Background: The case originated from a dispute over a government infrastructure tender. After the tender was awarded to a group of companies (the "Winning Companies"), several losing bidders filed an administrative petition in the Jerusalem District Court challenging the award. That petition was ultimately dismissed. The petitioner in the current action is a foreign company that…
Held: The Supreme Court, in a decision by Justice Daphna Barak-Erez, granted leave to appeal and partially accepted the appeal. The Court reversed the District Court's decision and remanded the case for reconsideration on its merits. The Supreme Court held that the lower court had erred by dismissing the request outright instead of conducting a proper balancing of the relevant interests.
Background: Joseph Canty, injured in a car accident, brought a tort action against Michael Chester Mason, the alleged at-fault driver. Canty had opted out of personal protection insurance (PIP) coverage under Michigan's no-fault act, MCL 500.3101 et seq., a choice available to him because he maintained "qualified health coverage" through federal Medicare Parts A and B.…
Held: The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the Court of Appeals' judgment, remanding the case for further proceedings. The Court addressed two key issues regarding the interpretation of the 2019 amendments to the no-fault act.
Background: A jury convicted the defendant, Antoine Keaton, of murder and criminal possession of a firearm for a shooting death that occurred during a street vigil in Hartford. During the investigation, police used a program called Milestone to compile and synchronize footage from various public street cameras. The resulting video compilation depicted a man shooting the…
Held: The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, rejecting both of the defendant's claims on appeal. First, Keaton argued the admission of the Milestone video compilation violated his Sixth Amendment right of confrontation because he could not cross-examine the program's developer. The court held that this claim was affirmatively waived at trial. The record clearly showed that defense counsel stated, "No…
Background: The plaintiff, Kaifan Limited, owns a car park in Ballyfermot, Dublin. In October 2018, it entered into a four-year, nine-month lease with the defendant, Mr. Kearney. The lease stipulated an annual rent of €25,000 and restricted use to a car wash business, expressly forbidding subletting without the landlord's written consent. At the same time, the…
Held: The High Court granted the plaintiff an interlocutory injunction, ordering the defendant to vacate the car park pending a full trial. The court applied the high threshold of a "strong case," considering whether the plaintiff was likely to succeed at the eventual hearing. The defendant argued that the signed written agreements did not reflect the true verbal deal. He claimed…
Background: The deceased, Terrence Barlow, died with an estate worth over $5.6 million. His will left the vast majority of his assets to three of his four daughters. The fourth daughter (the plaintiff's mother) received a much smaller, conditional legacy due to a long-standing estrangement. The will made no provision for any of his grandchildren, including…
Held: The Supreme Court of New South Wales held that Tianna was an eligible person to apply for provision but awarded her only a "small sum" from the estate, rejecting her substantial claim. The court found that Tianna was partially dependent on the deceased for accommodation during the periods she lived with him, satisfying the threshold requirement to make a claim.…
Background: Alexandra Miller and Wylan Faulk acquired a dog named Bigsby while they were a couple. After separating, they shared possession of Bigsby on a rotating schedule for about two years. In January 2026, Faulk declined to return the dog at the scheduled exchange, prompting Miller to file a small claims action primarily seeking Bigsby’s return…
Held: The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court granted mandamus relief, vacated the March 4, 2026 ruling, and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case without prejudice. Under HRS § 633-27, the small claims division’s jurisdiction is limited to qualifying claims for money only, residential security-deposit disputes, and claims for the return of qualifying leased or rented personal property. A dispute over ownership and…
Background: Dana Kearney was convicted of murder and related offenses arising from Christopher Sharp’s fatal stabbing in August 2013. Alicia Boone, Kearney’s romantic partner and the mother of his child, hired and paid attorney Neil G. Duffy to represent him. Boone later testified for the State about differing statements Kearney allegedly made concerning Sharp’s stabbing.
Held: The New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously affirmed. It held that a third party’s payment of a criminal defendant’s legal fees does not create a per se conflict of interest, even when the payer later testifies for the State. Instead, courts must conduct a fact-specific inquiry into whether the payment arrangement materially limited counsel’s representation and created an actual conflict with…
Background: The appellant, Mr. Tan Kai Yuan, pleaded guilty to driving without reasonable consideration, an offence under the Road Traffic Act. While on the Ayer Rajah Expressway (AYE), he realised he was in the wrong lane and needed to move across several lanes to reach his intended exit. He braked abruptly and began to filter across…
Held: The High Court allowed the appeal, substituting the five-day imprisonment sentence with a sentence of one day's imprisonment. The five-year disqualification period was left undisturbed. Justice Hri Kumar Nair JCA agreed with the lower court that this was a "borderline case" and that the custodial threshold had, in fact, been crossed. The court rejected the appellant's submission that only a…
Background: Acer and ASUS were involved in Patents Court proceedings against Nokia concerning RAND patent-licensing terms. After the Court of Appeal stayed those proceedings so the parties could arbitrate their dispute, Acer and ASUS applied to lift the stay temporarily and amend the existing confidentiality regime. They sought permission for confidential materials produced in the court…
Held: Mr Justice Mellor granted the application and directed the parties to prepare an order implementing his decisions. He accepted Acer and ASUS’s prejudice analysis, finding that postponing access would impede their preparation for the arbitration, while Nokia’s principal burden was notifying counterparties. The court considered amendment of the confidentiality regime an obviously necessary step that facilitated the Court of Appeal’s…
Background: Sara Mohamed Samy El-Shall represented three clients in workers’ compensation matters. In each representation, she repeatedly failed to answer communications or keep the client adequately informed. She effectively abandoned the clients, including one whose medical examination and hearing were delayed and another who repeatedly asked El-Shall to withdraw so that she could obtain new counsel.
Held: The Supreme Court of Maryland concluded that El-Shall violated Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct 19-301.3 by failing to act diligently; 19-301.4(a) and (b) by failing to communicate adequately; and 19-301.16(d) by failing to protect her clients’ interests when the representations effectively ended. Her conduct across the three matters amounted to repeated failures to communicate with and effective abandonment of…
Background: The case originated from a determination by the New Castle County Board of License, Inspection & Review, which found appellant Miroslaw E. Kostyshyn to be in violation of the New Castle County Property Maintenance Code. This administrative decision was subsequently appealed to the Delaware Superior Court.
Held: After careful consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, the Delaware Supreme Court issued an order affirming the judgment of the Superior Court. The Supreme Court found it "evident that the judgment below should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons stated by the Superior Court."
Background: The Massachusetts Appeals Court vacated key portions of an alimony modification because the Probate and Family Court did not account for the former spouses’ marital standard of living and did not adequately justify ending alimony when the payor reached full retirement age. The ruling clarifies how courts must set the amount and duration of a…
Held: The Appeals Court held that the trial judge used an incorrect framework to determine the amount. Because the original divorce judgment preceded the Alimony Reform Act, the modification was governed by the standards in effect when that judgment entered. General Laws chapter 208, section 34, required consideration of the parties’ “station,” meaning the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage.…