Background: Attorney Phillip Ben-Zion Leiser faced disciplinary action from the Virginia State Bar (VSB) for statements made in a series of court filings related to two separate cases. In the first case, after losing on procedural grounds, Leiser accused the Virginia Court of Appeals of "intellectual sophistry" and this Court of creating "straw-man arguments" and a…
Held: The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the three-judge court's ruling and the three-year suspension. The Court first dismissed Leiser's procedural argument that he was denied due process when the lower court overruled his demurrer. Citing precedent, the Court confirmed that a demurrer is not the proper procedural vehicle in an attorney disciplinary proceeding. It further held that Leiser was not…
Background: Raymond Evans was convicted of first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon for the death of his girlfriend, Cecilia Perez. Evans met Perez on a dating app in the fall of 2022 and moved into her Omaha apartment several months later. Perez was last seen on the evening of Friday, November 17, 2023.…
Held: The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed Evans' convictions and sentences. Evans raised four primary issues on appeal: (1) the trial court erred by denying his motion for a mistrial, (2) the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction for use of a deadly weapon, (3) the court improperly admitted evidence of prior bad acts, and (4) his trial counsel was ineffective.…
Background: Around 11:30 p.m., a Lewes police officer, Sergeant Moyer, saw Henry Tang driving without his headlights on. The officer began following Tang's vehicle, at which point the headlights turned on. Instead of initiating a stop, the officer continued to follow. He then observed Tang's vehicle weave within its lane and drive onto a bike trail…
Held: The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, rejecting all three of Tang's arguments on appeal. First, the Court held that Sergeant Moyer had no legal duty to activate his MVR when he first observed the traffic violations. Citing precedent, the Court confirmed that Delaware law does not impose an "affirmative duty to video record all driving under the influence investigations."…
Background: The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that federal telecommunications law barred Pittsfield’s board of health from shutting down a cell tower because of concerns about radiofrequency emissions. The ruling preserves one national regulatory standard for emissions from wireless facilities that comply with Federal Communications Commission limits. Local public-health authority remains important, but it cannot be…
Held: The SJC affirmed under obstacle preemption, a branch of conflict preemption that invalidates state or local action standing in the way of Congress’s purposes. Chief Justice Budd explained that the Telecommunications Act was designed to promote competition, rapid deployment, and efficient nationwide wireless networks. Congress placed technical radiofrequency regulation with the FCC because radio waves and wireless networks do not…
Background: The Claimant, Aaron Scott Canham, owns Upper Butterworth End, a Grade II listed former farmhouse. Adjacent to his property is Ladstone Park, a caravan site. In 2020, the site owner began constructing three large concrete-topped plinths to serve as bases for park homes, with work stopping in early 2021. The plinths were located close to…
Held: The High Court (Mr Justice Swift) dismissed the application for judicial review. The court addressed the Claimant's main arguments in turn. First, it rejected the contention that the works carried out in 2025 (the brick skirt, patio, etc.) meant the original building operation was not "substantially completed" until 2025. The court held that what constituted the relevant "building operation" was…
Background: In 1881, the construction of a dam raised the water level of Lac Masson in Quebec, submerging a strip of privately-owned land along the shoreline. Between 1959 and 1971, a developer sold numerous lakefront lots to various buyers. The deeds of sale described these lots as being "bounded by Lake" but made no mention of…
Held: In an 8-1 majority decision, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the developer's appeal and affirmed the Court of Appeal's judgment. The Court held that the submerged strips of land were legal "accessories" to the lakefront lots sold to the homeowners. As such, ownership of the submerged land was transferred to the buyers along with the principal properties at the…
Background: Elza Charles Sanders was indicted and convicted of one count of sexual battery and one count of molestation after a child victim, identified as Rachel, reported that Sanders had molested and raped her. Rachel disclosed the abuse to a Children's Advocacy Center during an interview concerning another incident. Sanders was sentenced to life in prison…
Held: The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed Sanders's convictions, finding that his arguments were either waived or without merit. Regarding the alleged discovery violation, the Court held that Sanders failed to properly preserve the issue for appeal because he did not obtain a ruling on his pretrial objection, agreed to resolve the matter outside of court, and did not seek a continuance…
Background: Marconi Palmer, Jr. was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court for Somerset County for driving under the influence (DUI) and driving while impaired (DWI). These convictions stemmed from a single-vehicle accident where his vehicle veered off a dry roadway and struck a speed-limit sign. Upon law enforcement's arrival, Palmer was found near the…
Held: The Supreme Court of Maryland reversed the Appellate Court's decision, reinstating Marconi Palmer, Jr.'s convictions for DUI and DWI. The Court clarified that the standard for evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence in *all* criminal cases, including alcohol-related driving offenses, is the "no reasonable trier of fact" standard established by *Jackson v. Virginia* and adopted in *Smith v. State*. This…
Background: Kirralie Smith, a director and spokesperson for Gender Awareness Australia Ltd (trading as Binary Australia), made public acts, including an article and social media posts, concerning transgender women Stephanie Blanch and Riley Dennis. These acts, which identified Blanch and Dennis playing in women’s sports, were alleged to constitute unlawful vilification. Blanch and Dennis initiated proceedings…
Held: The Supreme Court of New South Wales largely dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal. It affirmed the Local Court's finding that Kirralie Smith and Binary Australia unlawfully vilified Stephanie Blanch and Riley Dennis under ss 38R and 38S of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW). The Court confirmed the constitutional validity of these anti-vilification provisions, relying on established precedent (*Sunol v Collier (No…
Background: Plaintiff McKenna Frownfelter, a minor, was seriously injured in a car accident while a passenger in her father’s vehicle. Her parents were divorced and shared joint physical custody under a 2011 judgment that specified a 50/50 parenting time split. In practice, however, the plaintiff spent approximately 75% of her time at her mother's house and…
Held: In a significant reversal, the Michigan Supreme Court overruled its decision in Grange. The Court held that a child custody order is no longer the sole, dispositive evidence of a child's domicile for no-fault insurance purposes. It rejected the Grange rule—that a custody order establishes domicile "by operation of law"—as legally unsupported, impractical, and frequently at odds with the actual…
Background: RIC Dormitory (SG) Pte Ltd (the "Company") brought a claim against its exiting shareholder, H8 Holdings Pte Ltd ("H8"), for the repayment of an outstanding loan of $4.289 million. This loan originated from the Company's acquisition by H8 and POP Holdings Pte Ltd (the other shareholder) as a joint venture vehicle. Following a prior shareholder…
Held: The High Court determined that the Company had successfully established a prima facie case for summary judgment. The court noted that H8 had repeatedly admitted the existence and specific quantum of the $4.289 million debt in its pleadings and previous affidavits, including in an application where H8 sought to set off and waive portions of this very debt, thereby acknowledging…
Background: The Maine Human Rights Commission and a tenant filed a complaint against Robert Larkin, alleging housing discrimination under the Maine Human Rights Act (MHRA) and the Fair Housing Act (FHA). A judicial settlement conference was held, after which the court issued a record form stating that the parties had reached a "full and final settlement."…
Held: The Maine Supreme Judicial Court vacated the Superior Court's judgment, concluding that there was insufficient competent evidence in the record to support the finding that the parties mutually intended to be bound by a definite settlement agreement. The Court emphasized that settlement agreements are analyzed as contracts, requiring mutual intent and sufficiently definite terms for enforceability. The record lacked a…