(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed a judgment of non-paternity. Held that the family court should have ordered genetic testing to determine whether a man was the father of a child born to another man's wife.

(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 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 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.

(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.

(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) - 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 proceeding, addressed whether a written instrument severing a joint tenancy in real property was effective. Affirmed the decision below.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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) - 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.

(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.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a religious organization's suit against a subdivision of a national anarchist group under the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act and common law trespass, district court's sanction order granting attorneys' fees and costs to non-parties, which followed the quashing of a subpoena seeking identifying information for seven e-mail account holders, is reversed where Rule 45(c)(1) cannot properly support a sanction where the cost of complying with the subpoena is minimal and there is no showing that the subpoena was facially defective or issued in bad faith.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In this case, the district court's judgment in favor of defendants Federal National Mortgage Association and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, finding them statutorily exempt from state and local taxation of real property transfers and finding that Congress had the constitutional authority to exempt defendants from such taxation, is affirmed, where: 1) the transfer taxes at issue here are excise taxes, and the statutory carve-outs allowing for taxation of real property encompass only property taxes, not excise taxes; 2) because Congress had power under the Commerce Clause to regulate the secondary mortgage market, it had power under the Necessary and Proper Clause to ensure the preservation of defendant organizations by exempting them from state and local taxes; and 3) the exemptions do not violate the Tenth Amendment.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a dispute between two factions of a church over control of church property, the trial court's judgment is affirmed over meritless claims that it erred: 1) when it found in favor of respondents based on appellants' excommunication from the Holy Hill Community Church (Church) by the Western California Presbytery (WCP); 2) by admitting evidence of events occurring after the cross-complaint was filed; and 3) when it prevented appellants' counsel from cross-examining a representative of the WCP whose testimony was sought by respondents.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a dispute over the control of two nonprofit entities associated with the Sikh Dharma religious community, the district court's dismissal of the claims, as foreclosed by the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment, is vacated where: 1) based only on the pleadings, the claims were not barred by the First Amendment's ministerial exception; and 2) the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine did not apply because the claims could be resolved by application of neutral principles of law without encroaching on religious organizations' right of autonomy in matters of religious doctrine and administration.

(California Court of Appeal) - In an action brought by a member of a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation to inspect the corporation's membership list, and other books and records, the trial court's denial of the plaintiff's petition for writ of mandate to compel inspection, on grounds that the member sought the inspection for an improper purpose, unrelated to his interest as a member of the corporation, and findings that the corporation did not timely challenge the request for the membership list as required by statute, and therefore ordered the list disclosed, is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding that the member sought the information for an improper purpose; and 2) the corporation's challenge to disclosing the membership list was not barred by statute.

(United States Supreme Court) - In a class action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) against church-affiliated nonprofits that run hospitals and other healthcare facilities, brought by current and former employees of the hospitals, alleging that the hospitals' pension plans do not fall within ERISA's church-plan exemption because they were not established by a church, the Seventh Circuit's judgment affirming the District Court's decision that a plan must be established by a church to qualify as a church plan, is reversed where a plan maintained by a principal-purpose organization qualifies as a 'church plan,' regardless of who established it.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed a $4 million default judgment against the Jehovah's Witness religious organization, in a lawsuit brought on behalf of a child who allegedly was sexually molested by a congregation elder. The default judgment was a sanction for the religious organization's refusal to produce certain documents in discovery.

(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 Seventh Circuit) - Revived a parochial school's claim that its students were being denied state‐funded bus transportation equivalent to public-school students, contrary to Wisconsin law and the Equal Protection Clause. Reversed summary judgment in relevant part and remanded.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a woman who made a sizeable donation to a San Diego spiritual group had no right to obtain her money back. Affirmed a summary adjudication in relevant part, rejecting her fraud and other claims.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a suit for trademark infringement and unfair competition brought under the Lanham Act by a producer of karaoke music tracks, alleging that the defendants performed karaoke shows using unauthorized 'media-shifted' files that had been copied onto computer hard drives from the compact discs released by the plaintiff, the district court's dismissal is affirmed where plaintiff did not state a claim under the Lanham Act because there was no likelihood of consumer confusion about the origin of a good properly cognizable in a claim of trademark infringement.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a suit brought by a group of broadcast stations and copyright holders against an entity that operates a service that uses antennas to capture over-the-air broadcast programming, much of it copyrighted, and then uses the Internet to retransmit such programming to paying subscribers, all without the consent or authorization of the copyright holders, the district court's partial summary judgment in favor of defendants is reversed where a service that captures copyrighted works broadcast over the air, and then retransmits them to paying subscribers over the Internet without the consent of the copyright holders, is not a 'cable system' eligible for a compulsory license under the Copyright Act.

(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 Fourth Circuit) - Affirming the district court's rejection of First Amendment violation claims brought by an exotic dancing venue complaining that a city regulates sexually oriented businesses differently than it does mainstream performances such as ballets and concerts, that the law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by barring 18 to 21 year olds from owning sexually oriented businesses, but finding that the district court erred in rejecting a claim that the denial provisions of the licensing regulation are an unconstitutional prior restraint, striking this provision from the Ordinance and remanding to consider its severability.

(United States Third Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of a TV producer's complaint alleging that the popular Fox Television series Empire infringed his copyright in a television pilot he had created a decade earlier. Moving to dismiss, the defendants contended that there was no substantial similarity between the two television shows. Agreeing, the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the complaint.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Granted a new trial in a copyright case involving a claim that Led Zeppelin copied key portions of its hit Stairway to Heaven from a song written by a musician named Randy Wolfe. Held that several jury instructions were erroneous and prejudicial, including the instructions on originality, and thus vacated the jury's verdict of no infringement.

(California Court of Appeal) - In an interpleader action, addressed a dispute among parties connected to the production of a Tony-award winning Broadway musical. Held that a judgment creditor's lien had priority over an unperfected security interest. Affirmed the judgment below.

(California Court of Appeal) - Revived a film producer's claim that he had an enforceable oral contract entitling him to an executive-producer credit for a film that was a sequel to a film he had developed. Held that the trial court erred in analyzing a statute-of-frauds issue. Reversed a dismissal in relevant part.

(KS Supreme Court) - No. 114,937

(United States Federal Circuit) - In a vineyard-plaintiff's appeal of a decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board dismissing its opposition to an application filed by defendant to register a MAYARI mark for use on wine, the Board's decision is affirmed where substantial evidence supports the Board's finding that plaintiff's registered mark MAYA and defendant's applied-for mark MAYARI are sufficiently dissimilar.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a suit for trademark infringement and unfair competition brought under the Lanham Act by a producer of karaoke music tracks, alleging that the defendants performed karaoke shows using unauthorized 'media-shifted' files that had been copied onto computer hard drives from the compact discs released by the plaintiff, the district court's dismissal is affirmed where plaintiff did not state a claim under the Lanham Act because there was no likelihood of consumer confusion about the origin of a good properly cognizable in a claim of trademark infringement.

(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) - Affirming that a 1999 amendment to trademark statutes did not eliminate the plaintiff's requirement that they establish wilfulness to justify the award of defendant's profits in a trademark infringement case, but reversing the holding that the defendant's mark was not likely to cause confusion and remanding for inquiry into intent.

(United States Third Circuit) - Affirming a summary judgment to the defendant Tyson Foods in a dispute involving their use of the word 'Parks' in reference to hotdogs where the plaintiff once held trademark on this word's use to sell hotdogs until it failed to renew the trademark in the early 2000's.

(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.