Background: The Alaska Supreme Court reversed a property-classification ruling that allowed a divorcing spouse to recover $212,537 in inherited funds from the marital home as her separate property. The court held that a spouse's uncorroborated, self-serving testimony about an oral agreement is legally insufficient to overcome the presumption that separate property became marital when it was…
Held: The supreme court held that Stephanie's inheritance was transmuted into marital property. Under Alaska law, commingling separate and marital property creates a presumption that the owning spouse intended a gift to the marital estate. The owning spouse bears the burden of producing enough evidence for a reasonable person to conclude that no gift was intended. Whether the evidence clears that…
Background: The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the termination of a mother’s parental rights to three children, holding that shortcomings in the Department of Family Services’ work did not interfere with her ability to understand or complete the steps required for reunification. The case began after deputies found drug paraphernalia in a hotel room where the mother…
Held: Justice Fenn, writing for a unanimous court, rejected the mother’s argument that DFS acted arbitrarily and capriciously by failing to follow its own policies. The Court acknowledged several deficiencies: the caseworker did not meet monthly with the mother during incarceration, staffing limitations prevented DFS from providing more transportation, and prison transfers caused delays in arranging visits. But those failures did…
Background: Twenty-eight organizations operating rehabilitative day-care centers for children with disabilities challenged the public funding of paramedical services such as physiotherapy, occupational therapy, and treatment for communication disorders. Children from birth to age three who attend these centers receive four funded hours of paramedical services each week. Their health funds pay the centers directly at a…
Held: The Court unanimously dismissed the petition and discharged the order nisi. Justice Ruth Ronnen, joined by Justices Yael Willner and Ofer Grosskopf, held that no ground existed for judicial intervention in the state’s decision to retain the existing rate. The specially appointed team had conducted a thorough professional process, consulted the petitioners and health funds, reviewed expert materials, visited relevant…
Background: MKR, a lecturer and academic, alleged that since December 2024 thousands of internet domains had used her full legal name, sometimes including a little-known middle initial, in URLs or search-result snippets. The links redirected users to pornographic or adult content. The conduct continued in changing forms for more than 18 months, including through short-lived domains,…
Held: Mrs Justice Hill granted the requested Norwich Pharmacal order against Mesh Digital, 123-Reg and Host Europe Group. MKR had a good arguable case that the domain activity constituted harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and defamation by implication. Its persistence, timing and adaptation following complaints supported an inference that MKR had been deliberately targeted, while associating her name…
Background: Gemma McEnerney, an unmarried 60-year-old woman who was unemployed, in ill health and of limited mobility, sought court approval under section 115A(9) of the Personal Insolvency Acts 2012–2021 for a personal insolvency arrangement that would permit her to remain in her Dublin home. Her mortgage balance was approximately €133,096 against a home valued at €295,000.…
Held: Ms Justice Nessa Cahill allowed the appeal and approved the arrangement. Although it would leave McEnerney below the Insolvency Service of Ireland’s guideline reasonable-living-expense figures, those figures were guidelines rather than inflexible minimums. McEnerney’s modest lifestyle, medical card, social-welfare entitlements and payment history supported the conclusion that she was reasonably likely to comply. The statutory test required a reasonable likelihood…
Background: After purchasing a straw blower manufactured by Atelier Robert, farmer [N] [D] widened its rear door so that he could enter the machine and remove the protective netting around straw bales. Cutting the netting was necessary to prevent it from being pulled into and obstructing the machine’s disentangling mechanism.
Held: The Court of Cassation upheld the finding that the straw blower was defective and that the defect caused the death. The appellate court could find that users reasonably had to enter the machine because the bale netting could not effectively be cut from outside, while the unprotected and fragile external control could be triggered inadvertently, propelling the bale within three…
Background: Kris Taylor and Kevin Ball co-owned Alpha Sod, an Idaho sod business. Their relationship deteriorated in 2019 after Taylor and others accused Ball of embezzlement; Ball signed a confession, was removed as an officer, and later faced grand-theft charges that the State dismissed. Ball retained attorney Patrick Davis in the resulting criminal and civil disputes.
Held: The Idaho Supreme Court held that Idaho continues to recognize a business-unfitness category of defamation per se. Under that category, a statement may be actionable without proof of special damages when it imputes conduct, characteristics, or a condition bearing specifically on the plaintiff's fitness to properly conduct the particular business, trade, or profession.
Background: The Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission submitted findings, a recommended public reprimand, and a joint stipulation resolving charges against Second Judicial Circuit Judge J. Layne Smith. Judge Smith admitted making numerous statements that were neither patient, dignified, nor courteous and that evidenced bias against attorneys while presiding over Raker v. Vause.
Held: The Florida Supreme Court accepted the Commission’s findings and concluded that Judge Smith’s admissions supported violations of Canons 1 and 2, which concern judicial integrity and avoidance of impropriety; Canon 3B(4), which requires patience, dignity, and courtesy; Canon 3B(5), which prohibits bias or prejudice in judicial duties; and Canon 3E(1), which requires disqualification when a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be…
Background: LCM Operations Pty Ltd funded the unsuccessful Gladstone Fisheries class action. Clyde & Co Australia provided legal services to the lead plaintiffs, not to LCM. Under the retainer, LCM was expressly not a client and received no legal services, although Clyde & Co owed it contractual obligations as the litigation funder and associated third-party payer.
Held: Smith J held that the assessment must proceed under the existing costs agreements. The agreements adequately identified the variables affecting the uplift fee and, read as a whole, limited the 25 percent uplift to professional fees. Although one table mistakenly incorporated disbursements into its calculation, the Court treated that as an immaterial arithmetic error rather than a breach invalidating the…
Background: Katharine Blackwell was waiting in DARCARS Toyota of Silver Spring’s customer lounge while her car was serviced. A service advisor saw footprints near the service desk and directed a lot attendant to mop the area. The attendant did not place a wet-floor sign before or during the mopping and left the area to retrieve one…
Held: The Supreme Court of Maryland affirmed the Appellate Court’s judgment, holding that the record could support a jury finding that DARCARS failed to exercise reasonable care to protect Blackwell from the wet-floor hazard. When an owner’s employee knowingly creates a dangerous condition, the knowledge element of an invitee’s premises-liability claim is satisfied.
Background: Amanda Sayger arranged for Mikel Fort to sexually abuse her 13-year-old daughter in exchange for money. The evidence showed that Sayger sent Fort photographs of her daughter in underwear and topless, allowed him to fondle the child in her presence, directed the child to stay overnight at his home, and later drove her there under…
Held: The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed every conviction. Judge Weissmann wrote that circumstantial evidence amply supported an agreement between Sayger and Fort and showed that Sayger knowingly aided his offenses. Indiana accomplice liability makes a person who aids, induces, or causes an offense as guilty as the principal. Sayger’s course of conduct—supplying photographs, arranging encounters, preventing interruption, accepting money, and…
Background: Alabama prosecutors charged Quinard Melton with trafficking oxycodone, hydrocodone, cannabis, and cocaine, along with possessing drug paraphernalia. The charges followed an April 2022 search of a residence on Eagle Circle in Auburn. Officers executing a warrant found bags containing suspected cocaine and marijuana, THC edibles, prescription pills, digital scales, ammunition, two cell phones, and $3,381…
Held: The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed. Applying the totality-of-the-circumstances test, it held that the issuing magistrate could reasonably find a fair probability that drugs and other trafficking evidence would be at the residence. Reviewing courts must read warrant affidavits practically and with common sense, permit magistrates to draw reasonable inferences, and give substantial deference to the probable-cause determination. Doubtful or…