Soc'y of the Holy Transfiguration Monastery, Inc. v. Archibishop Gregory of Denver
(United States First Circuit) - In a dispute between two monasteries for copyright infringement of a religious text, district court's judgment in favor of the plaintiff is affirmed, as the plaintiff has established both elements of an infringement claim of actual copying and actionable copying, and all of the defenses set forth by the defendant are without merit.
Headley v. Church of Scientology Int'l
(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a suit by two former ministers against the Church of Scientology claiming they were forced to provide labor in violation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, district court's judgment in favor of the defendant is affirmed, as the plaintiffs have not established a genuine issue of fact regarding whether they were victims of forced-labor violations. Moreover, the district court was right to recognize that courts may not scrutinize many aspects of the minister-church relationship in basing its rulings on the ministerial exception.
The Real Truth About Abortion v. Federal Election Commission
(United States Fourth Circuit) - In an action by a Virginia non-profit corporation organized under section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code to provide "accurate and truthful information about the public policy positions of Senator Barack Obama," contending that it was "chilled" from posting information about then-Senator Obama because of the vagueness of a Commission regulation, 11 C.F.R. section 100.22(b), and a Commission policy, published at 72 Fed. Reg. 5595 (Feb. 7, 2007), relating to whether plaintiff has to make disclosures or is a "political committee" (PAC), the District Court's judgment is affirmed where: 1) neither the regulation nor policy are unconstitutionally broad and vague in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments; and 2) it correctly applied the "exacting scrutiny" standard applicable to disclosure provisions.
Veterans for Common Sense v. Shinseki
(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a suit brought by two nonprofit veterans organizations against the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Ninth Circuit en banc holds: 1) the district court lacked jurisdiction to reach the plaintiffs' statutory and due process challenges to alleged delays in the provision of mental health care and to the absence of procedures to challenge such delays; 2) the district court lacked jurisdiction to reach the plaintiffs' claims related to delays in the adjudication of service-related disability benefits; 3) the district court had jurisdiction to consider the plaintiffs' challenges to the alleged inadequacy of the procedures at the regional office level; and 4) the district court properly exercised that jurisdiction to deny the plaintiffs' claim on the merits.
Ralphs Grocery Co. v. Missionary Church of the Disciples of Jesus Christ
(California Court of Appeal) - In a trespass suit brought by a grocery store against a church soliciting donations in front of the store, summary judgment in favor of the store is affirmed, where: 1) the church's solicitation was not protected by In re Lane (1969) 71 Cal.2d 872, because there was no relation between the church's expressive activities and the store's location; and 2) the church did not contend or present evidence to establish that the store or the sidewalk in front was a public forum within the meaning of Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center (1979) 23 Cal.3d 899.
Minorty Television Project, Inc. v. Federal Communications Comm'n
(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a challenge to federal statutory restrictions on certain types of advertising by public broadcast TV stations, the district court's grant of summary judgment to the FCC is: 1) affirmed in part, where 47 U.S.C. section 399b(a)(1), restricting paid advertisements for goods and services on behalf of for-profit corporations, was not an unconstitutional speech restriction under the intermediate scrutiny standard; 2) reversed in part, where sections 399b(a)(2) and (3), restricting public-issue advertisements and political advertisements, were unconstitutional speech restrictions under intermediate scrutiny, as there was no evidence of harm to a substantial governmental interest.
Ocean Pines Ass'n, Inc. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
(United States Fourth Circuit) - On petition for a redetermination of federal income tax deficiencies brought by a 501(c)(4) nonprofit homeowners association, the Tax Court's ruling against the association is affirmed, where the net income derived by the association from its parking lots and beach club benefitted the private interests of the association members rather than the general public, and therefore was not "substantially related" to the association's purpose of promoting social welfare, but rather was taxable as "unrelated business taxable income" under IRC sections 511-513.
Regional Economic Community Action Program, Inc. v. Enlarged City School District of Middletown
(Court of Appeals of New York) - In a tax-exempt charitable organization's action against a school district seeking to recoup erroneously paid taxes, summary judgment in favor of the school district is affirmed, where: 1) the school district was entitled to rely on the one-year statute of limitations in Education Law section 3813(2-b) rather than the general six-year period for contract actions; and 2) the taxpayer's cause of action for money had and received accrued when it paid the taxes, which was more than one year before it filed suit.
Blaudziunas v. Edward Cardinal Egan
(Court of Appeals of New York) - In an appeal from a judgment of the appellate division affirming the dismissal of plaintiff's action to enjoin demolition of a church building, judgment is affirmed because Section 5 of the Religious Corporations Law vests approval authority for all actions taken by the trustees of an incorporated Catholic church in the archbishop or bishop of the diocese to which that church belongs, and therefore does not require that the demolition of the church be authorized by the parishioners.
Behrmann v. National Heritage Foundation, Inc.
(United States Fourth Circuit) - District Court affirmance of bankruptcy court order confirming Chapter 11 reorganization plan of nonprofit public charity is vacated and case remanded where: 1) bankruptcy court did not make specific factual findings explaining why it approved and included certain release, injunction, and exculpation provisions applicable to nondebtors; and 2) appeal was not equitably moot.
Kennedy v. St. Joseph's Ministries, Inc.
(United States Fourth Circuit) - In an interlocutory appeal from a judgment of the district court denying defendant's motion for summary judgment in a Title VII complaint alleging religious discrimination, judgment is reversed where the plain language of 42 U.S.C. section 2000e-1(a) bars plaintiff's claims.
US v. Muntasser
(United States First Circuit) - In a joint appeal from a judgment of the district court arising from the criminal prosecution of defendants for tax evasion and related charges and involving allegations of defendants' use of charitable donations to finance an Islamic jihadist group, convictions and sentencing are reversed with respect to the court's overturn of the jury's conviction on the conspiracy counts, and affirmed with respect to all other convictions.
Estate of Petter v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a dispute involving the scope of Treasury Regulation section 25.2522(c)-3(b)(1) and arising from the transfer of membership units in an LLC partly as a gift and partly by sale to two trusts with simultaneous gifts of LLC units to two charitable foundations under a reallocation clause, judgment of the trial court is affirmed where Section 25.2522(c)-3(b)(1), upon trigger of the reallocation clause, does not bar a charitable deduction equal to the value of the additional units the foundations will receive.
Congregational Rabbinical College of Tartikov, Inc. v. Town of Ramapo
(Court of Appeals of New York) - In a dispute arising from the revocation of plaintiff's religious tax exempt status, RPTL section 420-a (1)(a), judgment of the appellate division reversing revocation is affirmed, because defendant-township failed to prove its burden that the subject property is now subject to taxation where the sole use of the property has been the operation of a summer camp with a religious curriculum.
Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Rodgers
(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 dispute involving the standing of a tax exempt claimant to intervene in a challenge to an unrelated action on the constitutionality of claimed exemptions, IRC sections 107 and 265(a)(6), judgment of the district court denying intervention is affirmed in part and vacated in part because motion to intervene as a matter of right is thwarted by the presumption of adequate representation, where the district court erred in apply an incorrect rule on the issue of permissive intervention.
In re D.R.
(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed as to Father only. Father of juveniles appealed from the denial of his motion to modify judgement claiming that he was not given adequate notice of dependence proceedings for two of his children. The appeals court found that the Hague Service Convention applies because Father is a resident of Mexico and that the Department of Children and Family services failed to comply with the Hague Convention.
In re J.F.
(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed order terminating father’s parental rights. Father presented no reasoned argument why there was an error in terminating his rights and he waived his challenge to the order.
Marriage of Sahafzadeh-Taeb & Taeb
(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed order imposing sanctions as to Trigger and reversed as to Taeb. Defendant Taeb and his attorney Trigger appealed order for sanctions for failure to appear for trial. Sanctions were based on Trigger’s misrepresentation to the court that she was ready for trial, when in fact she was not.
In re A.E.
(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed order for juvenile reunification with parents. The trial court found that reunification was in the best interest of the children even though the children were taken away because of child abuse. The appeals court held that the trial court findings were not supported by substantial evidence.
New York State Citizens’ Coal. For Children v. Poole
(United States Second Circuit) - Denied. In a 6-5 vote, the panel majority declines to rehear the case en banc, holding that the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 creates a privately enforceable right for foster parents to sue states for costs related to child care. Five judges dissent.
In re A.W.
(California Court of Appeal) - Order terminating parental rights and freeing child for adoption was reversed and remanded for determination of whether the child is a Chukchansi Indian. If child found to be an Indian child as defined by the Indian Child Welfare Act, juvenile court ordered to proceed in accordance with ICWA.
In re L.C.
(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed. Held that a legal guardian’s occasional methamphetamine use outside of home and while child was in the care of another adult does not support dependency jurisdiction under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300.
S.C. v. G.S.
(California Court of Appeal) - Reverse order. Santa Clara County Department of Child Services brought a motion to adjust father’s child support payments to make up for arrears. The trial court granted the County’s motion but awarded credit to the father for period of incarceration. The County appealed on the grounds that trial court lacked authority to retroactively adjust father’s arrears. The appeals court agreed and reversed in part.
In re C.M.
(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. The juvenile court awarded joint custody to the father and mother as part of an order terminating dependence jurisdiction. The father challenged the decision on the grounds that the mother engaged in acts of domestic violence against her male companion. The appeals court held that Family Code section 3044 does not apply to dependency proceedings and that the award of joint custody was not an abuse of discretion.
In re E.W.
(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. The juvenile court awarded the father sole legal and physical custody and ordered that the mother have no visitation with the child. The mother appealed the order arguing that the juvenile court had no jurisdiction to make such an order because the child resides in South Carolina. The appeals court held that the initial child custody determination was made in California and that California courts retained exclusive and continuing jurisdiction.
In re J.P.
(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. The juvenile court granted visitation to the ex-boyfriend of the mother. The mother sought to block such visitation, but the juvenile court found that it was in the best interests of the child. The appeals court found no abuse of discretion.
Saada v. Golan
(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed in part, vacated in part, remanded. The District Court erred in granting a petition to have a child returned to his habitual home of Italy under the Hague Convention. Although it was affirmed that Italy was the child's habitual residence if repatriating him would expose the child to a grave risk of harm the district court isn't necessarily bound to return him.
E.A. v. Gardner
(United States Seventh Circuit) - District court dismissal of lawsuit for lack of standing affirmed, where plaintiff could not show injury was traceable to Defendant. Plaintiff filed suit in federal district court claiming the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act invalid on constitutional grounds. Lawsuit named as Defendant the psychiatrist who testified, in a previous case, that Plaintiff was trying to turn children against the other parent and recommended sole custody be given to other parent.
Christensen v. Lightbourne
(Supreme Court of California) - Affirmed. The Appeals court held that the current policy of the California Department of Social Services treating court-ordered child support as income and using the same funds twice as income for both the paying household and the receiving household does not violate the Welfare and Institutions Code section 11005.5.
Pangea Capital Management, LLC v. Lakian
(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed. Defendant is a divorced spouse who holds an interest in property that Plaintiff obtained a judgment lien against the other spouse’s interest. Plaintiff argued that Defendant’s interest was subordinate to Plaintiff’s interest. The trial court held that Defendant’s interest vested upon the entry of the judgment of divorce and that Plaintiff could execute only against the other spouse’s interest.
Marriage of Ankola
(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed the issuance of a mutual restraining order against a husband. He was the one who had petitioned for the domestic violence restraining order, and his wife had not filed a separate request for one.
Greiner v. Keller
(California Court of Appeal) - In a child support matter, addressed whether the father should be ordered to pay for childcare costs so that the mother (the custodial parent) could attend a college program to obtain a paralegal certification. Reversed and remanded with directions to reconsider the mother's request.
Raney v. Cerkueira
(California Court of Appeal) - In a marital dissolution proceeding, addressed whether a written instrument severing a joint tenancy in real property was effective. Affirmed the decision below.
In re Marriage of Benner
(California Court of Appeal) - In a marital dissolution action, addressed whether a doctor appointed by the court to prepare a child custody evaluation report must repay all of the fees the parties had paid him pursuant to his appointment. Finding his report deficient, the trial judge had given it no weight.
Marriage of Miotke
(California Court of Appeal) - In a marital dissolution action, upheld a ruling that a premarital agreement was enforceable and waived spousal support to either party. The parties had retained a private judge to resolve the issue.
Lugo v. Corona
(California Court of Appeal) - Held that the family court erroneously denied a wife's request for a domestic violence restraining order against her husband. The restraining order could have been entered even though a criminal protective order was already in place.
In re B.D.
(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed an order terminating a mother and father's parental rights to an eight-year-old child. Remanded with directions that the juvenile court conduct a new hearing.
In re Marriage of George and Deamon
(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed an order requiring a woman to pay $10,000 in sanctions to her ex-husband in a marital dissolution proceeding.
In re Marriage of Kent
(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a California family court lacked jurisdiction to modify a North Carolina child custody and child support order. Reversed the decision below.
In re H.D.
(California Court of Appeal) - Appellate court reversed the judgment terminating the parental rights of the mother. The mother suffered from addiction and agreed to let ex-husband assume full custody until she was able to get clean and sober. When the mother sought to regain custody, suit was filed against mother claiming she abandoned children. Appellate court said that there had to be an intent to abandon and there was not under these facts.
In re Clark
(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a Chapter 7 bankruptcy debtor's ex-wives were not entitled to notice of his bankruptcy proceeding to assert claims for child support arrears, under the circumstances here. Affirmed the lower court rulings.
N.T. v. H.T.
(California Court of Appeal) - Held that the trial court used an incorrect legal standard in denying a domestic violence restraining order. Reversed and remanded, clarifying how technical violations of an earlier restraining order should be treated.
NY Citizens’ Coalition for Children v Poole
(United States Second Circuit) - Finding that a plaintiff had standing to sue in seeking adequate payment for foster parents and that plaintiff had a right to adequate payments.
Miletello v. R M R Mechanical, Inc.
(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a deceased man's ex-wife was entitled to a specified portion of his 401(k) retirement account balance. Affirmed a summary judgment ruling, in a dispute between his ex-wife and his widow.
County of San Diego Department of Child Support Services v. C.P.
(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a father was not entitled to an adjustment in the child support arrears that accrued during his incarceration in federal prison. Vacated the decision below and remanded for further proceedings in this family court matter.
Look v. Penovatz
(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a father who paid child support did not have to reimburse his ex-wife's new partner for expending funds to care for the child. Affirmed a ruling after a bench trial.
In re C.W.
(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed orders that terminated a dependency case and awarded sole legal and physical custody to the father in Louisiana.
Molinaro v. Molinaro
(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a domestic violence restraining order could not constitutionally prohibit a husband from posting anything about his divorce case on Facebook. Directed that the provision be stricken from the restraining order as an invalid restraint on speech.
Eliahu v. Jewish Agency for Israel
(United States Second Circuit) - Held that four divorced men could not proceed with their lawsuit accusing Israeli government officials and others of misconduct in connection with their divorce proceedings and child support orders. Affirmed a dismissal based partly on lack of subject matter jurisdiction and partly on failure to state a claim.
In re Marriage of Brooks
(California Court of Appeal) - In a marital dissolution action, addressed how to apportion certain stock appreciation. The issue involved stock in a business that the husband started prior to marriage.