(United States Federal Circuit) - Held that the federal government did not properly calculate the retirement annuity of a retired federal employee. The retiree, who had served in both the military and civilian sectors of the U.S. government, argued that he was entitled to civilian service credit for additional discrete time periods of his government service. On his petition for review of a Merit Systems Protection Board decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed that a pharmaceutical company's patent claims in a multiple sclerosis drug were invalid for obviousness. Several competitors seeking to market a generic version of the same drug raised the issue of obviousness when the company sued them for infringement. In a 2-1 decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed that the patent claims in question were invalid.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed. Defendant appealed from multiple convictions for robbery. He challenged the trial court’s admission of police interrogation statements, text exchange with his mother, and books and documents found in his car. The appeals court found that the police interrogation was properly admitted, but the text messages and the books and documents were not. This error by the trial court was prejudicial and therefore required reversal and remand.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed order denying motion to vacate conviction. Defendant pled guilty to unlawful intercourse with a person under age 16 for which he received probation. He was then taken into custody by the Immigration and Naturalization Service and ordered removed. He admitted to violating his probation because he was in the custody of the INS and deported. He also married the victim and had two children by her. Defendant filed a petition to vacate his conviction under Penal Code 1473.7 which was denied by the trial court. The appeals court held that the trials court’s order must be reversed because the motion was denied based on untimeliness and without the presence of the defendant or his counsel.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Partially affirmed, partially vacated. A man was properly convicted on drug charges and was subject to a sentence enhancement for maintaining drug premises, but the court plainly erred in calculating his relevant conduct and the case was remanded for resentencing.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed. Defendant was judged a mentally disordered offender (MDO) for bipolar disorder. With his bipolar disorder in remission, a re-commitment order was sought for Defendant’s pedophilia. The appeals court held that a re-commitment order must be based on the same mental disorder that was the basis of the original commitment.

(California Court of Appeal) - Writ issued and trial court directed to grant Defendant's motion. Defendant sought to have the complaint against him dismissed for failure to conduct a preliminary examination within 60 days. Trial court denied the motion, but Appeals court held the 60-day rule is absolute and there was no evidence that supported tolling the rule.

(Supreme Court of California) - Affirmed. A mentally disordered offender’s commitment may continue after the offender’s term has expired if their condition is not in remission and they represent a substantial danger of physical harm.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Defendant pled no contest to driving under the influence and injuring another person. He was ordered to pay restitution. Defendant’s insurance carrier settled a civil lawsuit for the injuries and then the injured party sought attorney’s fees as restitution through the court. The trial court ordered the payment of attorney’s fees in restitution.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. The state court determination that the long questioning and reference to access to her children were not coercion was affirmed, where a woman convicted of first degree homicide of an infant argued that statements made during an interrogation were involuntary and should have been suppressed.

(Supreme Court of California) - A prosecutor in a criminal case has a duty to disclose to the defense information that they personally know and information that they can learn about that is favorable to the accused. This obligation to disclose even includes restricted information about law enforcement officers. A law enforcement agency may disclose to the prosecution identifying information about an office and relevant exonerating or impeaching material in a confidential personnel file.

(Supreme Court of California) - Reversed court of appeal ruling that found prejudicial error. Defendant was charged with assault with a deadly weapon, specifically a box cutter. The Supreme Court concluded as a matter of law that a box cutter is not inherently deadly, but that the Defendant used the box cutter in a deadly way. The Court went on to say that the trial court’s determination that the box cutter was an inherently deadly weapon was harmless error.

(Supreme Court of California) - Affirmed. Defendant was charged with completed kidnapping but was convicted of attempted kidnapping. Defendant argued that a conviction for a crime he was not charged with violates the Sixth Amendment. The court held that a criminal defendant can be convicted of an attempted crime despite being charged with a completed crime because being charged with a completed crime is sufficient notice that he could be charged with an attempted crime.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Appeals court concluded that Defendant was property sentenced to consecutive sentences and should be remanded solely for resentencing in light of Penal Code section 1385.

(California Court of Appeal) - Appeal dismissed. The trial court’s order was a preliminary eligibility determination and was not appealable under Penal Code section 1238.

(California Court of Appeal) - Vacated in part. Defendant was convicted of multiple lewd acts upon a child. Defendant argued that the evidence did not support part of the conviction and his sentence is unconstitutional. The appeals court agreed that the evidence supported only two lewd acts on each victim and that his sentence was unconstitutionally excessive.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed conviction. Remanded for sentencing. Defendant was convicted of several crimes including kidnapping with intent to commit a sex offense. The trial court found certain sentence enhancement applied. The appeals court affirmed the judgment, but found several sentencing errors.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed and remand for new trial. Defendant is a sexually violent predator who is currently receiving treatment at a state mental hospital. He challenged the court order denying his petition to be placed in a conditional release program on the grounds that he was denied a fair trial. The appeals court agreed stating that the prosecutor interfered with Defendant’s right to testify and the trial court erroneously refused to admit his release plan into evidence. The appeals court held that a fair trial is a fundamental right.

(California Court of Appeal) - Appeal dismissed. Defendant pled no contest to identity theft. She was sentenced to county jail and the court imposed various fees and assessments. Defendant challenged the fees and assessments but claimed no error at trial or at the time of sentencing as required by Penal Code 1237.2. Therefore, the appeal must be dismissed

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. A Texas bank robbery was properly considered a crime of violence and it was a second or subsequent offense in relation to an attempt made two days earlier.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Defendant was convicted of vehicular manslaughter. Defendant challenged the judgment contending that the jury received confusing and conflicting instructions. The appeals court held that if any error occurred it was harmless.

WITH the NSW Premier League season drawing closer to the end, Hakoah FC’s division-one team will be looking to string some wins together to ensure a finals berth.

INDEPENDENT Dr Stephen Ruff is hoping to defeat North Sydney MP Trent Zimmerman in the Liberal heartland.

(California Court of Appeal) - In the People's appeal pursuant to Penal Code section 1238(a)(1), challenging the trial court's order to set aside certain counts of charges against defendant for using false statements in the offer or sale of a security, Corp. Code sections 25401, 25540(b), after defendant persuaded an acquaintance to invest in a real estate development opportunity in Idaho in return for a promissory note, the terms of which were amended and extended several times but never realized, the trial court's order is affirmed where the promissory notes offered for the investment in the real estate development scheme were not securities within the meaning of the Corporate Securities Law.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a civil enforcement action brought by the State of California against appellants for violation of the unfair competition laws (UCL), Bus. & Prof. Code section 17200 et seq., arising out of a complex real estate scam through which appellants acquired and rented real estate belonging to others, the trial court's judgment and award of damages in favor of the People is affirmed over defendants' six arguments on appeal.

(United States Second Circuit) - In a suit brought by a consulting firm specializing in fighting government corruption against a Venezuelan energy company, alleging plaintiffs were victims of an effort to discredit them by persons connected to a Venezuelan energy company that was in litigation with one of plaintiff's clients, the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's RICO and state law claims against the principals of the Venezuelan energy company is affirmed where dismissal of the RICO claims under Rule 12(b)(6) was proper because plaintiff failed to allege that the defendants engaged in a 'pattern of racketeering activity.'

(California Court of Appeal) - In an action seeking a writ of mandate ordering the trial court to vacate its finding that a law firm should be deemed part of the 'prosecution team' prosecuting defendant/real party in interest for embezzlement, and granting defendant's motion ordering the law firm to disclose material, exculpatory evidence in its possession in accordance with Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83, the relief is granted where the trial court erred in: 1) imposing a duty under Brady to disclose material, exculpatory evidence directly on the law firm, as opposed to on the prosecution; and 2) in finding the law firm to be part of the prosecution team.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that the superior court did not err in denying a motion to set aside an indictment. The defendant in this case alleging that medical clinics fraudulently billed insurance companies argued that the indictment failed to provide constitutionally adequate notice of the charges against him and also improperly aggregated multiple acts into single counts. Rejecting his arguments, the Fourth Appellate District held that there was no basis for issuing a writ of prohibition directing the indictment to be set aside.

(Supreme Court of California) - Interpreted Proposition 47, a recent initiative measure that makes certain types of forgery misdemeanors if the value of the forged instrument does not exceed $950. Held that the amount written on a forged check establishes its value for this purpose. Resolved a split in the courts of appeal regarding how to determine the value of a forged check.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed an order declaring a deed of trust void, in a case where a woman pleaded guilty to grand theft for encumbering a married couple's real property with a fraudulent deed of trust.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Defendant, a chiropractor, was convicted of charges stemming from a scheme to defraud workers’ compensation insurance carriers. On appeal, Defendant claimed several errors at trial including a sentencing error. The appeals court found no abuse of discretion or prejudicial error.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that greeting-card companies were not entitled to summary judgment against a trademark infringement suit. The companies insisted that they did not violate the Lanham Act by producing greeting cards that contained phrases similar to one trademarked by a comedy writer who had posted a popular YouTube video known for its catchphrase Honey Badger Don't Care. However, the Ninth Circuit found genuine issues of material fact, and thus reversed and remanded for further proceedings on the comedy writer's claims.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed that a pharmaceutical company's patent claims in a multiple sclerosis drug were invalid for obviousness. Several competitors seeking to market a generic version of the same drug raised the issue of obviousness when the company sued them for infringement. In a 2-1 decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed that the patent claims in question were invalid.