News
Business
Case Summaries
Criminal Law & Procedure
[02/22] US v. Lewis
Conviction on firearm offenses is vacated because a firearm found on the defendant during a traffic stop should have been suppressed as the fruit of an unlawful search and seizure, where neither illegal tints on the vehicle's windows nor the tip that firearms were in the possession of the individuals in the vehicle provided the requisite reasonable suspicion of criminal activity under the Fourth Amendment.
[02/22] US v. Moore
On appeal of the district court's denial of a motion to suppress a confession, judgment of conviction after plea is affirmed, where: 1) the confession, given after Miranda warnings but also after a previous interrogation without Miranda warnings, was given voluntarily and without coercion, and was not elicited by the two-step technique proscribed by Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004); and 2) the confession did not offend the Sixth Amendment because the defendant's right to counsel had not yet attached.
[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.
Elder Law
[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.
[10/20] NY Coalition for Quality Assisted Living, Inc. v. MFY Legal Services, Inc.
In an appeal from a judgment of the appellate division reversing a trial court order enjoining defendants from violating an assisted living facilities' visitor access guidelines, judgment is affirmed where the guidelines impermissibly restrict advocate access to facility residents, and violate 18 NYCRR 485.14 and the DOH's interpretation of that regulation.
[09/21] In re: Lemington Home for the Aged
In an appeal from a judgment of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of defendants on the grounds that the business judgment rule and the doctrine of in pari delicto bar plaintiff's action for breach of fiduciary duty, judgment is reversed where there are genuine disputes of material facts.
[08/23] Estate of Dito
In a probate petition alleging financial elder abuse, judgment of the trial court dismissing complaint without leave to amend on the ground that it is barred by res judicata is reversed as modified, where the petition is not barred as a matter of law on the basis of an earlier dispute because the issues as presented differ .
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.
Probate Trusts
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.
