Legal News Stories

Case Summaries

Criminal Law & Procedure

[03/08] People v. Cobb
Following defendant's completion of sentence for assault with a deadly weapon and commitment to a state hospital for treatment as a mentally disordered offender (MDO), judgment of the court of appeals finding that defendant was not denied due process in extension of his commitment is affirmed as, without a time waiver or good cause, section 2972 does not permit continued confinement when an extension trial does not begin before the scheduled release date.

[03/08] People v. Lara
Following defendant's prosecution for false imprisonment of a child, a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity, and commitment to a state hospital, judgment of the court of appeal directing that the trial court grant defendant's motion to dismiss the petition for an extension of his commitment is reversed where: 1) the statutory deadline for filing an extension petition is directory, not mandatory, as long as the petition is filed before the expiration of the current commitment; 2) defendant was not entitled to a dismissal of the petition on due process grounds; and 3) upon motion, defendant would have been entitled under due process to release pending trial, subject to possible proceedings under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act. However, defendant is not now eligible for release because the court retained jurisdiction to try him and he received a fair trial.

[03/08] People ex rel. Reisig v. Acuna
In an action initiated by the district attorney against the Broderick Boys, an alleged criminal street gang, and 23 of its members to enjoin as a public nuisance their activities in a 2.98-square mile area of West Sacramento, grant of district attorney's motion for a preliminary injunction is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) sufficient and credible evidence supports the trial court's conclusion that the Broderick Boys is a criminal street gang whose activities have created a public nuisance in the designated area; and 2) two provisions in the injunction, one dealing with controlled substances and the other dealing with the consumption of alcoholic beverages, are unenforceable.

Read More

Injury & Tort Law

[03/05] Bustos v. Martini Club Inc.
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action based on a late-night confrontation with several off-duty police officers, dismissal of the action is affirmed where: 1) the election of remedies provisions in Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 101.106 applied to state law intentional tort claims against a governmental unit and its employees; 2) plaintiff did not allege facts to suggest that the officers who assaulted him misused or abused their official power; and 3) bystander officers had no constitutional duty to prevent the alleged assault.

[03/05] Howard v. St. Germain
In an appeal from the district court's order assessing attorney's fees against defendants based on their improper removal of the case, the order is affirmed where the district court did not abuse its considerable discretion in taxing costs and attorney's fees to defendants because an objectively reasonable basis for removal did not exist.

[03/05] Doe v. S. Carolina Dep't of Soc. Servs.
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action brought by a minor child and her adoptive parents against defendant, an Adoption Specialist with the South Carolina Department of Social Services (SCDSS), alleging violations of their substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and state law claims against SCDSS under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act (SCTCA), judgment is affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded where: 1) when a state involuntarily removes a child from her home, thereby taking the child into its custody and care, the state has taken an affirmative act to restrain the child's liberty, triggering the protections of the Due Process Clause and imposing "some responsibility for the child's safety and general well being"; 2) because it would not have been apparent to a reasonable social worker in defendant's position that her actions violated the Fourteenth Amendment, she is entitled to qualified immunity; 3) prospective adoptive parents have no substantive due process right to the disclosure of a child's history of sexual abuse; and 4) district court's grant of defendants' motion for summary judgment on the state law claims for gross negligence against SCDSS is vacated and remanded for consideration of the applicability of section 15-78-60(25).

Read More