Hour 1
Ali v. Hogan, No. 20-2266 (4th Cir. 2022)
Ali sought to pursue 42 U.S.C. 1983 proceedings challenging as unconstitutional an executive order of Maryland’s Governor that prohibits boycotts of Israel by business entities that bid on the state’s procurement contracts. According to the Initial Complaint, “Ali is a computer software engineer who wishes to submit bids for government software project contracts but is barred from doing so due to the presence of mandatory ‘No Boycott of Israel’ clauses.”
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/20-2266/20-2266-2022-02-18.html
Harshaw v. Harshaw, No. 21-1423 (7th Cir. 2022)
They later reconciled but did not re‐marry, then separated again. Because divorce laws no longer applied, Anne sued Donald in Indiana state court under equitable theories to seek redress for her contributions to the relationship during their second period together. They agreed to binding arbitration. The arbitrator awarded Anne $435,000, half the increase in value of Donald’s retirement savings during their unmarried cohabitation. Donald declared bankruptcy and sought to discharge the arbitrator’s award as a money judgment.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/21-1423/21-1423-2022-02-23.html
Qualified domestic relations order
. . . is a judicial order in the United States, entered as part of a property division in a divorce or legal separation that splits a retirement plan or pension plan by recognizing joint marital ownership interests in the plan, specifically the former spouse’s interest in that spouse’s share of the asset. A QDRO’s recognition of spousal ownership interest in a plan participant’s (employee’s) pension plan awards a portion of the plan participant’s benefit to an alternate payee. An alternate payee must be a spouse, former spouse, child or other dependent of the plan participant. A QDRO may also be entered for spousal support or child support.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_domestic_relations_order
Balistreri v. Balistreri (California Appeals court, 2022)
The trust mandates that “[a]ny amendment, revocation, or termination . . . shall be made by written instrument signed, with signature acknowledged by a notary public, by the trustor(s) making the revocation, amendment, or termination, and delivered to the trustee.” Mary alleged that in 2020, Sal executed a “First Amendment,” striking the provision that distributed the property amongst the children; it is not notarized. Sal died the next day.
https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2022/a162222.html
Shenefield v. Shenefield (California Appeals court, 2022)
In his declaration, Mark quoted from and referenced the contents of a confidential, court-ordered psychological evaluation undertaken during Jennifer’s previous marital dissolution.
https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2022/d078643.html
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Shenefield+v.+Shenefield&as_sdt=2006
Notice this is and Indiana Case that we are using as an example for our Google Scholar lesson. Same names; different couple. The California case hadn’t made it into Google Scholar as of 2022-03-02.
Hour 2
Commonwealth v. Comenzo (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2022)
The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the order of the denying Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained after surveillance was conducted at Defendant’s apartment building via a hidden video camera placed on a nearby public utility pole, holding that although the pole camera surveillance constituted a warrantless search under article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, it was nevertheless constitutional.
https://law.justia.com/cases/massachusetts/supreme-court/2022/sjc-13119.html
Defendant was indicted on child pornography charges.
The following case has similar issues; pole-cams:
United States v. Tuggle, No. 20-2352 (7th Cir. 2021)
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/20-2352/20-2352-2021-07-14.html
First day of class, the law teacher walked in.
What’s your name?
https://snapliberalhumorandattitude.quora.com/CTTO-First-day-of-class-the-law-teacher-walked-in-The-first-thing-he-did-was-ask-for-the-name-of-a-student-sitting
My name is Nelson.
Get out of my class and never come back! he ordered him.
Nelson was confused.
The teacher was heading towards him,he got up quickly, packed up his stuff and left the classroom.
Everyone was scared and outraged but no one was talking.
Very Good! Let’s get it started.
What are laws for? asked the teacher.
Tyler v. Minnesota, No. 20-3730 (8th Cir. 2022)
To satisfy the debt, Hennepin County foreclosed on Tyler’s property and sold it for $40,000. The county retained the net proceeds from the sale. Tyler sued the county, alleging that its retention of the surplus equity—the value of the condominium in excess of her $15,000 tax debt—constituted an unconstitutional taking, an unconstitutionally excessive fine, a violation of substantive due process, and unjust enrichment under state law.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/20-3730/20-3730-2022-02-16.html
Seventh Circuit: Questioning Drivers on Travel Plans Is a Permissible Inquiry
The court began its analysis by noting that traffic stops are seizures, so they must be reasonable under the circumstances. However, the court explained that traffic stops must remain limited in scope. Quoting the Supreme Court’s decision in Rodriguez v. United States, the court stated “[a] seizure for a traffic violation justifies a police investigation of that violation,” and police may not “detour” from that “mission” to investigate other criminal activity. The court stated that a detour that prolongs a stop violates the Fourth Amendment unless the officer has reasonable suspicion of other criminal activity to independently justify prolonging the stop.
https://www.fedagent.com/news/seventh-circuit-questioning-drivers-on-travel-plans-is-a-permissible-inquiry
Ratha v. Phatthana Seafood Co. Ltd., No. 18-55041 (9th Cir. 2022)
Cambodian villagers who alleged that they were trafficked into Thailand and subjected to forced labor at seafood processing factories sued under the civil remedy provision of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, 18 U.S.C. 1595. The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/18-55041/18-55041-2022-02-25.html
Thus, this case involves allegations by foreign Plaintiffs, against foreign Defendants, based on conduct occurring and injuries suffered in a foreign country. We must first consider the extraterritorial reach of § 1595. See RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Cmty., 579 U.S. 325, 329 (2016) (explaining that a statute applies extraterritorially, when it applies “to events occurring and injuries suffered outside the United States”).
From the opinion (page 12 of the PDF):
RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Community, 136 S. Ct. 2090 – Supreme Court 2016
Credits
Lesley Gore – It’s my party
https://youtu.be/mIsnIt1p978
Gran Torino – Final scene
https://youtu.be/SJLbR9TEMD8
15 second snips
https://sectorradio.ru/space/
Copyright 2022. All rights reserved in print and audio content.