FindLaw News

Case Summaries

Family Law

[02/07] Perry v. Brown
In a challenge to Proposition 8, a California ballot initiative approved by the voters amending the state constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry, the district court's judgment invalidating the initiative is affirmed, with the following rulings: 1) the proponents of Proposition 8 had standing to bring the appeal on behalf of the State of California, whose people must be allowed to defend in federal courts the validity of their use of the initiative power; 2) however, Proposition 8 violated the Equal Protection Clause of the federal constitution, as the people may not employ the initiative power to single out a disfavored group for unequal treatment and strip them, without a legitimate justification, of a right as important as the right to marry; and 3) the district court properly denied a motion to vacate the judgment, as the trial judge, who had been in a same-sex relationship for ten years, had no obligation to recuse himself or to disclose any personal conflict.

[02/03] In re Gabriel K.
On appeal from an order of the juvenile court declaring minors to be dependent children and denying the request of their mother for reunification services, the order is affirmed, where: 1) the juvenile court's denial of further reunification services to the mother for her younger son was consistent with the legislative intent and thus, fell within the spirit of the reunification services statute; 2) the evidence before the juvenile court supported its conclusion that the mother failed to make reasonable efforts to treat her drug issues; and 3) the mother demonstrated no basis for setting aside the juvenile court's decision to deny reunification services.

[02/02] Southerland v. City of New York
In a suit under 42 USC Section 1983 asserting that a New York City children's services caseworker entered the plaintiffs' home unlawfully and effected an unconstitutional removal of children into state custody, the district court's grant of summary judgment to the defendant caseworker is: 1) affirmed with respect to the dismissal of the father's substantive due process claim; but 2) vacated with respect to the father's and his children's Fourth Amendment unlawful-search and Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claims and the children's unlawful-seizure claim, where the district court wrongfully concluded that the caseworker was entitled to qualified immunity with respect to all of the claims against him.

[02/02] Marriage of Walker
In a family court proceeding in which the recipient of a California State Teachers' Retirement System (CalSTRS) disability allowance challenged earlier family court orders awarding a community property interest in the allowance to his former spouse, the family court's denial of the appellant's motion to set aside the earlier orders is reversed, where the family court erred as a matter of law in concluding that the recipient had made "no mistake" in agreeing that his spouse had a community property interest in his disability allowance and thus should not have denied his motion on this basis.

Read More

Criminal Law & Procedure

[02/07] Farmer v. McDaniel
On petition for a writ of habeas corpus to challenge a death sentence that Nevada sought to reimpose on the basis of statutory aggravating circumstances different from those used in imposing an earlier invalid death sentence, the district court's denial of the petition is affirmed, as the state’s renewed attempt to seek a death sentence on grounds present in the defendant's first sentencing is not barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

[02/06] People v. Murray
In a prosecution of a 17-year-old for first degree murder and attempted murder that resulted in conviction and a sentence of life without parole, the judgment is affirmed as modified, where: 1) life-without-parole sentences are not categorically barred by the Eighth Amendment or article I, section 17 of the California Constitution; 2) the sentence was not unconstitutionally disproportionate when the nature of the crimes was measured against various mitigating circumstances; and 3) the trial court did not abuse its sentencing discretion or violate the defendant's due process rights when it sentenced him.

[02/06] US v. Reyes-Bonilla
In a prosecution for being a deported alien found in the United States without permission, the conviction is affirmed, where: 1) the defendant was deprived of the opportunity for judicial review of his prior removal order, and was exempt from the administrative-remedies exhaustion requirement because did not validly waive his right of appeal; and 2) the defendant was not properly advised of his due process right to counsel nor did he waive this right; but 3) this due process violation was not per se prejudicial; and 4) the defendant could not demonstrate that he had a plausible claim to relief at the time of removal proceedings, so he was not actually prejudiced as a result of the due process violations, and entry of the removal order was not fundamentally unfair.

[02/06] Richardson v. Branker
On a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 USC section 2254, the district court's judgment is: 1) reversed, insofar as it granted the petition, where the district court erred in considering the petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under a de novo standard of review, and the state court did not hold unreasonably that the petitioner failed to demonstrate prejudice under Strickland; and 2) affirmed, insofar as it awarded summary judgment against the petitioner on his claims that the state withheld exculpatory evidence from him before trial, and that because he was mentally retarded, his sentence of death violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments.

Read More