Background: The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that a Juvenile Court judge cannot expunge the record of a harassment prevention order merely because later evidence failed to substantiate the allegations, even when the order involved a nine-year-old child. The case arose after one fourth-grade student sought an order under General Laws Chapter 258E against a classmate.…
Held: The SJC affirmed. Chapter 258E requires information about issued harassment prevention orders to be transmitted to the Commissioner of Probation, but neither expressly authorizes expungement nor implies such a remedy when an order is later vacated. The Legislature chose a retention system similar to the one governing abuse prevention orders under Chapter 209A. That structure allows inactive and vacated orders…
Background: Joseph Carl Underwood entered Alford pleas to two felonies—concealing a felony by disposing of a dead body and possessing a firearm as a convicted felon—and two misdemeanors arising from his encounter with officers near the location where Angela Elizondo’s remains were found. An Alford plea allows a defendant to accept conviction and punishment without admitting…
Held: The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed. Because Underwood had not objected below, the court applied plain-error review. That standard required a clear record of the alleged error, violation of a clear and unequivocal rule of law, and material prejudice to a substantial right. Underwood could not satisfy the first two requirements because neither the competency rulings nor the Judicial Branch’s ADA…
Background: Mohamad Alsyrawan is a dependent adult who requires extensive assistance with personal care, medical appointments, household activities, and supervision. His mother and sister, who emigrated with him from Syria and are practicing Muslims, serve as his primary caregivers. Pennsylvania's Department of Human Services approved 133 weekly hours of companion and in-home community-support services through a…
Held: The Supreme Court reversed and remanded. Justice Daniel McCaffery's majority held that a First Amendment claimant need not show that a burden on religious exercise is substantial. The United States Supreme Court's modern Free Exercise cases ask first whether government action burdens sincere religious practice. In the public-benefits setting, that threshold is met when the government puts a person to…
Background: SCRP Fund I Finance financed a management buyout in which NAC Group Holdings acquired five companies from Paul and Wendy Robson under a September 2022 share purchase agreement. NAC Holdings assigned its rights under the agreement to SCRP, which sued the sellers for alleged breaches of warranty after NAC Holdings entered administration.
Held: Her Honour Judge Kelly granted SCRP an extension of time so that its third and substantially revised draft pleading could be considered. The 18-day delay was serious and significant, and counsel’s holiday and the late discovery of material did not provide a good reason for it. Nevertheless, refusing to consider that version would have caused SCRP greater prejudice, while the…
Background: Two proposed securities class actions alleged that Shemen Oil & Gas Resources Ltd. and its officers misled investors and intentionally withheld material information about the prospects of the “Yam 3” oil-drilling project. Investors allegedly purchased shares in reliance on the company’s disclosures, after which the company announced that the well was dry and its share…
Held: Justice Ofer Grosskopf granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal. The administrator held the deposited settlement money as a trustee. Under Israel’s Trust Law, a trustee must invest funds not needed for current purposes so as to preserve the principal and generate returns, and the fruits and proceeds of trust property themselves become trust property.
Background: Following investigations by the labor inspectorate and the Central Office for Combating Illegal Employment, a meal-delivery company was prosecuted for concealed employment between March 20, 2015, and December 12, 2017. The company operated an application through which couriers delivered meals prepared by listed restaurants. Two successive general managers and de facto company officers, A. F.…
Held: The Criminal Chamber upheld the convictions. It ruled that applying the ordinary legal test for an employment relationship to a digital service platform was reasonably foreseeable and did not violate Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Longstanding case law permitted courts to determine a contract’s true legal nature from the actual working conditions and defined subordination by…
Background: Shane Mason was charged with assault with intent to cause bodily harm and two offences involving possession of a realistic imitation firearm. At a special sitting of Limerick District Court, Gardaí opposed bail on the grounds that he was likely to commit further serious offences and fail to attend court. Their written objection cited, among…
Held: The High Court refused Article 40 relief and held that Mason was detained in accordance with law. Holland J explained that the absence of a lawyer does not itself make a bail hearing fundamentally defective. The controlling question was whether Mason had a real and meaningful opportunity to understand, test, and answer the case for detention, such that the proceeding…
Background: Craig Peed suffered serious injuries in 2012 when a falling tree limb struck his head while he worked for Essential Staffing, Inc. After his upper teeth began fracturing years later, the Industrial Accident Board found in 2018 that the workplace accident caused damage to upper teeth nine through eleven, and Essential Staffing’s workers’ compensation carrier…
Held: The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed. It held that collateral estoppel did not require the IAB to apply its 2018 causation findings to Peed’s later lower-teeth claim. The earlier proceeding determined causation for damage to particular upper teeth, while the later proceeding presented a different issue: whether the accident caused the deterioration of Peed’s lower teeth. The 2025 decision also did…
Background: Margaret and Philip Redelman sued their daughter, Emma Levin, and her estranged husband, Joshua Levin, alleging that the couple owed them $4 million under a 2022 loan agreement. They sought judgment for the debt, a declaration that an equitable charge secured it over the couple’s Randwick property, and orders for a judicial sale. Emma admitted…
Held: Williams J held that, in the interests of justice, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia was the more appropriate forum. Although the Supreme Court had jurisdiction and could probably determine the claims sooner, the dispute was not merely a commercial debt claim. It concerned an asserted equitable charge over a significant matrimonial asset and a liability that would…
Background: Prosecutors initially charged the defendant with two thefts committed with unidentified accomplices. The charges alleged that the defendant stole ¥500,000 from an A Bank ATM on November 29, 2023, and another ¥500,000 from an A Bank ATM on November 30, 2023.
Held: The Supreme Court held that the four additional theft incidents could not lawfully be introduced by amending the original charges. They were separate offenses lacking the “identity of charged facts” required by Article 312(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore should have been charged through separate indictments. Nothing in the record justified treating the amendment as equivalent to…
Background: Marquise Shawndell Byrd died after a juvenile threw a sandbag from Toledo’s Indiana Avenue overpass through the windshield of the vehicle in which Byrd was riding. The bridge was being reconstructed in phases. During the first phase, its north side—including the existing vandal-protective fencing—had been removed and closed to pedestrians, while pedestrian traffic continued on…
Held: The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed. It held that ODOT’s decision not to install temporary vandal-protective fencing on the closed side of the bridge was a basic policy decision involving a high degree of official judgment or discretion. ODOT therefore had discretionary immunity from the estate’s negligence suit.
Background: Germer Construction contracted with BBC LLC to provide construction services for a subdivision. Their dispute over payment went to arbitration, where Germer obtained an award of just under $1 million, including costs and fees. BBC petitioned to vacate the award, while Germer sought confirmation and entry of judgment.
Held: The Idaho Supreme Court held that the district court exceeded its authority by requiring BBC to post a bond securing a potential money judgment on an unsecured debt. The bond was not a supersedeas bond because no judgment existed and the proceeding to confirm or vacate an arbitration award was not an appeal. Neither arbitration statutes nor inherent equitable authority…