Background: Dawn and Brian Atkinson married in 1998 and divorced in 2025. During the marriage, Dawn worked as chief financial officer of Plan One Architects and acquired 30 shares in the firm. The couple treated the shares as a joint investment: they financed much of the purchase with two loans from Brian’s mother, refinanced their home,…
Held: The Wyoming Supreme Court unanimously affirmed. Justice John G. Jarosh explained that Wyoming law distinguishes a mere expectancy—a possible asset that may never come into existence—from a present property right that will produce benefits in the future. Dawn’s Plan One shares fell into the second category. They were vested, existing business interests acquired during the marriage, not hypothetical property the…
Background: The Delaware Division of Family Services obtained emergency custody of the child in May 2024 after the father stipulated to dependency and the Family Court found dependency as to the mother based on the prior involuntary termination of her parental rights to another child and this child’s substance exposure at birth. DFS provided both parents…
Held: The Delaware Supreme Court held that the mother’s prior involuntary termination satisfied the statutory-ground requirement under 13 Del. C. § 1103(a)(7) by clear and convincing evidence. But the Family Court did not adequately complete the separate best-interests analysis: it identified how the statutory factors weighed but did not balance them, explain the relative weight assigned to them, or expressly determine…
Background: Robot X Limited, a Cypriot vending-machine distributor, became a party to an exclusive distribution agreement with Australian manufacturer Placer Robotics Pty Ltd for Placer’s “Pizzabot.” The agreement was governed by Swedish law, gave Stockholm courts exclusive jurisdiction over disputes arising out of or connected with it, and permitted either party to refer unresolved disputes to…
Held: Scruby J held that all claims against Placer fell within the broadly worded arbitration clause because they arose out of, related to, or were connected with the distribution agreement. That included the tort and Australian Consumer Law claims and the alleged breach of the separate undertaking. Those matters were arbitrable, and the Court was therefore required by s 7(2) of…
Background: John Lund sought permission under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to challenge a Planning Inspector’s dismissal of his appeal against Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council’s refusal of planning permission for 33 dwellings at Oddfellows Street, Cleckheaton. The proposed access included an unadopted, unlit section of road that all parties agreed required…
Held: Deputy High Court Judge Karen Ridge refused permission because none of the four grounds disclosed an arguable error of law. The Inspector was entitled to consider landowner opposition and the highway authority’s position, not as objections bearing directly on the planning merits, but as evidence relevant to whether the discretionary statutory powers were realistically likely to be exercised. The authority…
Background: The Israel Land Authority appealed a January 24, 2019 judgment of the Haifa District Court concerning compensation paid to owners whose land had been expropriated. The State continued to press its limitation and delay defenses, but during appellate proceedings the parties expressed agreement in principle with the Supreme Court’s proposed framework: the District Court’s judgment…
Held: The Supreme Court accepted the State’s updated calculation and gave it the force of a judgment. It found that the calculation, together with the State’s explanations, adequately accounted for the relevant payments and that the landowners had identified no remaining concrete discrepancy or material defect. The payment notice concerning the capital-gains-tax advance contained the essential information, including the payment date,…
Background: A child was born in Thailand on October 24, 2019. Her biological parents consented before a notary in Singapore to her adoption by M. [X] and Mme [V]. On July 20, 2020, Singapore’s Family Justice Courts authorized the adoption.
Held: The Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal. It held that the Court of Appeal had properly balanced the competing public and private interests, with particular attention to the child’s interests in her specific circumstances, and could conclude that refusing exequatur did not disproportionately interfere with the private and family life of the child or the adoptive parents.
Background: The 2023 Lahaina wildfires led to thousands of claims and a $4.037 billion global settlement. The Circuit Court of the Second Circuit maintained an open special proceeding to coordinate the cases and oversee settlement administration. In June 2026, it entered an attorney-fee order establishing tiered contingency-fee caps, a $222 million common-benefit fund, a Common Fee…
Held: The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court held that it had jurisdiction under the collateral-order doctrine and that the circuit court had authority to issue the fee order. The still-open coordination proceeding and the court’s equitable authority under the common-fund doctrine supported the $222 million set-aside and the fee framework. The court also held that Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes § 607-15.5 reinforced the circuit…
Background: Margarita Nguyen was elected to a four-year term on the Nelsonville City Council in 2023 and later became council president. After she emailed a resignation in February 2024 and tried to rescind it the next day, other council members treated her resignation as effective, appointed Gregg Clement as council president, and appointed Opha Lawson to…
Held: The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed. The Fourth District could not conclude that Nguyen’s quo warranto claims were moot without first determining whether Issue 23 remained operative or whether Ordinance 54-25 validly repealed it. If Issue 23 is operative, Nguyen’s charter-council seat was eliminated and the requested relief would be unavailable. But if the ordinance validly repealed Issue 23, the…
Background: Shenning Heritage Capital VCC invested US$2.55 million with Ark Capital Holdings Ltd for a stated foreign-exchange trading strategy. The money was not deployed as represented. David Hiah later admitted creating false Charterprime statements and acknowledged that the investment money had never been transferred to Charterprime.
Held: The High Court dismissed all claims against Mr Hiah and Ms Li. Shenning Heritage had not established its pleaded case that Ark Capital held the investment money on trust, or that Ark Capital owed the asserted ad hoc fiduciary duty. Independently, the evidence did not establish dishonesty or the knowledge required for dishonest assistance or knowing receipt.
Background: Truinject developed “Kate,” a proposed training system that combined a lifelike injectable mannequin head with a sensor-equipped syringe to help aestheticians practice dermal injections. In 2014 it entered exclusive-negotiation and confidentiality agreements with Galderma, a seller of dermal injectables, and canceled a planned meeting with Galderma rival Allergan. The Galderma talks ended without a deal,…
Held: The Federal Circuit affirmed in a nonprecedential opinion. On tortious interference, the panel held that Truinject had forfeited the theory it advanced on appeal. The complaint had focused on alleged disparagement and a supposed disinformation campaign. On appeal, Truinject instead characterized the interference as Galderma’s inducing it to enter the exclusivity agreement and cancel the Allergan meeting. Because the district…
Background: A Boston resident called 911 after receiving reports from her son, who was at her Dorchester home, that people were playing dice, smoking marijuana, and riding mopeds on the property. In a second call, she relayed that three Black, skinny males with guns were in the backyard. Her son described one as wearing a black…
Held: The Massachusetts Appeals Court reversed the delinquency adjudications and ordered the complaint dismissed. Writing for a panel that also included Justices Ditkoff and Hand, Justice Grant assumed without deciding that police could lawfully order the juvenile out of the Honda. The court held, however, that an exit order and a patfrisk are governed by different standards. Under Commonwealth v. Torres-Pagan,…
Background: Alexandra Hustedt-Mai leased a Purdue-area apartment managed by Granite Management. At move-out, Granite assessed roughly $110 for cleaning and repairs. Mai disputed the charges, maintaining that the conditions either predated her tenancy or reflected ordinary wear. Granite referred the account to national debt collector Hunter Warfield, Inc., which reported the debt to two credit-reporting agencies.…
Held: The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the verdict and punitive award but reversed part of the costs award. Judge Altice explained that Indiana standing and notice-pleading rules governed in state court. Mai alleged concrete expenditures of time, effort, and mailing costs arising from Hunter Warfield’s conduct, which sufficed at the pleading stage. The lease addendum did not eliminate factual disputes…