Daily Case Law
Wednesday, September 2, 2026 · 12 decisions worth your morning coffee
Massachusetts

Commonwealth v. Hood — SJC requires case-specific nexus to police misconduct

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Georges · 2026-08-31appellate procedureconstitutionalcriminal

Background: The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the denial of Craig Hood's effort to withdraw guilty pleas entered more than thirty years ago, holding that later revelations of corruption in a related Boston police investigation did not establish that misconduct infected Hood's own case or materially affected his decision to plead guilty. The decision clarifies the…

Held: Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Georges explained that the several theories—suppression of exculpatory evidence, newly discovered evidence, ineffective assistance, and the protective order—ultimately required Hood to establish materiality or prejudice. He had to show a reasonable probability that the information would have materially influenced him not to plead guilty and that rejecting the plea would have been rational. The…

Read the full analysis →

Israel

Anonymous v. State of Israel — Supreme Court kept minor detained but required consideration of improved home detention proposals

Supreme Court of Israel · יחיאל כשר (Judicial Selection Committee of Israel, 2022) · 2026-08-31criminal

Background: The appellant was a minor charged with participating in the robbery of an 86-year-old woman and her caregiver when he was 14. According to the indictment, the assailants used tear gas, pushed the women to the ground, and stole the caregiver’s bag; the elderly victim suffered a fractured pelvis requiring surgery and institutional rehabilitation. The…

Held: Justice Yechiel Kasher held that the proceeding was properly a request for permission to appeal, rather than an appeal as of right, under section 22H(d) of the Criminal Procedure (Enforcement Powers—Arrests) Law. Although such permission ordinarily is reserved for a broader legal question or exceptional individual circumstances, the Court granted permission because of the minor’s exceptionally young age and considered…

Read the full analysis →

Ohio

Howard v. Sackett — Ohio high court partly granted inmate’s public-records writ and awarded $4,000

Supreme Court of Ohio · Per Curiam · 2026-09-01civil procedure

Background: Devin D. Howard, an inmate at Lake Erie Correctional Institution, sent public-records coordinator Laura Sackett nine electronic requests between April 2024 and March 2025. The requests covered staff schedules, records identifying communications providers, body-camera and surveillance footage, policy definitions, an incoming-funds form, withheld mail, staff emails concerning inmate electronic filing, and a mail-withholding form.

Held: The court granted the writ for request Nos. 6 and 8. Sackett had to provide the blank incoming-funds form, which was a maintained and regularly used public record, and unredacted copies of previously produced emails because she identified no statutory exemption permitting removal of employees’ work cellphone numbers and work email addresses. The court denied the writ for the other…

Read the full analysis →

United Kingdom

APL Holdco v Apple Properties — High Court dismissed petition to wind up Isle of Man property company

High Court (Chancery Division) · Philip Rainey (Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr of Walton-on-the-Hill, 2025) · 2026-09-01civil procedureinsolvency

Background: Apple Properties Limited, an Isle of Man company, owned 11 unencumbered London rental properties. Its two shares were held through APL Holdco Limited for Habib Bush and Lake Limited for Habib’s brother, Shafe Buksh. Following earlier Isle of Man litigation, the Manx court declared that Lake held one share for Shafe, confirmed Shafe and Habib’s…

Held: The court dismissed the petition. Although Apple was functionally deadlocked and Holdco would otherwise have had a prima facie basis for relief, the court found that Habib—whose conduct was attributable to Holdco—was the sole cause of both the deadlock and the breakdown in trust. His conduct, assisted by Omar, included excluding Shafe from the company, failing to provide required financial…

Read the full analysis →

Ireland

NK — High Court refuses challenge to IPAS accommodation transfer

High Court (Ireland) · Mr. Justice Conleth Bradley (Michael D. Higgins, 2023) · 2026-09-01civil procedureconstitutional

Background: NK, an Algerian national, had been refused refugee status, subsidiary protection and permission to remain. A deportation order was made on 11 June 2025 and notified on 18 June 2025. She did not challenge those decisions, but sought revocation of the deportation order under section 3(11) of the Immigration Act 1999; that request remained under…

Held: Mr Justice Bradley refused leave to apply for judicial review. NK had ceased to be an “applicant” and “recipient” under the International Protection Act 2015, the Reception Conditions Regulations 2018 and the Reception Conditions Directive once the final protection refusal issued. Her pending section 3(11) revocation request did not suspend the deportation order or restore that status.

Read the full analysis →

Australia

Pratt v Ditton — Employer liable for worker’s crush injury

Supreme Court of New South Wales · Fagan · 2026-09-01civil procedureemploymentpersonal injury tort

Background: Thomas Pratt, a labourer employed by Patrick Ditton, suffered a crush injury to his left foot at a Pennant Hills construction site in June 2016. Steel I-beams, each weighing at least 750 kg, were being unloaded by crane. After a pair of beams was set down, Mr Ditton’s supervisor and licensed dogman, Gary Dries, called…

Held: Fagan J held that Mr Ditton breached his non-delegable duty as employer. A safe system required a qualified dogman to inspect the heavy beams from a safe position after placement, ensure their stability, resettle them if necessary, keep other workers clear, and provide a barrier or separate supervision of the danger area. Those precautions were omitted, and Mr Dries affirmatively…

Read the full analysis →

Hawaii

Liggett v. Lutey — Hawaii Supreme Court dismisses Maui mayoral election challenge

Supreme Court of Hawaii · Vladimir P. Devens; Sabrina S. McKenna; Todd W. Eddins; Lisa M. Ginoza; Daniel M. Gluck · 2026-08-31civil procedure

Background: Travis A. Liggett, an unsuccessful candidate in Maui County’s August 8, 2026 first special election for mayor, finished sixth. Under the Maui County Charter, the two highest vote-getters advance to the second special election.

Held: The Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim in a primary-election contest. Although HRS § 11-172 requires an election-contest complaint to allege causes that could cause a difference in the result, the court explained that the alleged causes must support relief authorized by HRS § 11-173.5(b): deciding which candidate was nominated to proceed.

Read the full analysis →

Idaho

Smith v. Poulter — Idaho Supreme Court orders refund of excessive court-records fee

Idaho Supreme Court (Civil) · Chief Justice Bevan · 2026-08-31civil procedure

Background: Bryan Smith requested copies of judgments and certificates of service in 169 Bonneville County small-claims cases. The clerk charged him $352 under a 2017 local administrative order, including a $1-per-page digital-transmission charge and a $10 digital-media fee. Smith paid after his request for a reduction was denied.

Held: The Idaho Supreme Court reversed. Quasi-judicial immunity is a personal-liability defense available to officials sued in their individual capacities; it does not bar this official-capacity action against the county clerk. The district court therefore erred by dismissing the case on immunity grounds.

Read the full analysis →

Indiana

NIPSCO v. Department of State Revenue — Tax Court limits utility expert testimony

Indiana Tax Court · McAdam · 2026-08-31civil procedureevidencetax

Background: Northern Indiana Public Service Company sought a refund of Indiana sales and use tax paid on property used to transport electricity owned by third parties during 2015 through 2017. NIPSCO claims the purchases qualify for Indiana's public-transportation exemption, Indiana Code section 6-2.5-5-27. With cross-motions for summary judgment pending, the Department of State Revenue offered two…

Held: Judge McAdam granted the motion in part and denied it in part. Under Indiana Evidence Rule 702(a), Williams's education and experience qualified him to explain the general nature of electricity, including electromagnetic energy propagation, electron behavior, and the need for generation and load to remain balanced. Those foundational and generally accepted principles also satisfied Rule 702(b)'s reliability requirement. His professional…

Read the full analysis →

Federal

United States v. Berger — Third Circuit upheld machine-gun conviction and silencer-registration requirement

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Restrepo; Bibas; Chung · 2026-09-01constitutionalcriminal

Background: Federal agents intercepted a package containing three silencers addressed to Joseph Paul Berger’s home in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. A warranted search uncovered more than five dozen firearms, including thirteen fully automatic weapons, mostly AK-47 variants, as well as twelve silencers and evidence that Berger and his father had purchased parts used to convert semiautomatic firearms into…

Held: The Third Circuit affirmed Berger’s conviction and sentence. Applying the framework clarified by the en banc court in Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs v. Attorney General of New Jersey, the panel held that machine guns are “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment’s text at Bruen’s first step. At the second step, however, the court concluded that machine…

Read the full analysis →

Illinois

Mandel v. Krochmal — affirmed dismissal of campaign-defamation claims and ordered reconsideration of the anti-SLAPP issue

Illinois Appellate Court · Presiding Justice C.A. Walker (Illinois Supreme Court, 2018); Justice Gamrath; Justice Pucinski · 2026-08-31civil procedure

Background: Marybelle Mandel, then a North Riverside village trustee, ran for mayor in 2021. She and her husband, David Mandel, alleged that supporters of an opposing political party defamed them during the campaign through statements at village meetings, social-media posts, campaign literature, and newspaper publications. The statements included accusations that the Mandels were criminals, thieves, embezzlers,…

Held: The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the challenged defamation claims. It held that statements that the Mandels hated Hispanics, harassed workers, attacked an employee, preyed on elderly people, or were criminals, thieves, liars, or deceivers were, as pleaded and in context, too vague, figurative, conclusory, or lacking in verifiable factual content to support defamation per se. Ranieri’s reference to…

Read the full analysis →

Canada

R v Regis — Court upholds 16-year sentence for manslaughter and indignity to remains

Court of Appeal for British Columbia · Honourable Justice Winteringham (Hon. Arif Virani, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, 2023); Honourable Justice Francis (Minister of Justice Sean Fraser (Governor in Council appointment), 2025) · 2026-08-31criminal

Background: Obnes Regis pleaded guilty, after the Crown closed its case in a months-long trial, to manslaughter and offering an indignity to the remains of his intimate partner, Naomi Onotera. During an argument in their home, Regis punched Onotera in the head, causing her to fall. He did not call for assistance as she lay gasping…

Held: The Court of Appeal granted the extension of time and leave to appeal but dismissed the sentence appeal. Applying the deferential standard governing sentencing appeals, the Court held that Regis had not shown an error in principle affecting the sentence or that the global sentence was demonstrably unfit.

Read the full analysis →

Want this in your inbox every morning, filtered to your jurisdictions?
Subscribe free at dailycaselaw.com →
Full analyses at Case Law Wire. Summaries are AI-generated and are not legal advice.