Background: Vincent T. Tedtaotao was nineteen years and ten months old when he fatally shot a man outside a Maite nightclub in 1985. A jury convicted him of aggravated murder, attempted murder, and deadly-weapon allegations. Guam law then made life without parole mandatory for aggravated murder, so the Superior Court imposed that sentence, plus additional time.…
Held: The Supreme Court of Guam reversed. Justice Robert J. Torres wrote that Adriatico required an evidentiary hearing once Tedtaotao made a prima facie showing that his mandatory sentence might be illegal. The relevant similarity was not the precise mix of convictions in the two cases; it was that each defendant received mandatory life without parole as a youthful offender and…
Background: Tami Malka and Avi Ohana petitioned over the death of their brother, Adi Ohana, an Israel Electric Corporation employee who was mistakenly shot by Israeli police on October 7, 2023. After finishing his shift at the Rutenberg power station near Ashkelon and receiving permission to leave at approximately 9:00 p.m., Ohana encountered a police ambush…
Held: The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the petition. President Isaac Amit, joined by Justices Yael Wilner and Yechiel Kasher, held that judicial intervention in investigative and prosecutorial discretion is reserved for rare cases involving improper considerations, extreme unreasonableness, or a substantial risk of miscarriage of justice. That restraint is especially strong where authorities are evaluating evidence and prospects of conviction, matters…
Background: Donyelle Michael Black was convicted after a 1988 bench trial of first-degree felony murder, armed robbery, and felony-firearm for crimes committed when he was 15. The trial court imposed life imprisonment without parole for felony murder. After the U.S. Supreme Court held that mandatory juvenile life-without-parole sentences are unconstitutional and that the rule applies retroactively,…
Held: The Michigan Supreme Court unanimously held that when a defendant indicates an intent to offer expert psychological evidence based on an examination at a Miller hearing, the trial court may require the defendant to undergo a similar examination by a prosecution expert. The requirement does not violate the right against self-incrimination because the defendant may decline the examination and forgo…
Background: TG Jones High Street Limited and TG Jones Retail Holdings Limited operate the former WH Smith high-street business acquired by Modella Capital Limited in 2025. After years of losses, underinvestment in stores, weaker sales following the TG Jones rebranding, and severe liquidity pressure, the companies said they could not continue without urgent restructuring. Independent evidence…
Held: Mr Justice Hildyard sanctioned both plans, concluding after close review that they were not unfair and had a reasonable prospect of achieving their purpose. He accepted that failure of the plans would lead to an imminent, value-destructive administration and found the proposed allocation of restructuring burdens and benefits sufficiently coherent, balanced and proportionate to justify imposing the plans on dissenting…
Background: E.B., a cognitively impaired, blind adult who uses a wheelchair, alleged that Jesus Manuel Ortiz sexually assaulted her while transporting her as an employee of taxi company MKBS, LLC. E.B.’s guardian and personal representative, J.B., sued Ortiz for intentional torts and sued MKBS under negligence, respondeat superior, and related theories. Ortiz did not answer, resulting…
Held: The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed. It held that a non-defaulting codefendant may call a defaulting defendant as a witness when no other law prohibits the testimony. Although Ortiz could not contradict his admitted liability at a default-damages hearing concerning the claims against him, Rule 55 did not prevent him from testifying as a subpoenaed witness at MKBS’s separate trial. Because…
Background: The appellant author authorized the appellee publisher to publish 14 books, but the parties did not execute written contracts and disputed the terms of their arrangement. The author alleged that the publisher had failed to pay agreed royalties and had permitted electronic versions of Books 1 through 13, including library distribution, without authorization. The author…
Held: The Intellectual Property High Court modified the judgment and enjoined the publisher from reproducing or distributing all 14 books. It found no objective evidence that the parties had agreed to royalties and rejected the contention that nonpayment constituted a breach. It also held that the arrangements merely authorized publication and did not establish statutory publishing rights subject to the three-year…
Background: In July 2024, the Division of Family Services investigated an urgent report concerning the welfare of Cedasha Walker’s three children. At the family home, an investigator found the two younger children dirty, smelling of urine and other body odors, and bearing several red marks. The home contained scattered dirty diapers and trash, smelled strongly of…
Held: The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed. After independently reviewing the record under Supreme Court Rule 26.1(c), the court held that the Family Court’s factual findings were supported by the record and discerned no error in its application of the law to those facts.
Background: J.H. alleged that, between 1976 and 1978, a custodian and wrestling coach at Warren Hills Junior High School sexually abused him on school property and at the coach’s home. J.H., then twelve and thirteen, alleged that the school allowed the coach to transport him from school to the coach’s residence. He sued the school, the…
Held: The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed. It held that eliminating the CSAA’s “within the household” requirement was a substantive, not procedural, amendment because it expanded the universe of persons and entities subject to passive-abuser liability and created liability where it previously did not exist.
Background: Bangladesh Rural Electrification Board (BREB), a Bangladeshi state-owned corporation, contracted with KSE Electricals Pte Ltd (India) to supply electrical distribution accessories. BREB later alleged that guy accessories supplied under four contracts had deficient zinc coating, relying on post-landing inspection and university test reports. It sought to reject the goods and impose a contractual penalty.
Held: Justice Kristy Tan dismissed the setting-aside application. The tribunal's later direction to proceed with closing submissions regardless of whether further joint testing was completed superseded its earlier procedural order. That was a procedural decision within the tribunal's discretion, not a breach of an agreed arbitral procedure. BREB had also not objected during the arbitration and instead invited a determination on…
Background: After W.D. admitted a 2019 sexual-assault allegation, the Youth Court adjudicated him delinquent and placed him on probation. Following unsuccessful residential placements and an earlier probation-revocation proceeding, the court committed him to the Department of Corrections until age 18, with probationary conditions continuing until age 21.
Held: The Montana Supreme Court reversed and remanded. Section 41-5-208 authorized the Youth Court to transfer jurisdiction and supervisory responsibility, but it did not authorize the court to impose a new custodial disposition, extend supervision, or add sex-offender registration at the transfer hearing.
Background: Abdihamit A. Ali was convicted of elevated aggravated assault, reckless conduct with a dangerous weapon, possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, and criminal mischief. The trial court imposed a fifteen-year sentence, with all but seven years suspended, on the assault count and concurrent sentences on the remaining counts.
Held: The court vacated the judgment and remanded for another resentencing. A remand requiring merger and resentencing requires a new sentencing proceeding at which both parties may be heard and a de novo three-step sentencing analysis under 17-A M.R.S. § 1602. The trial court erred as a matter of law by treating the appellate mandate as requiring the same sentence and…
Background: Conrad Peter Lardner was being tried for the murder of David Vale. A central issue was whether the Crown could disprove self-defence beyond reasonable doubt. CCTV footage captured only an incomplete and indistinct part of the events, and the fatal stabbing itself was obscured from view.
Held: Campbell J held that the recording was obtained in contravention of s 7(1) of the Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW). LC Davis could not rely on the exception for a recording reasonably necessary to protect her lawful interests: a mother's desire to exonerate her son was not her own relevant lawful interest, and in any event the covert recording was…