Background: This is a sequel judgment addressing the standard of review governing decisions about whether an unaccompanied individual should be treated as an adult or child in two distinct contexts. The case arises from challenges to removal proposals under the UK-France Treaty 2025 (UFT). In a prior judgment ([2026] EWHC 1568 (Admin)), the court determined that…
Held: On the Reasonableness Standard for UFT Removals (Four Key Aspects): (1) Closeness of scrutiny: The doctrine of "anxious scrutiny" applies when reviewing SSHD decisions to treat unaccompanied individuals as adults for UFT removal. The public interest in the effective working of the UFT arrangements does not reduce the intensity of judicial review. The court rejected the submission that institutional or…
Background: In August 2021, Yessica Bocanegra was seriously injured when her vehicle was struck by a Chevrolet Suburban driven by Alfonso Gonzalez. She filed a negligence action in Hamilton County, and in April 2024 obtained a judgment of $1,100,000 against Gonzalez. Meanwhile, Viking Insurance Company of Wisconsin — which had issued a "Named Driver" automobile liability…
Held: The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the discharge of Viking but vacated and set aside the portion of the judgment addressing Bocanegra's request to reform the Viking policy. The court held, as a threshold jurisdictional matter, that the garnishment court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to entertain a request for equitable reformation of the insurance policy. Garnishment in aid of execution is…
Background: Jonida Goga slipped on spilled dish soap at a Publix supermarket in Pompano Beach, Florida. Despite security footage showing her continuing to shop afterward — including selecting a bottle of champagne — she sued Publix for premises liability, alleging injuries to her neck, back, pelvis, and hip and claiming seven months of spinal treatment. In…
Held: The Florida Supreme Court quashed the Fourth District's decision and remanded with instructions to reinstate the trial court's order dismissing Goga's entire complaint with prejudice. The Court held that the proper appellate framework for reviewing a trial court's dismissal for fraud on the court is the same multi-standard framework applied to any mixed question of fact and law: factual findings…
Background: In the early morning hours of August 10, 2022, fifteen-year-old Judah Elijah Trujillo met sixty-year-old Samuel Cordero at Ragle Park in Santa Fe through the dating app Grindr, arranged for oral sex. Before going, Judah took a loaded Smith & Wesson from his mother's boyfriend's garage — the first time he had access to a…
Held: The New Mexico Supreme Court held that the State failed to present sufficient evidence that Judah acted with deliberate intent, the element distinguishing first-degree murder from second-degree murder. The Court emphasized that deliberate intent requires evidence that the defendant actually weighed and considered the decision to kill — not merely that he had an opportunity to do so. Because the…
Background: Luke Laducer died on December 18, 2020, while in custody at the Cass County Jail after being arrested on an outstanding warrant following a suicide attempt. Jail staff found him unresponsive in his cell that afternoon; he died of diffuse hemorrhagic gastritis and colitis. His estate and surviving relatives — including his three minor children…
Held: The Supreme Court held that res judicata did not bar the state-law claims because the federal court never decided them on the merits. The first federal order expressly dismissed Count 5 — the sole state-law cause of action — without prejudice for failure to comply with the expert-affidavit requirement of N.D.C.C. § 28-01-46. The second federal order acknowledged that only…
Background: John Mallozzi, then chairman of the Stamford Democratic City Committee, was convicted after a bench trial of fourteen counts of false statement in absentee balloting and fourteen counts of forgery in the second degree arising from fraudulent absentee ballot applications and ballots submitted to the Stamford town clerk during the 2015 municipal election cycle. The…
Held: The Connecticut Supreme Court unanimously affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its broad discretion under Practice Book § 40-13(c) in denying defense counsel's request to present a previously undisclosed expert witness. Although § 40-13(c) embraces a presumption against preclusion as a sanction for late disclosure, it is incumbent on the moving party to make a showing of…
Background: Leron Porter was charged with second-degree murder and related firearms offenses in connection with the May 2011 fatal shooting of seventeen-year-old Tiphany Tallo in Providence, Rhode Island. His first trial in 2013 ended in conviction, but that judgment was vacated after a lengthy federal habeas proceeding. The United States Court of Appeals for the First…
Held: The Rhode Island Supreme Court vacated the conviction and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial justice failed to conduct the mandatory third step of the Batson tripartite framework. Under step three, a trial justice must make a meaningful, on-the-record credibility determination as to whether the prosecutor's race-neutral explanation for the peremptory strike is genuine and nonpretextual. Here,…
Background: In May 2021, Kim, an eighteen-year-old with documented diagnoses of autism, bipolar I disorder, PTSD, and anxiety, alleged that her uncle, R.F.P., sexually assaulted her in his bedroom while she was searching for her cat. R.F.P. was indicted on charges including second-degree sexual assault. He acknowledged the sexual contact but claimed it was consensual. Kim…
Held: The New Jersey Supreme Court, in a 5-2 decision authored by Justice Fasciale, reversed the Appellate Division and reinstated the trial court's order. The Court held that the trial judge correctly applied the Chambers standard and did not abuse his discretion in finding that R.F.P. made a sufficient showing to justify a limited, narrow in camera review. The Court emphasized…
Background: Six live-in caregivers employed at AssureCare Adult Home LLC's adult family homes in Washington sued their employer for violations of the Washington Minimum Wage Act (MWA), ch. 49.46 RCW. The caregivers regularly worked shifts beginning as early as 5:00 or 6:00 a.m. and continuing until 10:00 p.m. or midnight, remained on call through the night…
Held: The Washington Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Madsen (sitting as justice pro tempore), affirmed the grant of partial summary judgment. Applying the two-step article I, section 12 framework from Schroeder v. Weighall, 179 Wn.2d 566 (2014), the court first found that live-in caregiving at adult family homes constitutes a dangerous occupation as applied to these plaintiffs, generating a…
Background: Le Bois dormant, a simplified joint-stock company, owned a villa in France. On May 29, 2015, the tax administration sent an information request regarding a 3% tax on the fair value of real estate held in France (governed by article 990 D of the French Tax Code) for the years 2009–2014. The company responded on…
Held: The Court of Cassation reversed the appellate decision in full and remanded the case to a differently composed appellate court. On the threshold procedural issue, the Court held that an appellant seeking reformation of a judgment need not enumerate each specific point being challenged—the absence of such specificity does not limit the scope of review. This disposed of the company's…
Background: Yaron and Frida Dahan hold a leasehold interest in a plot of land in the Tamar neighborhood within an expansion zone developed by the Adi Cooperative Association. In February 2013, the Adi Cooperative and the Association for Development of Adi-Tamar entered into an Infrastructure Agreement with the Emek Yizrael Regional Council governing the planning and…
Held: Justice Gila Kanfi-Steinitz held that the petitioners' appeal must be dismissed, but on grounds different from those of the District Court. The Supreme Court established a two-step framework for determining subject matter jurisdiction in real property disputes: first, apply the "remedy test" to determine whether the claim is fundamentally about real property; second, if it is a real property claim,…
Background: Ms Ji sought to enforce a $500,000 facility agreement and mortgage over Ms Gu's home in Campsie. The funds advanced under the agreement in January 2024 were not provided to Ms Gu herself, but instead went to Ms Zhou, a real estate agent and mutual acquaintance who faced serious financial difficulties. Ms Gu signed the…
Held: The court entered judgment for Ms Gu and set aside the facility agreement and mortgage. Schmidt AJ found that the facility agreement was procured through actual undue influence by Ms Zhou, of which Ms Ji was aware. The transaction was so improvident—with Ms Gu receiving no benefit while Ms Ji obtained substantial profit—that it could not be explained by ordinary…