regulations' service-export ban; and b) there was jury-instruction error in failing to define "money transmitting business" as an enterprise (not a single transaction) that is conducted for a fee or profit.
[02/21] Wetzel v. Lambert
On petition for habeas corpus claiming, inter alia, that the state's failure to disclose a "police activity sheet" violated his rights under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 (1963), the Third Circuit's grant of the writ is vacated, where the state court ruling that the document contained ambiguous and speculative references could be reasonable.
Criminal Law & Procedure
[02/21] Kawashima v. Holder
In removal proceedings against resident aliens who were convicted of willfully making and subscribing a false tax return under 26 USC section 7206(1) and aiding and assisting in the preparation of a false tax return under 26 USC section 7206(2), the orders of removal are affirmed, as violations of sections 7206(1) and (2) are crimes "involv[ing] fraud or deceit" under 8 USC section 1101(a)(43)(M)(i) and are therefore aggravated felonies subjecting the respondents to removal when the loss to the government exceeds $10,000.
[02/21] Howes v. Fields
On petition for habeas corpus challenging the admissibility of a confession given while the prisoner was questioned by corrections officers within a prison, the Sixth Circuit's granting of habeas relief is reversed, where: 1) there is no categorical rule that isolation from the general prison population, combined with questioning about conduct occurring outside the prison, makes any such interrogation custodial per se; and 2) under the circumstances, the respondent was not taken into custody for Miranda purposes, so his confession was admissible.
[02/21] US v. Banki
In a prosecution for offenses involving transfers of money from Iran, the convictions are: 1) affirmed as to two counts, where: a) the indictment was not constructively amended; and b) there was no prejudice from an alleged impermissible variance between the evidence and the charge; and 2) vacated as to the other counts, where: a) the district court erred by failing to instruct the jury that non-commercial remittances to Iran, including family remittances, are exempt from the Iranian Transactions Regulations' service-export ban; and b) there was jury-instruction error in failing to define "money transmitting business" as an enterprise (not a single transaction) that is conducted for a fee or profit.
[02/21] Wetzel v. Lambert
On petition for habeas corpus claiming, inter alia, that the state's failure to disclose a "police activity sheet" violated his rights under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 (1963), the Third Circuit's grant of the writ is vacated, where the state court ruling that the document contained ambiguous and speculative references could be reasonable.
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.
