Case Summaries
Family Law
Family Law
[11/19]
Perry v. Prop. 8 Official Proponents
In an action challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8, a California ballot initiative restricting the definition of marriage to the union of a man and a woman, denial of a prospective intervenor's application to intervene is affirmed where the existing parties would adequately represent its interests.
[11/19]
In re Marriage of Kacik
Trial court's order modifying support, where the child support order ended in August 2006 and no modification request was brought until February 2008, is reversed as: 1) it cannot be sustained on the basis of Family Code section 4326 and 2) where section 4326 was the sole basis for the modification, the order cannot be sustained at all.
[11/10]
Burke v. County of Alameda
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action alleging that defendants interfered with plaintiffs' constitutional right of familial association by removing their child without a protective custody warrant, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where it was reasonable for officer-defendant to believe the child's statement that she had been abused at the time she spoke with him. However, the order is vacated in part where local government units such as defendant-county are not entitled to the qualified-immunity defense.
[11/06]
In re: Smith
Order of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel reversing an order of the Bankruptcy Court is affirmed as a late alimony payment penalty was not a domestic support obligation, and as such, the ex-wife's claim was a general unsecured claim not entitled to priority status and consequently dischargeable.
[11/04]
Miller v. Nichols
In plaintiffs' constitutional challenge to the state's removal of their child after termination proceedings and motion for injunctive relief to prevent a foster family's adoption of the child, district court's dismissal of the case is affirmed where: 1) the district court correctly determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review plaintiffs' motion for injunctive relief to prevent the child's adoption pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine; and 2) the factual issues underlying plaintiffs' claims were addressed by the state court and are barred by issue preclusion.
More...
|
