(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an interspousal transaction was not a transmutation of the husband's community interest in certain real property. The document he signed left ambiguous what his intent was. Reversed.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed an award of sanctions in the form of attorney fees in a marital dissolution proceeding. Addressed a procedural issue related to bringing a motion for sanctions in this context.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed monetary sanctions against a family law attorney for disclosing information contained in a confidential child custody evaluation report. However, reversed the order for sanctions against the client.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a marital dissolution proceeding, resolved issues involving child and spousal support awards, division of assets and other matters.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a party had appealed nonappealable orders. Dismissed the appeal, in relevant part, in a dispute between the first and second wives of a deceased man regarding ownership of certain assets.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a spousal support obligation did not terminate upon an ex-spouse's remarriage because the couple had agreed in writing that the relevant provision of the California Family Code would not apply. Recommended that a particular form on which the couple had left a box unchecked, leading to this result, be revised. Reversed a postjudgment order.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed a child custody order on the basis that it was not supported by the evidence. The order would have changed primary physical custody from the mother in California to the father in Arkansas.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a marital dissolution case, held that a particular piece of real estate was community property. Reversed the judgment below.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(United States Supreme Court) - In plaintiffs' section 1983 suit against several police officers alleging that the prohibition of carrying pictures of aborted fetuses during their demonstrations violated their First Amendment rights, the Fourth Circuit's judgment affirming the district court's grant of plaintiffs' motion for a permanent injunction but denial of attorney's fees, on the ground that plaintiff is not a prevailing party because he did not secure monetary damages, is vacated and remanded where a plaintiff "prevails" when actual relief on the merits of his claim materially alters the legal relationship between the parties by modifying the defendant's behavior in a way that directly benefits the plaintiff. Here, the injunction ordered the defendant officials to change their behavior in a way that directly benefited the plaintiff.

(California Court of Appeal) - Judgment quieting title of disputed property to plaintiff is affirmed, where: 1) defendant nonprofit religious organization's status as a "public benefit corporation" does not make it a "public entity" immune from adverse possession under Civil Code section 1007; 2) a nonprofit religious organization's "welfare exemption" from property taxes means that no such taxes were "levied and assessed" on the property during the years it qualified for the exemption; and thus, 3) under the plain and binding language of Code of Civil Procedure Code section 325, the adverse possessor is consequently excused from the usual requirement that he pay taxes on the disputed land for five years.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - In this case, petitioner, a not-for-profit theater corporation, filed applications for real property tax exemptions with respondent assessor and was denied. Petitioner then commenced this RPTL article 7 proceeding for review of its tax assessments. Order of the Appellate Division granting the petition is affirmed, where: 1) the statute does not elevate one exempt purpose over another, and under the circumstances, the use of property to provide staff housing is reasonable incidental to petitioner's primary purpose of encouraging appreciation of the arts through theater; and 2) petitioner has demonstrated that it is entitled to an RPTL 420-a tax exemption.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - In this case, petitioner, a not-for-profit religious corporation that owns real property, commenced proceedings pursuant to CPLR article 78 and RPTL article 7 after respondent Board of Assessment and Review for the Town of Catskill refused petitioner's applications for tax-exempt status pursuant to RPTL 420-a. The Appellate Division's grant of the petitions is affirmed, where petitioner adequately established its entitled to the RPTL 420-a exemption, as the proof at trial established that petitioner "exclusively" utilized the property in furtherance of its religious and charitable purposes.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - In an action seeking attorneys fees under 26 U.S.C. section 7431(c)(3), following a settlement between the IRS and plaintiff over the disclosure of an unredacted version of plaintiff's donor list, filed as part of plaintiff's required IRS Form 990, the district court's denial of plaintiff's motion for attorneys fees is affirmed where the government's litigation position regarding actual damages was substantially justified under 26 U.S.C. section 7430 (c)(4)(B).

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Revived a church's claim that a city's zoning code violated federal and state statutes protecting religious freedom by treating religious uses of property on unequal terms with analogous secular uses and unreasonably limiting where religious organizations may locate in the city. Reversed a grant of summary judgment and remanded.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a copyright action, arising from defendant's infringement of plaintiff's photos of the hip hop group Run-DMC for use on t-shirts and a calendar, the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendant Live Nation Merchandise is reversed where: 1) there is a triable issue of fact as to whether defendant's infringement was willful; and 2) plaintiff could prevail upon a showing that defendant knew that copyright management information had been removed from the photos.

(United States Second Circuit) - the Tax Court's grant of summary judgment for the IRS and finding petitioner liable for federal income tax deficiencies for the taxable years 2003 and 2004 is affirmed where the Tax Court correctly applied a 'single entity' approach to reduce the consolidated net operating loss of Marvel Entertainment, LLC's consolidated group by its previously excluded cancellation of debt income.

(United States Supreme Court) - In a trademark case in which the lead singer of the rock group 'The Slants' chose this moniker in order to 'reclaim' the term and drain its denigrating force as a derogatory term for Asian persons, and then sought federal registration of the mark 'THE SLANTS,' the en banc Federal Circuit's judgment overruling The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO)'s denial of the application under the Lanham Act's disparagement clause, is affirmed where: 1) the disparagement clause applies to marks that disparage the members of a racial or ethnic group; and 2) the disparagement clause violates the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause.

(United States Third Circuit) - Reversing a district court determination that a man complaining that the NFL's policies relating to the sale of SuperBowl tickets violated New Jersey law lacked subject matter jurisdiction and deferring action on the merits of the appeal pending a decision by the Supreme Court of New Jersey on a petition for certification of questions of state law, retaining jurisdiction over the appeal pending resolution of the certification.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirming the dismissal for failure to state a claim allegations of First Amendment violations by the City of New York, but reversing as to Manhattan Community Access Corporation and its employees because public access TV channels are a public forum and the corporation and its employees were state actors when they fired workers who produced segments critical of the corporation.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In an amended opinion, held that Louisiana statutes requiring certain erotic dancers at nightclubs to be 21 years of age or older was not unconstitutionally overbroad or vague. Vacated a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the statutes.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a rock star's decision to terminate his drummer implicated free speech rights. The fired drummer alleged that he was let go because of his age, disability or medical condition. Concluding that the rock star's decision was protected conduct, the California Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for further proceedings on the 80s-era star's (Eddie Money) anti-SLAPP motion.

(United States Supreme Court) - In a trademark case in which the lead singer of the rock group 'The Slants' chose this moniker in order to 'reclaim' the term and drain its denigrating force as a derogatory term for Asian persons, and then sought federal registration of the mark 'THE SLANTS,' the en banc Federal Circuit's judgment overruling The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO)'s denial of the application under the Lanham Act's disparagement clause, is affirmed where: 1) the disparagement clause applies to marks that disparage the members of a racial or ethnic group; and 2) the disparagement clause violates the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversing the district court's summary judgment to the defendants in a trademark infringement suit, finding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether defendant's use of 'all-in-one' was protected by the fair use defense and that the district court erred in applying fair use analysis after determining that plaintiff presented no evidence of likely confusion.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Vacating the district court's grant of summary judgment to the defendant, Whole Foods, in a trademark infringement case, affirming the denial of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and remanding a case in which disputed material facts relating to the affirmative defenses of laches and acquiescence hadn't been resolved in the case of a company that used to sell EatRight cookies to Whole Foods, who later began marketing food products under the mark EatRight America.

(United States First Circuit) - Reversed the order to dismiss the plaintiff's copyright and trademark claims stemming from a songwriting contest. Plaintiff entered a songwriting competition and agreed to the terms of the contest rules including an arbitration provision. Plaintiff did not win the contest, but alleges that the song he submitted was used by defendant for a music video. The court held that defendant was not a party to the arbitration agreement and could not invoke its provisions.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that the U.S. Postal Service was barred here from challenging a private company's patent for a method for processing mail. Because federal agencies do not fall within the statutory definition of a person, they are ineligible to petition the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to institute patent review proceedings under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011. Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the 6-3 Court.

(United States Supreme Court) - Addressed what law applies on the Outer Continental Shelf, holding that California wage-and-hour law was inapplicable to a worker on an offshore drilling platform. Under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, if federal law addresses the relevant issue, state law is not adopted as surrogate federal law. Justice Thomas delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that a private entity operating public access cable TV channels was not subject to First Amendment constraints on its editorial discretion. The producers of a controversial documentary film contended that the nonprofit corporation running the public access channels was a state actor because it was exercising a function traditionally exclusively reserved to the State, and therefore was subject to suit for violating their free speech rights. However, the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed. Justice Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the 5-4 Court.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that a Maryland public monument in the shape of a 32-foot tall Latin cross did not violate the Establishment Clause. A humanist group and others argued that the memorial to soldiers who died in World War I must be removed because of the crucifix shape. The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed. Justice Alito announced the judgment of the Court; however, only certain portions of his opinion received support from a majority of the justices.

(United States Supreme Court) - Reversed and remanded. Defendants sought disclosure, through a FOIA request, of names and addresses of retail stores who participated in the national food stamp program. Plaintiff refused to provide that information stating that substantive competitive harm would be caused. The district court disagreed with plaintiff and ordered disclosure. The US Supreme Court reversed and held that data provided under an assurance of privacy was an exemption to a FOIA request.

(United States Supreme Court) - Struck down a Tennessee requirement that applicants for a license to operate a retail liquor store have resided in the State for the prior two years. Held that the residency requirement violates the Commerce Clause because it blatantly favors the State's residents and has little relationship to public health and safety, and further held that the Twenty-first Amendment does not save the state law. Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the 7-2 Court.

(United States Second Circuit) - Upheld a Board of Immigration Appeals decision that a lawful permanent resident was ineligible for cancellation of removal. He had been found removable based on his New York convictions for endangering the welfare of a child. Denied the Irish citizen's petition for review.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed and remanded. An ambiguous record regarding a state law conviction does not constitute a predicate offense that would bar eligibility for a cancellation of removal, overruling Young v. Holder, where Petitioner argued previous conviction for conspiracy to commit a felony did not reference a specific controlled substance.

(United States DC Circuit) - Reversed. Plaintiffs offered the chance to apply for a select number of diversity visas that were never granted and whose statutory deadline had passed did not have a moot claim because the district court retained the authority to potentially award relief.

#architektura #architekt #dom #design

#architektura #architekt #dom #design