Legal news archive
Every item ever ingested, 2084 total. Nothing is deleted or overwritten as new items arrive -- this page just paginates further back.
USA v. Williams et al
OPINION & ORDER denying 45 Motion to Suppress as to Durian Randell Williams (1). Signed by District Judge Algenon L Marbley on 08/04/2026. (sh2)
2026-08-04 · via GovInfo (US GPO / USCOURTS)
BAILEY v. A1 LIMOUSINE
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Robert Kirsch on 8/4/2026. (sms2, n.m.)
2026-08-04 · via GovInfo (US GPO / USCOURTS)
FELIX v. FARFETCH.COM US, LLC et al
County; directing the Clerk of the Court to file this Order in both actions and mark both actions CLOSED. Signed by Judge Evelyn Padin on 8/4/2026. (dam)MEMORANDUM ORDER denying as moot Removing Defendants' request to consolidate these actions, Felix, D.E. 9; remanding Felix v. Farfetch.com US, LLC No. 26-8726 and Akakpo v. Reynolds No. 26-8722 to Superior Court of Bergen
2026-08-04 · via GovInfo (US GPO / USCOURTS)
Annie Caldarera v. Kingfisher Living, D/B/A Ella Springs Senior Assisted Living Facility
The Court of Appeals dismissed this case for lack of jurisdiction because the summary judgment order granted on May 13, 2026, did not dispose of all claims and parties, making it interlocutory. The court determined that because the order granted summary judgment only on negligence while other causes of action remained pending, it failed to indicate finality as required for appeal. Consequently, the court granted the appellee's motion to dismiss the appeal.
2026-08-04 · via CourtListener (Free Law Project)
O'Brien v. Ohio Bur. Workers' Comp.
Hagen O’Brien appealed the Court of Claims’ grant of summary judgment on claims of disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation against the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation. O’Brien alleged that the bureau’s refusal to accommodate his requests for relief from stress and anxiety constituted unlawful discrimination. Although the opinion states the appellate court intended to "affirm in part and reverse in part," the provided text does not specify the outcome regarding each of the appellant's claims.
2026-08-04 · via CourtListener (Free Law Project)
Jellig v. District of Columbia
Plaintiff Gerard Jellig sued his former employer, the District of Columbia, alleging constitutional violations, employment discrimination, and breach of contract. The court granted the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss in part, ruling that Count III was duplicative because § 1983 does not create a separate cause of action for rights originally enforced through the First and Fifth Amendments.
2026-08-04 · via CourtListener (Free Law Project)
Rolph v. Rolph
This case concerns an estate dispute over a family farm that was transferred to siblings through a land contract and subsequent deed. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's finding that the land contract had merged with the deed and that the motion to remove the co-executors was properly denied based on insufficient evidence of a dispute or asset loss.
2026-08-04 · via CourtListener (Free Law Project)
In re Estate of Straub
Savannah Ellen Lewis appealed the probate court's denial of her application to admit a "purported will" to probate, arguing the court improperly examined the document's substance rather than its execution formalities. The probate court determined the instrument was a durable power of attorney that could not distribute the decedent's estate because its authority terminated upon the decedent's death. The appellate opinion began analyzing Ohio law to determine whether a probate court is permitted to inquire into the contents of a purported will over its statutory face.
2026-08-04 · via CourtListener (Free Law Project)
Doemeny v. Doemeny
Emmerich Doemeny appeals the trial court's decision classifying a rental property, a bank account, and a joint tax refund as marital property and awarding spousal support, arguing that because these assets were purchased with his separate dividends, they were also his separate property. The appellate court overrules the husband's first assignment of error based on his failure to adequately brief the specific errors related to the property division.
2026-08-04 · via CourtListener (Free Law Project)
United States v. Warren Griffin
Frank Smith, Warren Griffin, Dominque Maxwell, and Sean Clemon appealed their life sentences for convictions involving federal racketeering and related murders tied to the Gangster Disciples gang. The appellate court scrutinized whether the district court improperly admitted numerous coconspirator statements at trial without a required pretrial "Santiago proffer" to ensure compliance with evidence rules. Despite being troubled by these procedural issues, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the convictions, finding that admitting the coconspirator testimony did not constitute error.
2026-08-04 · via CourtListener (Free Law Project)
United States v. Sean Clemon
The defendants, convicted of racketeering and murder for their roles in the Gangster Disciples, appealed their life sentences arguing that the trial court admitted numerous coconspirator statements without proper identification and explanation. The appellate court affirmed the convictions and sentences despite acknowledging the district court's procedural shortcomings, finding no ultimate error but offering guidance for future cases.
2026-08-04 · via CourtListener (Free Law Project)
United States v. Frank Smith
Frank Smith, Warren Griffin, Sean Clemon, and Dominque Maxwell received life sentences after being convicted of federal racketeering conspiracy and gang-related murders for the Gangster Disciples. On appeal, the defendants challenged the admission of scores of coconspirator statements, arguing the district court failed to provide the required pretrial disclosures known as Santiago proffers. Although the appellate court noted it was troubled by the lack of these proffers, it ultimately affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding no ultimate error in how the evidence was admitted.
2026-08-04 · via CourtListener (Free Law Project)
United States v. Dominque Maxwell
Four defendants convicted of racketeering and murder charges stemming from gang violence appealed, claiming the district court improperly admitted coconspirator statements without proper adherence to evidentiary rules. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the convictions and life sentences, finding that while the court erred by not requiring a pretrial "Santiago proffer," this procedural failure did not result in ultimate error regarding the evidence.
2026-08-04 · via CourtListener (Free Law Project)
Insurance Company of the West v. High Performance Alloys, Inc.
Insurance Company of the West appealed a district court’s decision denying coverage to High Performance Alloys, Inc. for the wrongful death of an employee, arguing that the policy’s exclusions barred defense based on the underlying allegations of intentional harm and gross negligence. The Seventh Circuit agreed with the lower court that the worker’s compensation exclusion applied and affirmed the judgment because Indiana law excludes all recovery for such injuries outside of the compensation system. The court also noted that the intentional exclusion would bar coverage even if the claim were not excluded by state law, affirming the district court on both counts.
2026-08-04 · via CourtListener (Free Law Project)
Majkut v. Majkut
The plaintiffs and defendants appealed postjudgment orders finding the plaintiff in contempt for violating a parenting plan's nondisparagement clause and modifying custody arrangements. The court held that the plaintiff validly waived her free speech rights by agreeing to the parenting plan while represented by counsel and did not abuse its discretion in upholding the custody and visitation awards, as well as the defendant's attorney's fees.
2026-08-04 · via CourtListener (Free Law Project)
Ashworth v. Branford
After a released patient, who had threatened his former girlfriend with violence, murdered her and then himself, the court had to determine if the victim’s estate could sue the psychiatric hospital for medical negligence. The majority adhered to the precedent in *Jarmie v. Troncale*, interpreting General Statutes § 52-190a to bar claims brought by a nonpatient for medical negligence resulting in death. A concurring justice acknowledged the precedent was flawed and likely should be overruled but ultimately agreed with the majority that the medical negligence claims were barred.
2026-08-04 · via CourtListener (Free Law Project)
James v. Federal Express Corporation et al
Findings & Recommendations: Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF 40) should be granted and this case should be dismissed with prejudice. These Findings and Recommendations will be referred to a district judge. Objections, if any, are due Monday, August 24, 2026. If no objections are filed, then the Findings and Recommendations will go under advisement on that date. Signed on 8/3/2026 by Magistrate Judge Youlee Yim You.(Deposited in outgoing mail to pro se party on 8/3/2026.) (pvh)
2026-08-03 · via GovInfo (US GPO / USCOURTS)
Fourstar v. United States of America
ORDER: USAs Motion for Summary Judgment is partially GRANTED. USA is entitled to summary judgment regarding Fourstars allegation that correctional officers negligently injured Fourstar by pepper spraying him. USA is not entitled to summary judgment regarding Fourstars allegation that the correctional officers failed to protect him from assault by other inmates. Signed by Magistrate Judge John Johnston on 8/3/2026. (KAH)
2026-08-03 · via GovInfo (US GPO / USCOURTS)
Scott v. City of Kansas City, Missouri et al
ORDER on Discovery Dispute. Signed on August 3, 2026, by District Judge Greg Kays. (law clerk)
2026-08-03 · via GovInfo (US GPO / USCOURTS)
Fitzgerald v. Jeff Anderson & Associates, PA
ORDER: Defendant Jeff Anderson & Associates, PA's 17 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan on 8/3/2026. (LC1)
2026-08-03 · via GovInfo (US GPO / USCOURTS)
Mercado v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts
District Judge Angel Kelley: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 1. The Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis [Dkt. 2] is DENIED. 2. The Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Dkt. 3] is DENIED.3. This action is DISMISSED pursuant to the Court's inherent authority.4. The Clerk is directed to enter a separate Order of Dismissal. (bm)
2026-08-03 · via GovInfo (US GPO / USCOURTS)
Lewis v. Hirschbach Motor Lines, Inc. et al
ORDER DENYING 389 and 413 Motions for Sanctions filed by Third-Party Defendants Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems LLC and International Motors, LLC f/k/a Navistar, Inc. Signed by Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 8/3/2026. (dkb)
2026-08-03 · via GovInfo (US GPO / USCOURTS)
Jones, et al v. United States of America
States as to all of Jones's claims. (eta)DECISION - Signed by SENIOR JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on 8/3/2026. Because Jones failed to meet her burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence a causal relationship between exposure to the water from the JBPHH waterline and her illness, Jones's claims fail. The Court therefore concludes that the United States is entitled to judgment as to all of Jones's claims. The Clerk's Office is directed to enter judgment in favor of the United
2026-08-03 · via GovInfo (US GPO / USCOURTS)
Lopez Regueiro v. Delta Airlines, Inc.
ORDER denying 16 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Answer due by 8/24/2026. Signed by Judge Federico A. Moreno on 8/3/2026. See attached document for full details. (aoa)
2026-08-03 · via GovInfo (US GPO / USCOURTS)
Reynolds v. Wilcox et al
Memorandum Opinion and ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that: (1) Defendant United States' Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 152] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; and (2) A Telephonic Status Conference is SET for September 1, 2026 at 11:00 A.M. to set the Final Pretrial/Trial Preparation Conference and trial in this case. Counsel for the Parties shall participate using the following dial-in information: 571-353-2301; Access Code: 783456374. By Judge Nina Y. Wang on 8/3/2026. For all non-e-filer pro se parties, a copy of this document has been sent via U.S. Mail to the mailing address of record.(ggill, )
2026-08-03 · via GovInfo (US GPO / USCOURTS)
USA v. McGee, et al.
MEMORANDUM OPINION as to Glennie Antonio McGee, written order DENYING motions to suppress (Docs. 363, 389, 390, 617, 674). Signed by District Judge Terry F. Moorer on 8/3/26. (copy to Deft McGee) (mab)
2026-08-03 · via GovInfo (US GPO / USCOURTS)
USA v. Manuchekhri
ORDER: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Order, Defendant's motions: (1) for reconsideration of the Court's denial of his suppression motion under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978); (2) for reconsideration of the Court's February 17, 2026, Order denying his motion to dismiss the Indictment for failure to allege a Section 2339B violation in light of the Second Circuit's decision in United States v. Ullah, 173 F.4th 399 (2d Cir. 2026); (3) to dismiss the Indictment under the non-delegation doctrine; and (4) to compel discovery and Brady material, see ECF Nos. 60, 61, 62, are DENIED. The parties shall proceed to trial on all charges according to the schedule set at the February 17, 2026, status conference. See Feb. 17, 2026, Minute Order. Ordered by Judge Hector Gonzalez on 8/3/2026. (CBF)
2026-08-03 · via GovInfo (US GPO / USCOURTS)
LOPEZ v. ALLURE GENERAL CONTRACTING ET AL.
OPINION. Signed by Judge Jamel K. Semper on 8/3/2026. (adc, )
2026-08-03 · via GovInfo (US GPO / USCOURTS)
Morales v. Super. Ct.
Silvia Morales sued San Diego Gas & Electric Company for wrongful termination based on statutory discrimination and public policy claims, challenging the company’s motion to compel arbitration under an employment agreement signed years earlier. The appellate court agreed with Morales and issued a writ of mandate finding that because her claims were not based on a violation of the employment agreement itself, the limited arbitration provisions in her contract did not apply to cover her case.
2026-08-03 · via CourtListener (Free Law Project)
Benjamin Danielson, V. Seattle Childrens Hospital
Dr. Benjamin Danielson sued Seattle Children’s Hospital under the Washington Law Against Discrimination, alleging a hostile work environment and retaliation for addressing systemic racism. After a jury awarded him $21 million, the Court of Appeals denied the hospital’s appeals, ruling that substantial evidence supported the finding of a hostile work environment and that the trial court did not err in its rulings.
2026-08-03 · via CourtListener (Free Law Project)
Conservatorship of C.O.
Defendant C.O. appeals the judgment imposing a one-year conservatorship, arguing that the trial court failed to advise her of her right to a jury trial and that there was insufficient evidence to support the findings of grave disability and the order for placement in a locked facility. The opinion records that while the appellate court previously reversed a prior conservatorship order due to evidentiary deficiencies, it affirms the current judgment granting the petition for permanent conservatorship and extended commitment.
2026-08-03 · via CourtListener (Free Law Project)
State v. Lynch
Anthony Lynch was convicted of resisting arrest after getting into a physical struggle with a sheriff's deputy during a traffic stop for improper parking when Lynch refused to produce his driver's license. The court of appeals affirmed the conviction, finding no error in the trial court's judgment.
2026-08-03 · via CourtListener (Free Law Project)
State v. Bilal
Levonte Jamaal Bilal appealed his conviction for rape, challenging the trial court's decision to impose the maximum 16.5-year prison term when he believed lesser punishments would achieve similar sentencing goals. The appellate court affirmed the sentence, concluding that under Ohio's narrowly defined standard for felony sentencing appeals, the term was not "clearly and convincingly contrary to law."
2026-08-03 · via CourtListener (Free Law Project)
State v. Robinson
State of Ohio appeals the conviction of Lorenzo L. Robinson, who received a三十-month sentence for having weapons while under disability and possession of cocaine. Robinson challenged the evidence suppression ruling, sufficiency of evidence, and sentence legality before the appellate court, which held that the evidence was lawfully obtained through valid stops and an inventory search. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment, concluding that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress and that the sentences were legally sufficient.
2026-08-03 · via CourtListener (Free Law Project)
State v. Carter
Tyler L. Carter was convicted of possession of cocaine and failure to appear, and he appealed by arguing that his attorney provided ineffective assistance and that the verdicts were against the manifest weight of the evidence. The appeals court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding both criminal convictions.
2026-08-03 · via CourtListener (Free Law Project)
State v. Davis
Jacob Isaac Davis appealed a bench trial conviction for driving 86 m.p.h. in a 70 m.p.h. zone, a minor misdemeanor traffic infraction. The appeals court rejected his arguments regarding speedy trial violations, discovery disputes, and abuse of discretion, concluding that the trial court correctly found the evidence sufficient and procedure proper. As a result, the court affirmed the trial court’s judgment of conviction.
2026-08-03 · via CourtListener (Free Law Project)
Gilead Tenofovir Cases
The Supreme Court of California addressed whether a drug manufacturer could be liable in negligence for injuries caused by a concededly nondefective drug due to delays in making a less toxic alternative available. While the Court of Appeal ruled that plaintiffs need not allege a defect to pursue negligence claims, the Supreme Court held that the Rowland factors justify an exception to that duty because the safer drug had not yet undergone clinical testing or received FDA approval. The Court concluded that requiring manufacturers to commit resources to develop drugs that may not receive approval would impose extraordinary burdens on the pharmaceutical industry.
2026-08-03 · via CourtListener (Free Law Project)
The Turner Corporation v. Lexington Insurance Company
This case concerns whether insurers can recoup settlement payments made with a reservation of rights when the policy lacks explicit language permitting such recoupment. The court concluded that under New York law, insurers cannot recoup costs if the policy does not provide them the right to do so and the insured has not agreed to it. Consequently, the court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and granted Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in part while denying it in part.
2026-08-03 · via CourtListener (Free Law Project)
Jeffrey M Short v. Michigan State Police
In an employment action alleging disability discrimination under the Michigan Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act, defendant appeals the trial court's denial of summary disposition by arguing that plaintiff’s claim for personal injury is subject to the six-month notice provision of the Court of Claims Act rather than the default one-year notice requirement. Because the appeals court found that plaintiff filed his notice of intent beyond the six-month notice period, it ruled that the trial court erred and reversed, remanding for an order granting the defendant's motion for summary disposition.
2026-08-03 · via CourtListener (Free Law Project)
State of New Jersey v. Thomas J. Fox
The New Jersey Appellate Division ruled that a trial judge misapplied her discretion by requiring a unanimous jury verdict before agreeing to replay trial testimony. Consequently, the court vacated the defendant's convictions for operating a vehicle during a suspension period and remanded the case for a new trial.
2026-08-03 · via CourtListener (Free Law Project)