News

Case Summaries

Criminal Law & Procedure

[02/10] Beets v. County of Los Angeles
In an action by parents pursuant to 42 USC section 1983 alleging that a police officer used excessive force when he shot and killed their son, the district court's grant of a motion to dismiss on the pleadings is affirmed, where: 1) a jury that convicted the son's accomplice already determined that the officer acted within the scope of his employment and did not use excessive force, so that a verdict in the plaintiffs' favor would tend to undermine that conviction; 2) the accomplice challenged the propriety of the officer's actions in her criminal trial, her interests in doing so were in no way inconsistent with the plaintiffs' interests, and the accomplice was convicted by a jury.

[02/10] The American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada v. Masto
In a challenge to the retroactive application of two Nevada statutes imposing various requirements on individuals convicted of sexual offenses: 1) the district court's issuance of a permanent injunction against their retroactive application is reversed with respect to a statute expanding the scope of sex offender registration and notification requirements, as it did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause or the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution, the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, or the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and 2) the appeal is dismissed with respect to a statute imposing residency and movement restrictions on certain sex offenders, where the Ninth Circuit's consideration of its disputed provisions was mooted by the State of Nevada’s authoritative judicial admission that it would not retroactively impose the restrictions.

[02/09] US v. Mare
Conviction for attempted arson is affirmed, where: 1) the district court's decision to admit testimony referring to a prior arson was not an abuse of discretion under Federal Rules of Evidence 403 or 404(b); and 2) the district court did not err in failing to declare a mistrial after the prosecutor began a line of questioning concerning polygraph evidence, as the jury did not hear the answer to the question, thanks to a swift objection, and the curative instruction that the court delivered to the jury was an appropriate remedy.

[02/09] Garbutt v. Conway
On appeal of a denial of a writ of habeas corpus after conviction for second-degree murder on a theory of depraved indifference to human life, the judgment is affirmed, where the state court's conclusion that the evidence was sufficient to meet the state law definition of "depraved indifference to human life" was not an unreasonable application of federal constitutional law, and the conviction was not a miscarriage of justice.

Read More

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