A major program to combat fruit fly is underway in two Australian states where the Queensland fruit fly is not native to those areas.

We’ve been on hiatus during a busy academic year. Highlights of 2013-2014 in OSU Welding Engineering: More than 100 prospective students, alumni, and current students’ parents attended our March Welding Engineering Open House. Sixty new sophomore Welding Engineering majors were accepted in January, beginning their first major classes. We said “congrats” and “good-bye” to a […]

With Accessible Rich Internet Applications (WAI-ARIA), developers can make advanced Web applications accessible and usable to a broad range of people with disabilities.

(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.

(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.

(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).

(California Court of Appeal) - In a former on-air radio personality's action for disability discrimination, wrongful termination and related employment claims, the trial court's grant of summary judgment to employer-defendant is reversed where material issues of fact exist regarding each of plaintiff's claims.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated, and remanded for retrial. Defendant killed a grizzly bear that was harassing his horses in Montana and was convicted of violating the Endangered Species Act. The 9th Circuit held that the trial court erred in applying an objectively reasonable standard when it should have applied a subjective belief standard as to the defendant's claim of self-defense.

#architektura #architekt #dom #design

#architektura #architekt #dom #design

https://t.co/rl92rXlZSQ

(California Court of Appeal) - Trial court's orders denying plaintiff's motion for attorney fees and costs and granting the motion to strike its cost memorandum in favor of defendants are reversed and remanded, where parties to a settlement agreement can validly specify that one party is potentially a prevailing party and reserve for later determination by the trial court whether that party did prevail, as well as other factual matters involved in making an award of statutory attorney fees.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed in part and reversed in part the summary judgment in favor of defendant in a copyright case. Plaintiff compiled a listing of individual consumer names with their addresses and sought copyright protection. The District Court found in favor of the defendant and against the copyright claims. The 9th Circuit held that the compilation of names and addresses is copyrightable, but plaintiff had failed to establish that its copyright had been infringed. Affirmed as to the infringement claim for the defendant, but reversed as to the state law trade secret claim.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that a company did not violate a nondisclosure agreement by including particular information in a patent application for a 3D printing process. Affirmed summary judgment against a breach-of-contract claim brought by the other party to the nondisclosure agreement, a distributor of specialty polymers.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed judgment notwithstanding verdict (JNOV) in favor of Defendants in part and granted new trial. Defendants, Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. (JCCI) manufactured talcum products that Plaintiff’s allege caused injury. The jury found in favor of Plaintiff, awarding compensatory and punitive damages. Defendants filed a motion for JNOV as to liability and punitive damages and for a new trial. The trial court granted the motions. The appeals court affirmed the JNOV in favor of Johnson & Johnson, but partially reversed as to Defendant, JCCI. Appeals court found no malice to support punitive damages, but found causation evidence in conflict and affirmed granting a new trial to JCCI.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. A $2.8 million verdict in a car accident and injury case was vacated because there was no evidence to support an award for future mental anguish or future pain and suffering.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court was within its discretion to deny recognition to a Moroccan judgment against a haircare and liqour tycoon in a lawsuit relating to a failed energy provision agreement.

(United States First Circuit) - In an investor suit against the company and four corporate officers, following a drop in the share price of the company, alleging securities fraud in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act), 15 U.S.C. sections 78j(b) and 78t(a), as well as the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. section 240.10b-5, the district court's judgment is: 1) affirmed as to the dismissal of the securities fraud counts, except with respect to one particular alleged misstatement for which we find the allegations set forth in the complaint sufficient to state a claim; and 2) affirmed as to the disposition of the plaintiffs' claims under Sections 11 and 15, albeit on different grounds than those articulated by the district court.

(NY Supreme Court) - 527275

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed. Trial court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim on the grounds that the claimed agreement entered into with Defendant had not be approved by the Defendant’s governing board as required by New York Town Law, hence there was no valid and enforceable contract.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an ethics and professional responsibility action, arising out of a dispute between class plaintiffs over conflicts of interest among class counsel, the district court's rejection of the motion to disqualify counsel is affirmed where California does not apply a rule of automatic disqualification for conflicts of simultaneous representation in the class action context and the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that counsel will adequately represent the class.

(United States First Circuit) - In an investor suit against the company and four corporate officers, following a drop in the share price of the company, alleging securities fraud in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act), 15 U.S.C. sections 78j(b) and 78t(a), as well as the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. section 240.10b-5, the district court's judgment is: 1) affirmed as to the dismissal of the securities fraud counts, except with respect to one particular alleged misstatement for which we find the allegations set forth in the complaint sufficient to state a claim; and 2) affirmed as to the disposition of the plaintiffs' claims under Sections 11 and 15, albeit on different grounds than those articulated by the district court.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a water law action, arising from a dispute between landowners and public water producers over rights to groundwater contained in the Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Basin, the trial court's amended judgment is affirmed where: 1) the trial court properly quieted title even though it did not quantify the proportionate prescriptive loss attributed to specified parcels; 2) the trial court did not err in its prevailing party determination for the purposes of determining costs.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff sued to prevent Defendant from violating city zoning laws to construct a solar energy project. Defendant claimed an exemption under Gov. Code, section 53091 and 53096. Court found that exemption does not apply and that there was no finding that no feasible alternative was available.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a Korean manufacturer/distributor of household products was subject to specific personal jurisdiction in California. The company was being sued in connection with a consumer's death allegedly from long-term use of a humidifier cleaning agent. Reversed an order quashing service of summons.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In a complaint alleging design-patent infringement under federal law as well as trade-dress infringement and unfair competition under federal and state law, the district court's denial of defendant's motion to stay the action pending arbitration based on the parties' agreement's arbitration provision, is affirmed where defendant's assertion that the arbitration provision covers the claims stated in the complaint is 'wholly groundless,' a standard that defendant accepts as applicable in this case.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that a company did not violate a nondisclosure agreement by including particular information in a patent application for a 3D printing process. Affirmed summary judgment against a breach-of-contract claim brought by the other party to the nondisclosure agreement, a distributor of specialty polymers.

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld an attorney fee award to a government contractor that defeated a municipality's claim brought under the California False Claims Act, even though the contractor did not prevail in the action as a whole.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff performed framing work on a commercial building owned by Defendant. Plaintiff was not paid for his work and filed a mechanic’s lien. Defendant complained of problems with some of the framing and Plaintiff performed repair work. Plaintiff filed this action to foreclose on its mechanic’s lien. The trial court granted Defendant summary judgment ruling that the mechanic’s lien was filed prematurely, before Plaintiff had ceased work. The appeals court agreed.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a hospital waited too long to file an administrative appeal challenging a reduction in Medi-Cal reimbursements. Affirmed that the filing was untimely.

So you are no longer winning lotteries, you are getting donations from generous lottery winners.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed in part and reversed in part the summary judgment in favor of defendant in a copyright case. Plaintiff compiled a listing of individual consumer names with their addresses and sought copyright protection. The District Court found in favor of the defendant and against the copyright claims. The 9th Circuit held that the compilation of names and addresses is copyrightable, but plaintiff had failed to establish that its copyright had been infringed. Affirmed as to the infringement claim for the defendant, but reversed as to the state law trade secret claim.