(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).

(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 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 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.

(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) - 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 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.

(NY Court of Appeals) - No. 26

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed that a Fifth Amendment takings claim was not ripe in a case where the plaintiffs alleged that the U.S. government had caused a compensable taking by barring repairs to forest-fire-damaged roads which provided the only means to access their patented mining and homestead claims within the Santa Fe National Forest. In finding that their regulatory taking case was not yet ripe for review, the appeals court noted that plaintiffs had not yet applied for a permit to reconstruct the forest roads.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Reinstated a patent infringement claim relating to a design for a portable animal kennel. The patent owner insisted it should not be estopped by prosecution history from asserting its infringement claim against a competitor. Agreeing that estoppel did not apply, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court's judgment on the pleadings and remanded for further proceedings.

MOSMAN Council will replace a trashed boom gate near a “nightmare” rat run after a second illegal extension was installed and the entire boom broken.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an issue of first impression involving the Securities and Exchange Commission's ability to disgorge ill-gotten funds from so-called 'relief defendants', the district court's final judgment, arising in connection with the SEC's enforcement action for federal securities law violations arising out of a fraudulent investment scheme, is affirmed where: 1) the district court properly asserted jurisdiction over appellants as relief defendants to determine the legal and factual legitimacy of appellants' claim to the $5 million; and 2) the district court did not clearly err in finding that the $5 million transfer as a loan was a sham.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Reinstated a patent infringement claim relating to a design for a portable animal kennel. The patent owner insisted it should not be estopped by prosecution history from asserting its infringement claim against a competitor. Agreeing that estoppel did not apply, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court's judgment on the pleadings and remanded for further proceedings.

(UT Court of Appeals) - No. 20180488-CA

(United States Second Circuit) - The subject attorney, admitted to the bar of this Court, is publicly reprimanded for his misconduct in this Court where: 1) he failed to timely file petitions for review, submitted deficient briefs, failed to file proper forms in eleven cases, and failed to timely file briefs in ten cases; and thus, 2) the Court's Committee on Admissions and Grievances's recommendations and findings of fact, with certain exceptions, are adopted.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an attorney committed misconduct by manifesting gender bias. Reported him to the State Bar. The attorney had filed a notice of appeal that referred to a female judicial officer's ruling as succubustic, a word that refers to a demon assuming female form that has sexual intercourse with men in their sleep.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In an action alleging that the government misappropriated plaintiff's trade secrets, the Fifth Circuit's decision vacating the district court’s judgment for plaintiff and remanding the case for transfer of the case to the Claims Court under 28 U.S.C. section 1631, is affirmed, where: 1) the Fifth Circuit ruling that the case must be transferred to the Claims Court is law of the case; and 2) the Claims Court has jurisdiction over plaintiff's suit because although plaintiff brought the action under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which now must give way, plaintiff is within the class of those authorized to recover upon proof of breach of contract, injury, and amount of damages, as well as a Fifth Amendment taking.

(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.

A MARINE Rescue vessel which sank on its maiden voyage on the Central Coast was a potential death trap for its crew and community members, an expert says.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. Walgreens was not responsible for third parties injured on the road by a customer of the pharmacy who was negligently given someone else's prescription. They did not owe a tort duty of care to third parties.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that an order issued by an arbitrator in the Philippines was not an arbitral award entitled to enforcement under a United Nations convention on recognition of foreign arbitral awards, based on the particular circumstances here. Reversed and remanded, in this case involving a fishing vessel crew member's personal injury claim.

(United States Third Circuit) - In a suit brought by a shareholder of retailer-defendant, seeking to include its proposal in defendant's proxy materials for shareholder consideration, the district court's judgment in favor of plaintiff ordering the inclusion of the proposal into the proxy materials is reversed where the proposal, which goes to the heart of defendant's business, is excludable under the "ordinary business" exclusion of SEC Rule 14a-8(i)(7), 17 C.F.R. section 240.14a-8(i)(7).

(NY Supreme Court) - 527275

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an insurance company owed a duty to defend a general contractor who was being sued by homeowners over alleged roofing defects. The case involved a commercial general liability insurance policy issued to a roofing subcontractor. Reversed the decision below.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. An insurer that did not receive timely notice of an accident could not be compelled to provide coverage.

(United States DC Circuit) - Reversed and remanded. The district court had jurisdiction over a Labor Management Relations Act Claim relating to a maritime labor union because the act provides federal jurisdiction over suits for violation of contracts between employers and labor organizations.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an attorney committed misconduct by manifesting gender bias. Reported him to the State Bar. The attorney had filed a notice of appeal that referred to a female judicial officer's ruling as succubustic, a word that refers to a demon assuming female form that has sexual intercourse with men in their sleep.

(United States DC Circuit) - Held that Google, Microsoft and Yahoo were not liable for allegedly conspiring to flood the market of online search results with information about so-called scam locksmiths, in order to extract additional advertising revenue. The Communications Decency Act barred this lawsuit brought by more than a dozen locksmith companies. Affirmed a dismissal.

(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.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed that a maritime lien had been extinguished by laches in a case where a Cypriot fuel supplier sought to enforce its lien against a Maltese company's vessel. In affirming the lower court's finding that the lien was barred by laches, the Second Circuit also recognized that federal courts have jurisdiction to declare a maritime lien unenforceable, even where the vessel is not present in the district, so long as its owner consents to adjudication of rights in the lien and the court also found no need for abstention on the basis of international comity, even though an in-rem proceeding was pending in Panama regarding the same lien.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - In plaintiff's suit against its insurer, arising from an underlying suit against the plaintiff over its marketing of Christmas lights for copying packaging design and for using false and deceptive language, district court's judgment is affirmed where: 1) the insurer had, but did not breach, a duty to defend; 2) the district court properly declined to require the insurer to reimburse plaintiff's contract indemnitee's expenses; but 3) the case is remanded to resolve whether the insurer owes prejudgment interest on litigation expenses and reimbursement for the settlement expenses in the underlying suit.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Reinstated a patent infringement claim relating to a design for a portable animal kennel. The patent owner insisted it should not be estopped by prosecution history from asserting its infringement claim against a competitor. Agreeing that estoppel did not apply, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court's judgment on the pleadings and remanded for further proceedings.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Reversed and remanded for dismissal. State child protective services agency employees were entitled to qualified immunity in a suit alleging constitutional violation in the removal of three children from their mother's custody under a temporary removal order.