Case Summaries
Elder Law
Family Law
Sentencing
Elder Law
[05/05]
Miller v. Am. Airlines, Inc.
In a suit against American Airlines under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) a collective bargaining agreement did not require that plaintiffs be offered positions of comparable pay past the retirement age; 2) a claim, that a supplement to the collective bargaining agreement governing the retirement of flight engineers was facially discriminatory, was not properly raised before the EEOC.
[03/11]
Budnick v. Town of Carefree
In an action raising, inter alia, a claim that defendant-town violated the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (FHAA) by denying plaintiffs a Special Use Permit (SUP) to build a multi-level continuing-care retirement community in the town, summary judgment against plaintiffs on the FHAA claim is affirmed where plaintiff failed to establish a discrimination claim under any of the theories of disparate treatment, disparate impact, or a failure to make reasonable accommodations. Potential residents of a retirement community do not presently qualify as disabled under the FHAA simply because some of them will become disabled as they age.
[03/10]
Med. Liab. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Alan Curtis LLC
In an action brought by an insurer seeking a declaratory judgment regarding its duties to defend and indemnify defendants against claims in an Arkansas state court action, summary judgment determining such duties is affirmed where the district court did not err by deciding that: 1) the only claim in the underlying lawsuit covered under insurer's policy was an estate's breach of contract claim against nursing home facility owner; 2) insurer had a duty to defend and indemnify owner on that claim and therefore also a duty to defend it on all of the estate's claims against it; and 3) insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify appellant-employee of the nursing home's management company.
More...
Family Law
[05/12]
In re Marriage of Holtemann
In a dispute about the legal effect of a spousal property transmutation agreement executed during marriage, judgment finding the underlying agreement effectuated a transmutation of husband's separate property into community property is affirmed where: 1) the unambiguous language in the parties' agreement evinced that the husband intended to, and did transmute his separate property; 2) nothing in the record suggested that the husband was misinformed or misled in light of the requisite express, unequivocal declarations of transmutations; and 3) his arguments for disparate treatment of his express declarations of transmutation based on his lack of separate counsel were unavailing, as he was fully advised of the consequences of failing to secure separate counsel, yet chose to proceed.
[05/09]
Baran v. Beaty
In a case involving a mother who removed her minor son from Australia, denial of father's petition for return of the minor pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and the International Child Abduction Remedies Act of 1988 is affirmed where: 1) based on evidence of the father's propensity for violence, the district court did not err in concluding that returning the minor to Australia would expose him to a grave risk of psychological harm; and 2) because the court was not presented with any proposed undertakings that could ameliorate the risk of harm to the child under the circumstances presented, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition for return.
[05/06]
In re Domestic Partnership of Ellis and Arriaga
Under the California Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003 and consistent with the rationale in Koebke v. Bernardo Heights Country Club, 36 Cal.4th 824 (2005), a person's reasonable, good faith belief that his or her domestic partnership was validly registered with the California Secretary of State entitles that person to the rights and responsibilities of a registered domestic partner, even if the registration never took place.
More...
Sentencing
[05/12]
US v. Marcano
Sentence for aiding and abetting the receipt and possession of an illegally modified firearm is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not impose a period of incarceration and supervised release involving home confinement in excess of the statutory maximum; 2) defendant's argument that a district court may not impose "any" period of home detention following incarceration was tenuous at best, and he failed to cite any applicable precedent; and 3) in any event, any error was not plain.
[05/12]
US v. Curran
Sentence and restitution ordered against defendant following a conviction for wire fraud and money laundering is affirmed over claims that: 1) the district court's calculation of the amount of loss for determining defendant's Guideline sentence was excessive; 2) the district court erred in concluding that the scheme involved more than 250 victims for purposes of a six-level sentencing enhancement; and 3) the restitution order amount was erroneous due to an absence of a causal link between the criminal offense and the loss amount.
[05/12]
U.S. v. Hatten-Lubick
Defendant's conviction and sentence for drug-related offenses is affirmed over claims of error regarding: 1) sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction for conspiracy; 2) ineffective assistance of counsel; 3) the court's calculation of the drug quantity which could be attributable to the defendant; 4) the increase in the sentence based on his supervisory role in the offense; and 5) the judge's failure to set a payment schedule for a fine.
More...
|
