Background: D.J. Tosiuo’s convictions followed a high-speed drive through Dededo that ended when his white Volkswagen struck a concrete pole. After the vehicle was taken to the Dededo Precinct, a Guam Police Department officer saw a Smith & Wesson .357 Magnum revolver on the dashboard. Police seized the weapon, determined that Tosiuo did not hold a…
Held: The Supreme Court of Guam unanimously affirmed. Writing for the court, Chief Justice Robert J. Torres explained that the version of 10 GCA § 60100 in effect when Tosiuo committed the offenses did not impose a present-operability requirement. The statute defined a firearm by its explosive operating force and described a pistol or revolver as a firearm designed to be…
Background: Barbara Perry, a 46-year-old Wiradjuri woman with treatment-resistant schizophrenia and cognitive impairment, had been detained or supervised as a forensic patient since offences committed in 2014. Those offences involved three random, unprovoked attacks on elderly women, one of whom suffered permanent impaired vision. After Perry was found unfit to stand trial and the offences were…
Held: Hamill J dismissed the summons under s 126(6). At a preliminary hearing, the Court must assume that factual matters alleged in the supporting documentation will be proved and must not predict the final outcome. Nevertheless, it must meaningfully evaluate the whole body of material, bearing in mind that a final extension order requires satisfaction to a high degree of probability…
Background: In this civil appeal, appellant Adv. Aviad Visoli sought to strike the entire volume of appendices accompanying the respondents’ September 9, 2026 reply. He argued that the documents were not faithful copies of the materials before the lower court, that some had been truncated, that extensive yellow highlighting and altered pagination violated filing requirements, and…
Held: Registrar Moran Yahav denied the request to remove the appendix volume. A June 6, 2026 decision had already rejected a blanket request to strike all appendices while permitting targeted objections, yet Visoli again sought wholesale removal. Reviewing the particular documents identified, the Registrar found no basis to exclude them: most were filed or created in the lower-court proceeding; the allegedly…
Background: The Director of Public Prosecutions secured the recovery of assets worth several billion pounds that represented proceeds of fraudulent investment schemes orchestrated in China by Zhimin Qian. The schemes attracted payments from Chinese residents, largely through Chinese financial channels. Some proceeds were converted into Bitcoin in China before Qian fled the country and later settled…
Held: The High Court held that Chinese law governs the existence and content of the proprietary rights asserted by the applicants. Whether their rescission and constructive-trust theories were analysed under Rome I, Rome II, or common-law conflict-of-laws rules, the transactions and alleged rights were overwhelmingly connected with China. The court did not decide whether the applicants actually possessed proprietary rights under…
Background: AIB commenced summary proceedings in 2015 against Martin and Marie Doran concerning liabilities under credit agreements made in 2007 and 2010. In April 2018, the High Court entered summary judgment for €209,696.23 in respect of the 2010 facility, but sent the claim concerning the 2007 facility to plenary hearing. The court accepted the special endorsement…
Held: Ms Justice Bolger struck out the judgment proceedings and both enforcement proceedings for delay. The substitution applications counted for little in assessing whether the litigation had been actively prosecuted: they were procedural, the defendants consented to them, Everyday delayed more than two years before commencing the process, and it gave no explanation for four adjournments between July 2022 and December…
Background: Daniel Thoen waived indictment and pleaded guilty under a bill of information to raping his four-year-old granddaughter. The plea agreement and colloquy incorrectly advised him that the maximum prison term was 11 years, although the offense carried a mandatory life term because the victim was under ten.
Held: The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed, holding that jeopardy does not automatically attach when a trial court unconditionally accepts a guilty plea. Courts instead must consider whether the defendant acquired a legitimate expectation of finality in the plea proceeding and whether prosecutorial overreach is implicated.
Background: Avery Hopkins petitioned for divorce from Tristan Jones in May 2025. Jones requested that the Family Court retain jurisdiction over ancillary matters, including alimony and property division. The court granted the divorce and retained jurisdiction over those matters.
Held: The Delaware Supreme Court held that the Family Court abused its discretion by dismissing Jones’s petition for failure to prosecute. Although the conference notice had been sent while Jones was represented by counsel, the record did not show that the Family Court later notified Jones, as a self-represented litigant, that he needed to provide a telephone number for the conference.
Background: Eric Magazu, the defendant-appellant in an underlying traffic case, sought review of proceedings identified as Case No. 5DTI-24-009401. The matter reached the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court on certiorari from the Intermediate Court of Appeals in CAAP-26-0000219.
Held: The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court rejected Magazu’s application for a writ of certiorari. The court therefore declined to review the Intermediate Court of Appeals proceeding.
Background: After a Missouri custody hearing, Brooklyn and Kadan Rockett refused to leave the courthouse with their mother, who had been awarded primary custody under their parents’ agreement. Judge Eric Eighmy took the children to a conference room, told them they had to leave with their mother, and threatened foster care when they refused.
Held: The Eighth Circuit dismissed the judicial-immunity portion of the appeal because Judge Eighmy did not renew that defense in a motion for judgment as a matter of law after trial. His summary-judgment arguments depended on disputed facts, so they did not qualify as a purely legal issue reviewable without a post-trial motion.
Background: Members of the Bongiorno family disputed ownership and management of several family businesses. In a 2012 action, Bridjay Capone and her mother, Marie Bongiorno, sued various individuals and entities, including J & G Realty, LLC, 305 West Avenue, LLC, and 24 Ardmore Street, LLC. Marie claimed interests arising from documents that purportedly assigned to her…
Held: The Appellate Court held that the trial court improperly granted summary judgment to Lathouris. Although the trial court recited the objective probable-cause standard, its analysis improperly relied on Lathouris’ subjective good-faith belief. Applying the correct test, the Appellate Court concluded that a reasonable attorney familiar with Connecticut law would not have believed there was probable cause, after the Supreme Court…
Background: Geoff Minor and Minor Enterprises retained attorney Mark Kimball and MDK Law to represent them in a dispute with their landlord and property manager. MDK Law filed a complaint, but the attorney-client relationship later deteriorated. Although Minor instructed the firm to pause further work and said he would retain replacement counsel, MDK Law remained counsel…
Held: The Court of Appeals held that Paradise Orchards did not support dismissing Minor’s claims. In that case, the attorney had not breached the standard of care because the underlying court had erroneously interpreted a properly drafted contract. Here, by contrast, the evidence created at least a genuine issue of material fact as to whether MDK Law breached the standard of…
Background: Adalet Kaya, a women’s-rights activist and president of the lawfully registered Rosa Women’s Association in Diyarbakır, was arrested in May 2020 and placed in pre-trial detention on suspicion of membership of the PKK/KCK, an armed terrorist organisation. The Turkish authorities alleged that the association was an extension of other women’s organisations linked to the PKK/KCK…
Held: The European Court of Human Rights unanimously held that Türkiye violated Article 5 § 1 because Kaya’s initial and continued detention was not based on reasonable suspicion that she had committed the offence of membership of an armed terrorist organisation. The anonymous witness’s abstract allegations were not corroborated by sufficiently concrete evidence. The association’s lawful activities, its alleged contacts with…