Background: Michael Williams, a dual Australian and US citizen, purchased a three-year Speedify subscription and related products from Connectify, Inc., a Delaware corporation operating out of Philadelphia that provides a VPN-based service combining multiple internet connections. On 25 January 2026, Williams purchased an upgraded one-year router subscription described in the opinion as the "Speedifiy Pro Router…
Held: Justice Chen ordered that the proceedings be permanently stayed. The Court found that Connectify's Terms of Service formed part of the agreement between Williams and Connectify. Clause 16 of those terms contained an exclusive jurisdiction clause providing that the parties "submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of any State or Federal court located in the County of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States…
Background: The Alaska Supreme Court revived the State's central claim against Albertsons, Safeway, Kroger, Fred Meyer, and related companies over their alleged role in the opioid epidemic. The State alleges that the retailers' pharmacies ignored duties imposed by federal and Alaska controlled-substances law to monitor prescriptions, investigate warning signs, report suspicious activity, and prevent diversion. According…
Held: The court reversed dismissal of the public-nuisance claim. Alaska law does not restrict public nuisance to interference with land, public ways, or natural resources. Public health and safety are collective rights capable of supporting the claim. The State plausibly alleged that widespread failures by pharmacies acting as the final gatekeepers for prescription opioids substantially and unreasonably interfered with those rights.…
Background: This appeal represents the third chapter in a property dispute between Mary Roth and the Meyer family concerning a 10-acre parcel in Grant County, North Dakota. The property was originally owned by Anthony and Jean Ehrmantrout, who conveyed it to themselves as tenants in common in 1994. Following the deaths of the Ehrmantrouts in 2001…
Held: The North Dakota Supreme Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Jensen, affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Court held that the district court did not clearly err in finding the evidence insufficient to establish the amount by which the defendants were enriched by Roth’s contributions. Applying the five-element test for unjust enrichment—enrichment, impoverishment, connection, absence of justification, and absence…
Background: M. [I] [M] was summoned before the Paris tribunal correctionnel in immediate-appearance proceedings on charges of aggravated death threats and contempt (outrages) committed against a judge of the Paris Court of Appeal. By judgment of 7 May 2026, the trial court ordered a psychiatric examination of the defendant, placed him under judicial supervision (contrôle judiciaire),…
Held: The Court first held that the first, second, third, fifth and sixth grounds advanced by M. [M], and the first ground advanced on his behalf, were not of a nature to permit admission of the pourvoi within the meaning of Article 567-1-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It therefore examined only the fourth ground proposed by M. [M] and…
Background: Michael Martin Clark was convicted in 2012 of first-degree murder for a 1994 crime and sentenced to life without parole. After postconviction proceedings, new information emerged concerning alleged misconduct by former Colorado Bureau of Investigation DNA analyst Yvonne “Missy” Woods, who had analyzed DNA evidence in Clark’s case. Although the prosecution cited substantial circumstantial evidence…
Held: The court exercised original jurisdiction because compliance would inflict expense and harm before an appeal and because related issues had proliferated statewide. It reviewed discovery rulings for abuse of discretion and the FSIA’s interpretation and application de novo. It explained that Crim. P. 17 subpoenas have a limited pretrial scope and identified all five Spykstra requirements: a specific factual basis…
Background: Mother appealed from the Superior Court, Washington Unit, Family Division, No. 24-JV-00489, challenging termination of her parental rights to R.A., born in June 2023. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed. The trial court also terminated father’s rights, finding that he had not meaningfully engaged in the case plan and that termination served R.A.’s best interests; father…
Held: The Court explained that termination after an initial disposition requires, first, changed circumstances under 33 V.S.A. § 5113(b) and, second, a finding that termination serves the child’s best interests under 33 V.S.A. § 5114. Changed circumstances commonly arise when parental capacity stagnates or deteriorates. The most important best-interests consideration is whether the parent can resume parenting within a reasonable time.…
Background: Ferrad McCoy appealed his convictions for capital murder, first-degree unlawful discharge of a firearm from a vehicle, and firearm enhancements. The State’s theory was that McCoy drove with Mason Abraham from Memphis to Little Rock, where Abraham fired from the car and killed Broderick Blueford in an apartment-complex parking lot. McCoy received life imprisonment for…
Held: The Supreme Court affirmed. Reviewing sufficiency in the light most favorable to the State, it held that substantial direct or circumstantial evidence supported the verdict. Under Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-2-403, principals and accomplices have the same criminal liability. McCoy’s driving the shooting vehicle, travel with Abraham, presence in Little Rock, and joint flight supported more than mere presence or…
Background: This decision concerns a request to waive an appeal bond or, alternatively, reduce its amount, filed in an appeal as of right from a June 22, 2026 judgment of the Jerusalem Administrative Affairs Court (Judge A. Averbanel) in עת"מ 77924-12-25. That judgment granted the petition of Respondent 1 and annulled the Israel Police’s decision to…
Held: Registrar Ron Goldstein explained that, for a request of this kind, exemption from a bond or reduction based on financial inability requires two cumulative conditions: proof of inability through complete and current factual and evidentiary material, and real prospects of success in the proceeding. The applicant must also show that the bond cannot be raised with assistance from the applicant’s…
Background: Alpha Connect provides internet service through equipment attached to utility poles. Gerald King, an Alpha shareholder and officer, alleged that statements attributed to Southern Company employee Stephen Mangina derailed Alpha's effort to obtain a pole-attachment agreement, discouraged other businesses from dealing with Alpha, and disrupted King's planned property transaction.
Held: The Supreme Court reversed. It concluded that the complaint plausibly connected the alleged statements and resulting reputational harm to King and Alpha and adequately alleged claims that could not be rejected by crediting Mangina's competing view of the facts. Whether the plaintiffs can prove the allegations is a later-stage question.
Background: On November 6, 2026, United States Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen signed and entered the stipulated protective order, as modified by the court, in Gavalas v. Google LLC et al., No. 5:26-cv-1849-EKL-SVK, in the Northern District of California, San Jose Division. The caption identifies Joel Gavalas, acting as personal representative of the Estate of Jonathan…
Background: In Zeru v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1354, the Federal Court considered an application for judicial review brought by Michael Leake Zeru. The matter was heard in Edmonton, Alberta, on October 27, 2026, by The Honourable Madam Justice Kane, with reasons and judgment dated November 4, 2026. The judgment was issued in file…
Held: The Court stated: “As explained below, the Court finds that the Officer breached the duty of procedural fairness owed to Mr. Zeru in the circumstances.” Justice Kane emphasized that, even if the duty of fairness in visa applications is at the lower end of the spectrum, an applicant must still know the case to meet. Mr. Zeru was seeking permanent…
Background: Avonte Campinha-Bacote alleged that he worked for Bahgat & Bahgat, L.L.C. as a contract attorney for at least three months in 2016–2017 under an oral agreement paying at least $5,000 per month, with incentives of up to $100,000 annually. No written employment contract appeared in the record. After Joseph Bahgat criticized Campinha-Bacote’s work on a…
Held: The case was tried before a magistrate on October 11 and 12, 2023. The magistrate found Campinha-Bacote not credible and recommended a verdict for Bahgat. Campinha-Bacote filed Civ.R. 53(D) objections without the required transcript and sought contempt based on nonpayment of the fee award. Bahgat sought Civ.R. 60(B)(5) relief from that award. On January 15, 2025, the trial court adopted…