Background: The applicants, members of the Al-Atrash family, live in Walaja, a village divided between territory governed by Israeli law and the West Bank. They sought permanent residency under a 1967 arrangement available to people who had lived continuously since before 1967 in territory later brought under Israeli law. The Population and Immigration Authority rejected their…
Held: By a 2–1 majority, the Supreme Court denied leave to appeal. Justice Yechiel Kasher, joined by Justice Yael Wilner, held that third-instance review of factual determinations by the specialized Appeals Tribunal is exceptionally limited. Findings that the family’s center of life was not in Walaja in 1967 were already final and could not be relitigated through arguments that official records…
Background: Andrew Charles Smith and Mavis Stanley lived together in Bourke in a relationship marked by domestic violence and illicit drug use. Between late 26 October and the morning of 29 October 2024, Smith killed Stanley by inflicting multiple blunt-force injuries, most likely with a rod-like weapon. Her body was later found in the street outside…
Held: Hamill J found on the balance of probabilities that Smith was suffering from a mental health impairment when he killed Stanley. Although the psychiatric evidence indicated that he knew the nature and quality of his act, the Court found that his delusional beliefs and disordered thinking meant he could not reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about…
Background: The underlying dispute concerned a consumer whose vehicle was approached and stolen by criminals in a business's parking area. The lower court found a causal connection between the harm and the business's failure to provide adequate security. In subsequent proceedings, the Superior Tribunal de Justiça (STJ) concluded that challenges to the finding of civil liability…
Held: The STJ's Special Court unanimously denied the internal appeal. It held that the challenged judgment contained sufficient reasoning and therefore complied with Article 93(IX) of the Federal Constitution and STF Topic 339. Under that binding rule, judicial decisions must give reasons, even briefly, but need not examine every allegation or item of evidence in detail, nor does the constitutional requirement…
Background: Thomas Patrick Ramsey hosted a Halloween party at his family’s home while he was a high-school senior. According to the State’s evidence, Ramsey provided alcohol to minors and chained thirteen-year-old Paul W. to a pole in the space beneath the house while Paul was intoxicated. Witnesses testified that Paul screamed to be released, that Ramsey…
Held: The Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentences. It held that the trial court did not err by rejecting Ramsey’s proposed duress instruction, which lacked evidentiary support as a defense for Ramsey and included an incorrect legal standard. The trial court also had no duty to formulate and give a necessity instruction on its own when Ramsey never…
Background: Mother and Father are the unmarried parents of B.A.G.A., born in 2015. Mother was the custodial parent, and no court had previously allocated parental rights and responsibilities. In July 2025, Father moved for custody, seeking a court order that would allow him to see the child regularly. Mother requested an in-camera interview of the child…
Held: The Second District affirmed. Mother’s objections challenged the factual determination that parenting time with Father was in the child’s best interest. Under Juvenile Rule 40, objections to a magistrate’s factual findings must be supported by a transcript of all relevant evidence presented to the magistrate.
Background: The Waterfront in Naples Condominium Association hired Reynolds Ventures to provide water, mold-remediation, and restoration services after Hurricane Ian damaged the condominium complex. After billing the Association, Reynolds recorded a construction lien and sued for breach of contract, lien foreclosure, and unjust enrichment.
Held: The Sixth District reversed. It held that the Association’s timely filing satisfied both section 44.103(5), Florida Statutes, and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.820(h). Although the filing did not use the precise words “notice of rejection,” its request for a trial de novo from the specified nonbinding arbitration award plainly notified Reynolds that the Association refused to accept that award.
Background: This dispossessory action began in magistrate court. After an adverse ruling, Brookhaven Mountain Retreat, LLC and the other applicants petitioned the superior court for review.
Held: The Court of Appeals dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction. Under OCGA § 44-7-56(b)(1), appeals in dispossessory actions, including applications for discretionary review, must be filed within seven days after entry of judgment.
Background: Two brothers inherited real property from their late father. After one brother sued to dissolve their co-ownership, a receiver was appointed and the appellant agreed in 2021 to sell his interest to the respondent. The family court later gave the respondent 90 additional days to complete the transaction, but the Beersheba District Court, in a…
Held: Supreme Court President Yitzhak Amit dismissed the appeal. The appellant’s objections to the judge’s case-management decisions and remarks were both substantially delayed and appellate in nature. A disqualification claim must be raised at the first opportunity, and judicial rulings, efficiency-oriented comments, and criticism of a litigant do not by themselves establish a real possibility of bias.
Background: Three criminal matters were pending before Judge Wass SC in the District Court of New South Wales. TH was awaiting completion of a judge-alone trial concerning alleged physical and sexual assaults of children; MB had been convicted of assault and child sexual offences and was awaiting sentence; and Stephen Allan Sharp had pleaded guilty to…
Held: The Court of Criminal Appeal allowed all three appeals. Applying the objective test for apprehended bias, it held that a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the Judge might not bring an impartial mind to the proceedings. The question was one of appearance and real possibility, including possible subconscious bias, rather than the Judge’s actual state of mind or…
Background: Dana Street, proceeding pro se, filed a direct appeal after the trial court denied her motion for a new trial and/or reconsideration. That motion followed the final judgment and decree in her divorce action.
Held: The Court of Appeals of Georgia dismissed Street’s direct appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Street did not use the required discretionary-appeal procedure for a divorce case.
Background: The applicant is the father of a minor born in 2010 who had been declared a child in need of care. After community-based treatment failed amid noncooperation and the minor’s condition deteriorated—including school nonattendance, involvement in several criminal cases, failure to cooperate with probation services, and suspected drug use—the Juvenile Court ordered his removal from…
Held: Justice Daphne Barak-Erez denied leave to appeal without requesting a response. Even under the comparatively lenient standard applied to requests concerning decisions under Israel’s Youth (Care and Supervision) Law, 1960, the application did not warrant a further appeal. The lower courts’ rulings rested on professional assessments and the particular circumstances of this minor, raised no question of principle, and did…
Background: Fahad Ullah, acting without legal representation, brought proceedings alleging that OM Security Pty Ltd and three other respondents contravened the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) during and at the termination of his employment as a security officer. During early case management, he requested an urgent hearing because he mistakenly believed several respondents had failed to…
Held: Justice Wigney dismissed the application for leave to appeal. The primary judge’s reasons were sparse, but the basis of the decision was sufficiently apparent: Ullah had unreasonably caused an urgent, unnecessary case management hearing to be convened, requiring OM Security and Meriton to incur costs. That conclusion was open on the evidence and disclosed no error of principle or other…