News

Case Summaries

Family Law

[11/07] Choose Life Illinois, Inc. v. White
In a suit by an interest group seeking on First Amendment grounds to force the state of Illinois to issue "Choose Life" specialty license plates, judgment in favor of plaintiffs is reversed where: 1) specialty license plates implicate the speech rights of private speakers, not government speech; 2) specialty plates are a nonpublic forum; and 3) the state could enforce a content-based but viewpoint-neutral ban disallowing any abortion-related message, whether pro-life or pro-choice, to be displayed on its license plates.

[11/06] Aguilar v. Aguilar
Denial of petition to undo a wife's withdrawal of trust property brought by a remainder beneficiary of the trust is reversed and remanded where: 1) even though the property the wife sought to withdraw was her share of the community property, it was too late for her to withdraw it; 2) irrevocable trusts are binding, even on their trustors; and 3) as the life beneficiary, the wife could continue to enjoy the property as held by the trust.

[11/05] Humphries v. County of Los Angeles
California's maintenance of the California's Child Abuse Central Index (CACI), which is a database of known or suspected child abusers, violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because identified individuals are not given a fair opportunity to challenge the allegations against them.

[11/05] In re A.E.
Order directing both parents to participate in Department of children and Family Services (DCFS)-approved "programs of parent education [and] individual counseling addressing all issues including anger management" is affirmed where the father did not object to the order directing him to participate in counseling sessions.

[10/29] Woolard v. Woolard
In a suit alleging mismanagement of a trust established by plaintiff's father for which defendant was trustee, summary judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) defendant's disbursements of trust funds to plaintiff's father violated the express terms of the trust; 2) a statute permitting disbursements to adult relatives of beneficiaries would only apply if the trust contained no express terms forbidding such disbursements; 3) no showing of bad faith was required to overturn the disbursements, since those disbursements were not discretionary decisions but rather were expressly forbidden; 4) the monthly statements of the trust's brokerage account were not records adequate to satisfy defendant's record-keeping duty; and 5) defendant breached his fiduciary duties by failing to inquire about the use of the disbursed funds.

Read More

Government Benefits

[11/14] Feemster v. BSA Ltd. P'ship
In an action alleging that defendant-landlord unlawfully refused to accept Section 8 vouchers as payment for rent, summary judgment for tenants in part is affirmed, and for landlord in part is reversed, where: 1) federal housing law prevented landlord from unilaterally declaring that the units in question were no longer being offered for rental housing, but instead required that landlord meet the requirements of local law for making such a determination; and 2) the uncontested fact that landlord refused payment via voucher, while insisting it would accept cash, made out a facial violation of the District of Columbia Human Rights Act.

[11/12] US v. Kaufman
In a criminal matter involving defendants who had directed severely mentally ill residents of their treatment center to perform sexually explicit acts and farm labor in the nude, allegedly as psychotherapy, their convictions for forced labor and involuntary servitude are affirmed where: 1) even if the trial court plainly erred in ordering defendants to avoid eye contact with former residents who testified against them at trial, they failed to establish that the error affected their substantial rights; 2) there was no plain error in instructing the jury on the meaning of "labor" and "services" under statutes of conviction; and 3) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for involuntary servitude. However, on cross-appeal, defendant-wife's sentence is remanded for resentencing where it was procedurally unreasonable because: 1) the evidence supported applying certain enhancements, and the district court failed to make findings sufficient to justify its refusal to apply them; and 2) an obstruction of justice enhancement was supported by the record as well.

[11/12] James v. Richman
In a suit seeking Medicaid benefits, an injunction preventing defendant-Department of Public Welfare from denying benefits is affirmed where: 1) equitable relief was appropriate where plaintiff would be barred by the Eleventh Amendment from seeking monetary damages from the state; 2) plaintiff was not required to exhaust his state-level administrative remedies before seeking federal relief; and 3) a non-revocable, non-transferable annuity purchased by plaintiff's wife did not fit the statutory definition of an "available resource" for purposes of calculating Medicaid eligibility.

[11/06] Mouser v. Astrue
In a social security benefits case, an order denying remand and affirming a denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits is affirmed where: 1) there was no abuse of discretion in finding a lack of good cause to remand the case for consideration of new evidence pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 405(g); 2) the ALJ's credibility assessment was proper; and 3) the record was lacking in evidence that would have put the ALJ on notice that claimant's mental capacity could be at issue, and the ALJ fully and fairly developed the record based on the evidence before him.

[11/05] Vasquez v. Astrue
A ruling upholding a denial of Social Security disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits is vacated and remanded to the Commissioner of Social Security for a hearing on the issue of whether claimant was entitled to benefits where: 1) the ALJ erred in discrediting claimant's symptom testimony, and applying the credit-as-true rule, on remand the ALJ is instructed to accept her symptom testimony as true in determining whether she is entitled to benefits; and 2) for purposes of a finding of mental impairment, the ALJ should have been afforded an opportunity to consider additional evidence generated between the ALJ's decision and an Appeals Council hearing.

Read More