Background: The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed termination of a mother's parental rights and addressed an unusual jurisdictional problem: the superior court amended its findings after the mother had already filed her appeal. The lower court did not follow the required appellate-remand procedure, but the supreme court held that the error was harmless because the neglect theory…
Held: The supreme court first explained the correct procedure after an appeal transfers jurisdiction. A trial court may entertain a timely reconsideration motion, but if it wishes to grant relief affecting the appealed order it should issue an indicative ruling so the appellant can request a limited remand. The superior court instead amended its order directly. That was error, yet reversal…
Background: Arik Wade Ascherman, an Israeli human-rights activist, complained that masked settlers violently attacked him on April 7, 2021. He petitioned the High Court of Justice on February 13, 2025, challenging the Binyamin police’s handling of his complaint and its failure to undertake investigative steps he considered necessary. After the respondents agreed to conduct supplementary investigative…
Held: The Court deleted the contempt application. It sharply criticized both the investigation and the time taken to complete it, observing that calling the investigation “superficial” would be generous and that it was unsurprising the investigation produced no results. Nevertheless, at the time of the decision, the Court could not conclude that the respondents had failed to comply with its August…
Background: Christopher Adamson, a solicitor acting for himself, commenced proceedings by summons challenging the Manager, Costs Assessment’s referral of a solicitor-client costs assessment to costs assessor Marilyn Filewood. He alleged apprehended bias and conflict, including because the assessor was located in the same area as him, and sought to prevent or alter the assessment. The dispute…
Held: Lonergan J refused leave to file the proposed statement of claim. Proceedings begun by summons could not be converted into an entirely different damages and declaratory claim after the original relief had become ineffective. The proposed repleading was an abuse of process, and the court also noted that similar defamation proceedings against Isaac had subsequently been summarily dismissed.
Background: Apollo XI Limited advanced Nexedge Markets Limited a US$10 million unsecured loan. Nexedge, an FCA-regulated introducing broker, intended to use the funding partly to support an application to vary its regulatory permissions so that it could hold client money and offer professional clients direct trading and contracts-for-difference liquidity. After the parties’ relationship deteriorated, Apollo relied…
Held: The Court granted Nexedge permission to enforce the cross-undertaking and ordered an inquiry into whether the freezing injunction caused compensable loss and, if so, in what amount. It did not determine that Nexedge had suffered any particular loss or award damages at this stage. The inquiry was to be case-managed and heard with the substantive claims and counterclaims.
Background: Shannon Berry Cavitt Jr. participated with Caviontay Conway and Robert “Nice” White in a plan to rob Dennis Haynes at Haynes’ Wichita apartment. The evidence showed that Cavitt identified Haynes as someone who kept money and drugs and did not have a gun, then acted as a decoy so the armed men could gain entry.…
Held: The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed all convictions. It held that the aggravated-robbery acquittal did not make the evidence insufficient to support felony murder. Felony murder may rest on an attempted inherently dangerous felony, and the evidence, viewed most favorably to the State, permitted a rational jury to find that Cavitt aided an attempted or completed aggravated robbery during which Haynes…
Background: Devearl L. Bacon filed a civil action against Mark Purnell and attorney Herbert W. Mondros. Bacon alleged that he helped Purnell pursue postconviction proceedings that led to the reversal of Purnell’s murder conviction, and that Purnell promised him part of any recovery from a related civil claim against the State. According to Bacon, Purnell received…
Held: The Delaware Supreme Court dismissed the mandamus petition. It explained that mandamus requires a clear right to performance of a duty, the absence of another adequate remedy, and an arbitrary failure or refusal by the Superior Court to perform that duty.
Background: Elden Pauline filed a document on December 22, 2025, which the Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi construed as a petition for an extraordinary writ. The proceeding arose alongside CAAP-25-0000053 and Circuit Court case 1CPN-24-0000029.
Held: The Supreme Court denied the petition. It held that Pauline had not shown a clear and indisputable right to the requested relief or that no alternative means existed to obtain it.
Background: Jerry O. Warren sued emergency physician Jennifer T. (Garnet) Behrens, M.D., and Emergency Medicine of Eastern Indiana, P.C., after treatment for a severe leg injury. Warren fell from a stepladder in 2011 and arrived at Reid Hospital unable to bear weight on his right leg. The emergency-department record noted severe pain, a purple foot, and…
Held: The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed. Judge Pyle's majority opinion held that the defendants waived appellate review of the photograph's admission. Although they had opposed the image before trial, they stipulated to admission of the exhibit notebook containing it and later used the photograph while examining witnesses. Under Indiana preservation doctrine, a party cannot affirmatively accept evidence at trial and…
Background: Wesley Morgan Pollard was convicted of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse in Luzerne County in 1990, before Pennsylvania enacted Megan’s Law. When he left prison in 2003, however, Megan’s Law II required lifetime registration for that offense, and Pollard registered with the Pennsylvania State Police. Prosecutors later alleged that in April 2025 he failed to update…
Held: The Superior Court reversed in a published opinion by President Judge Emeritus Panella. Pollard fit Subchapter I’s text because he was required to register under Megan’s Law II after April 22, 1996 and before December 20, 2012. His underlying offense carried lifetime registration, so that period had not expired when SORNA II took effect. The date of his conviction did…
Background: Tower Health patients Patrick Santoro and Jessica Landis brought a putative class action alleging that Meta Pixel on Tower Health’s website captured and transmitted personally identifying information about their health conditions, treatments, and medications to Meta without authorization. They asserted a claim under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and state tort-law claims for negligence and…
Held: The Third Circuit first held that the plaintiffs had Article III standing. Their allegation that a healthcare provider surreptitiously disclosed individually identifiable information about their health conditions, treatments, and medications described a concrete privacy injury analogous to the harm addressed by the common-law tort of intrusion upon seclusion. The plaintiffs did not need to identify the precise medical information disclosed…
Background: Luis Ivan Marquez shot and killed Maurice Chase after an altercation in the lobby of an apartment building. Marquez claimed self-defense. Police arrested him about eight hours later with a loaded firearm, and forensic evidence connected that firearm to the shooting.
Held: The Appellate Court of Maryland held that Public Safety § 5-133(b)(15) creates a limited exception to Courts and Judicial Proceedings § 3-8A-23. When the State must prove that a defendant is legally disqualified from possessing a firearm because of a juvenile adjudication, and the defendant declines to stipulate, the State may introduce limited evidence of that adjudication solely to establish…
Background: The plaintiff alleged that he bought a new Audi SQ5 3.0 TDI in spring 2014. The vehicle had a 3.0-liter V6 turbo-diesel engine certified to the Euro 5 emissions standard. He sought damages from the defendant based on the alleged use of unlawful defeat devices.
Held: The Federal Court of Justice affirmed the rejection of liability under Sections 826 and 31. It also agreed that the plaintiff could not obtain “large damages”—rescission-like recovery of the purchase price in exchange for the vehicle—on the alternative statutory basis.