The Court of Appeal reversed. It held that the judicially created paper-contest exception does not apply to a trust governed by California’s current statutory scheme for no-contest clauses.
A divided Ninth Circuit panel reversed. The majority held that the 1934 adjudication comprehensively determined the relative rights to the creek system and that the present suit seeks administration of those established rights.
A divided Ninth Circuit panel affirmed dismissal of the facial and as-applied challenges. Applying exacting scrutiny, the majority found a substantial relationship between source disclosure and Arizona’s important interest in giving voters accurate information about major campaign-media spending.
The court dismissed the financial-elder-abuse claim without leave to amend. Allegations that the defendants should have recognized suspicious transactions amounted at most to constructive knowledge, not the actual knowledge required for liability based on assisting another person’s taking.
Consumers challenging Google’s default-search agreements lacked standing because they could not show the agreements caused their injuries.
A federal court remanded a California wage-and-hour class action against Kaiser to Alameda County and denied the pending dismissal motion as moot.
Barilla won summary judgment because “Italy’s #1 Brand of Pasta” described the brand and did not misrepresent manufacturing origin.
A Northern District of California court cancelled two emergency-shelter trade-dress registrations because the claimed configuration served practical functions.
A Northern District court reversed an SSI denial because the agency inadequately assessed medical evidence and failed to resolve major discrepancies in national job estimates.
A Central District court reversed a disability denial because the agency relaxed physical restrictions preserved by an earlier judicial remand without adequate justification.
A Central District court ordered an immigration detainee released because ICE revoked her humanitarian parole without notice and a pre-deprivation hearing.
An Eastern District court held that confiscating a Rastafarian crown in restricted colors did not substantially burden religious exercise and was supported by prison-security concerns.
The First Amendment barred publication-based claims over truthful reporting drawn from a sealed arrest report that the journalist lawfully obtained.
Expert and circumstantial evidence created a jury question about whether an unsecured dog and raised threshold caused a fatal fall.
A complaint against a public entity cannot proceed on materially different facts from those fairly disclosed in the claimant’s administrative claim.
A federal court certified a California consumer class challenging safety-oriented Tampax labels that allegedly omit the presence of lead.
The court denied the habeas petition without prejudice and directed entry of judgment. It held that the immigration judge made an individualized assessment of Far’s family ties, immigration history, and asserted sponsor, applied permissible flight-risk factors, and did not abuse his discretion.
A San Diego federal judge granted habeas relief and ordered ICE to release a Colombian asylum-seeker rearrested without notice after four years on parole, holding the Due Process Clause required notice and a hearing before his liberty could be revoked.
A federal judge ruled that United Behavioral Health’s 2017 guidelines for approving mental-health and substance-use treatment violated ERISA, granting a certified class summary judgment on claims for wrongful benefit denials and breach of fiduciary duty.
A Magistrate Judge’s pretrial order in a patent infringement case bars a defendant from using prior art it failed to disclose in its invalidity contentions, rejecting the argument that the material was merely ‘background,’ while also excluding full expert reports as hearsay and ord
A federal district court affirmed the denial of SSI disability benefits, holding that documented evidence of malingering excused the ALJ from needing “clear and convincing” reasons to discount the claimant’s testimony.
A federal magistrate judge dismissed pro se plaintiffs’ civil rights suit against the City of Oakland for a second time, finding their amended complaint still failed Rule 8’s basic clarity requirements, while leaving unresolved the city’s statute-of-limitations and res judicata def
A federal judge denied remand in a Lemonade cookie-tracking privacy class action, holding that allegations of shared insurance and personal data after a ‘Reject All’ click plausibly establish Article III standing.
A federal judge ordered ICE to immediately release a mother and her three children, finding they were likely detained without the due process bond hearing the Constitution requires.