Findlaw News

Case Summaries

Family Law

[07/24] Ordlock v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
A tax court's determination that wife is ineligible for a refund under 26 U.S.C. section 6015 for payments on her husband's tax debt paid from their community property is affirmed, as nothing in section 6015 clearly preempts California community property law with respect to an innocent spouse's entitlement to a refund for a community property payment on the non-innocent spouse's federal income tax liability.

[07/23] In re P.C.
In a family law matter, juvenile court order terminating defendant mother's parental rights to her daughter and son is reversed and remanded where poverty alone is not a sufficient ground to deprive a mother of parental rights to her children.

[07/22] In re Esmeralda S.
Juvenile court's order terminating defendant-mother's parental rights to her child is affirmed over claims of error that: 1) defendant's due process rights were violated when the juvenile court appointed her a guardian ad litem; and 2) the juvenile court did not properly inquire into her and the minor's father's possible American Indian ancestry for purposes of complying with Indian Child Welfare Act.

[07/18] In re Brandon T.
Order terminating mother's parental rights over her child is affirmed where: 1) there was sufficient evidence that the minor was specifically adoptable by his relative caretakers; 2) the Indian Child Welfare Act does not require more than one expert at a section 366.26 hearing; 3) there was sufficient evidence that continued custody would result in serious emotional or physical harm to the minor; and 4) mother was not prejudiced by a lack of evidence in regard to prevailing social and cultural standards of the minor's tribe.

More...

Injury & Tort Law

[07/23] Poliner v. Texas Health Sys.
In a defamation action by a physician against a hospital which suspended his clinical privileges for offering susbstandard patient care, judgment for plaintiff is reversed where peer reviewers who imposed temporary privilege restrictions during a review of plaintiff's patient care history were entitled to immunity under the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA) because they: 1) held an objectively reasonable belief that their actions were in furtherance of quality health care; 2) made a reasonable effort to obtain the necessary facts; 3) followed the notice and hearing procedures required by HCQIA; and 4) acted reasonably based upon the facts obtained.

[07/23] Howard v. Waide
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action against several state correctional department employees alleging deliberate indifference in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights, dismissal and summary judgment rulings against plaintiff are affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) a grievance officer's motion to dismiss was properly granted; but 2) plaintiff proffered adequate evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding defendants-correctional officers' subjective knowledge of a significant risk of substantial harm; and 3) plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies on some, but not all, of his claims.

[07/23] Montano v. Chicago
In a suit seeking recovery for injuries suffered by plaintiffs in confrontations with police, dismissals of plaintiffs' claims are affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the district court clearly erred in dismissing plaintiffs' claims with prejudice as a sanction for abuse of the judicial process; 2) judgments as a matter of law for police officers on certain claims was error as there was an evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for plaintiffs; 3) summary judgment for defendants on claims that they lacked probable cause to arrest plaintiffs for public drinking and disorderly conduct, and that they failed to intervene to prevent the use of excessive force by other officers, was proper; and 4) summary judgment for city on a liability claim under Monell was proper where plaintiffs failed to produce evidence to show deliberate indifference by the police board to constitutional violations by its officers.

[07/23] Gil v. Reed
In an inmate's negligence, malpractice, and civil rights suit against prison medical staff, summary judgment for defendants is reversed where the record contained sufficient evidence to show genuine issues of material fact on: 1) inmate's Eighth Amendment claim that prison staff were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs; and 2) whether defendants had met the standard of care, using the state-law standard as required by the Federal Tort Claims Act.

More...

Remedies

[07/24] Heaton v. Weitz Co., Inc.
In an action alleging plaintiff was retaliated against by his employer in violation of Title VII, judgment and awards pursuant to a jury verdict in plaintiff's favor is affirmed over claims that the district court erred in: 1) denying defendant's Rule 50 motion on the retaliation claim; 2) submitting punitive damages to the jury and denying defendant's Rule 50 motion on punitive damages; 3) finding plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to support an award of damages for emotional distress; and 4) awarding attorney's fees.

[07/24] MAC East, LLC, v. Shoney's, Inc.
In a diversity case involving a commercial real estate lease and a proposal by an assignee of that lease to sublease the real estate to a third party, grant of summary judgment for plaintiff-corporation as to liability on its tortious interference claim is reversed where: 1) defendant corporation was an "essential entity to the purported injured relations"; 2) both plaintiff and defendant were parties to the Assignment Agreement, and thus were "parties to a comprehensive interwoven set of contract or relations"; and 3) defendant cannot be a stranger to the sublease when consummation of the sublease would leave it obligated on the covenants on the ground lease, effectively forming a business relationship between it and proposed subleasee. A question regarding whether a commercial reasonableness standard tempers defendant's "sole discretion" to withhold consent to a proposed sublease is certified to the state supreme court.

[07/23] Poliner v. Texas Health Sys.
In a defamation action by a physician against a hospital which suspended his clinical privileges for offering susbstandard patient care, judgment for plaintiff is reversed where peer reviewers who imposed temporary privilege restrictions during a review of plaintiff's patient care history were entitled to immunity under the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA) because they: 1) held an objectively reasonable belief that their actions were in furtherance of quality health care; 2) made a reasonable effort to obtain the necessary facts; 3) followed the notice and hearing procedures required by HCQIA; and 4) acted reasonably based upon the facts obtained.

[07/23] Union Oil Co. of California v. Greka Energy Corp.
Judgment ordering specific performance of defendant-corporation's contractual obligation to plaintiff-oil company to plug and abandon idle oil wells is affirmed where: 1)specific performance is preferred over the inadequate remedy of repetitive future damage actions where a party, as here, commits multiple breaches; and 2) plaintiff's action was not barred by the statute of limitations.

More...

Tax Law

[07/24] Ordlock v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
A tax court's determination that wife is ineligible for a refund under 26 U.S.C. section 6015 for payments on her husband's tax debt paid from their community property is affirmed, as nothing in section 6015 clearly preempts California community property law with respect to an innocent spouse's entitlement to a refund for a community property payment on the non-innocent spouse's federal income tax liability.

[07/14] Silicon Valley Taxpayers Ass'n, Inc. v. Santa Clara County Open Space Authority
County agency's imposition of a countywide assessment to fund a program to acquire, improve, and maintain open space lands is subject to independent review by court under Proposition 218, and the assessment is invalid because it does not comply with the special benefit and proportionality requirements for such assessments under article XIII D of the California Constitution.

[05/29] U.S. v. Dedman
In a prosecution arising from a marriage between defendant's adopted daughter/cousin and defendant's adoptive father as part of a plan to collect his military pension, her conviction for conspiracy to defraud the U.S. Department of Defense and making material false statements to a federal agent is affirmed where: 1) the government could not rely on its sham-marriage theory because the district court did not instruct the jury as to such argument; 2) the district court correctly decided that the marriage was void under Arkansas state law; 3) even if the Arkansas marriage statute were unconstitutional, it was not plain error for the district court to apply it; 4) sufficient evidence supported the convictions; 5) a jury instruction regarding Arkansas law was not plainly erroneous; and 6) withheld taxes are properly considered part of the government's loss under U.S.S.G. section 2B1.1.

[05/23] US v. Ellett
Due process does not require that a taxpayer be given the opportunity to litigate his/her tax position civilly or administratively before being prosecuted for tax evasion.

More...