Case Summaries

Family Law

[07/01] In re Cheyanne F.
Order terminating the parental rights of a mother pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 is affirmed over claims that the juvenile court erroneously omitted information required for notification forms under the Indian Child Welfare Act.

[06/30] Mardardo F. v. Superior Court (Yolo County Dep't of Employment and Social Serv.)
For purpose of Welfare and Institution Code section 361.5(b)(4), the phrase "the parent or guardian of the child" refers merely to the parent's or the guardian's current status in the current dependency proceeding, and the phrase "the death of another child" in the section means the death of any other child. In this case, the juvenile court properly applied the statute in denying reunification service to a 28 year old father who murdered a 13-year old girl when he was 15.

[06/26] Florida Dep't of Children and Families v. H.D.
Initial acceptance of review of the decision in H.D. v. Department of Child and Families, 964 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) is reversed and the review proceeding is dismissed since jurisdiction was improperly granted.

[06/26] In re S.B.
An order terminating the parental rights to a child under Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 366.26 is reversed and remanded where: 1) the terminated parent had a continuing beneficial relationship with the child within the meaning of the statutory exception to termination of parental rights; and 2) the juvenile court did not comply with the notice provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act.

[06/23] In re R.J.
Denial of a grandmother's request for de facto parent status is affirmed over claims that: 1) the juvenile court erred in denying her request without affording an evidentiary hearing; and 2) the error violated her right to procedural due process.

More...

Criminal Law & Procedure

[07/03] Tablada v. Thomas
In a case involving whether the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in promulgating a regulation interpreting 18 U.S.C. section 3624(b), which governs the calculation of good conduct time for federal prisoners, the court finds that: 1) the BOP concededly violated the APA by failing to articulate a rational basis for its decision to promulgate the regulation; but 2) the remedy for the violation is to interpret the federal statute in accordance with the BOP's Program Statement 5880.28; and 3) the BOP's methodology for calculating good time credits under Statement 5880.28 was both reasonable and persuasive under applicable law.

[07/03] US v. Morriss
Denial of a motion to suppress statements made outside the presence of counsel is affirmed over defendant's claims that: 1) the district court erroneously found his Sixth Amendment right to counsel did not attach during an interview in which he provided inculpatory statements; and 2) the government violated his due process rights by interviewing him during a lapse in representation.

[07/03] US v. Dodds
Sentence for possession of child pornography is affirmed over claims that: 1) the district court failed to adequately consider relevant sentencing factors; and 2) defendant's due process rights were violated because the sentence was imposed after the government presented an inaccurate picture of relevant conduct.

[07/03] US v. Anderson
A conviction for insider trading and money laundering is affirmed over claims of error that: 1) the government's evidence was insufficient to convict him, 2) the district court erred in failing to give his theory-of-the-case jury instruction; and 3) that he is entitled to a new trial. The sentence is affirmed over the government's claims of error that the sentence was unreasonable because the court erroneously excluded certain stock sales as relevant conduct when considering the U.S.S.G. for illegal insider training.

[07/03] US v. Feemster
A reduction of defendant's sentence to 120 months from 240 months for knowingly and intentionally distributing crack cocaine is reversed and remanded where the district court: 1) considered irrelevant factors; 2) failed to explain its unusually lenient sentence with sufficient justifications to support the degree of the variance; and 3) thus committed procedural error and abused its discretion.

More...