Legal News

Case Summaries

Family Law

[10/10] Lamour v. Peake
Denial of a request to reopen a claim for survivor benefits as the spouse of a veteran is vacated and remanded where the issue of whether claimant and decedent had a valid marriage was not considered with application of the "deemed valid" criteria in the relevant regulation, and since this aspect was the sole basis of the rejection of claimant's petition to reopen her claim.

[09/30] M.V. v. Superior Court of California
In a family law matter brought by mother seeking reunification with her infant after her incarceration and deportation for engaging in consensual sexual intercourse with a 15-year old boy, petition for a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its order and to issue a new and different order continuing reunification services to a 12-month review is affirmed where the court erred in terminating reunification services and setting a .26 hearing by applying the 12-month review standard pursuant to section 366.21, subdivisions (f) and (g), instead of the six-month review standard pursuant to section 366.21, subdivision (e).

[09/25] In Re: Amendments to Fla. R. Juv. P.
Recommended amendments to the Rules of Juvenile Procedure to conform the rules and forms to recent legislation are adopted with a sixty-day comment period.

More...

Drugs & Biotech

[10/07] Cohesive Techs., Inc. v. Waters Corp.
In three related actions alleging infringement of two patents describing high-performance liquid chromatography columns, jury verdict of infringement in one action, summary judgment for plaintiff in a second action, and summary judgment of noninfringement in the third action are affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded where: 1) the district court properly construed the term "rigid" and properly denied defendant's motion for judgment of noninfringement as a matter of law; 2) there was no clear error in the conclusion that defendant failed to prove the deceptive intent necessary to sustain its claim of inequitable conduct; 3) there was error in the entry of judgment as a matter of law on anticipation without submitting the issue to the jury; 4) under the correct construction of "greater than about 30 micrometers," defendant was not entitled to summary judgment of no literal infringement; 5) defendant was entitled to summary judgment of no infringement under the doctrine of equivalents; 6) judgment that plaintiff was not entitled to lost profits required remand and reconsideration; 7) defendant's infringement was not willful; and 8) the matter would not be reassigned to a different district court judge on remand, despite lengthy delays in prior rulings.

[10/07] Hi-Tech Pharm. v. Crawford
In a claim brought after government seizure of plaintiff-manufacturer/seller's dietary supplements containing ephedrine alkaloids, alleging that government did not follow correct administrative procedures, grant of summary judgment for defendant-government is affirmed where no genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the propriety of the seizure, as the parties agree that the FDA's Final Rule applies to the seized property and no other evidence is needed.

[10/03] Impax Labs., Inc. v. Aventis Pharm. Inc.
In a suit seeking a declaratory judgment that plaintiff did not infringe defendant's patent for a drug to treat ALS, judgment that an earlier patent did not anticipate the claims of the patent at issue is affirmed where the district court applied the proper enablement standard and correctly determined that the earlier patent was not an enabling prior art reference.

More...

Wills & Trusts

[06/30] MICHAEL J. v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY (ROGERS)
The conservator of the person and the estate of a mentally disabled person who is unable to communicate her wishes does not have the power to initiate and prosecute a petition for the dissolution of her marriage.

[03/12] E. ARMATA, INC. v. KOREA COMMERCIAL BANK OF NEW YORK
Under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA), a bank is not liable to the beneficiaries of a PACA trust for receipt of funds in breach of the trust where, having extended revolving overdraft privileges to a produce dealer covered by PACA, the bank routinely applied deposited PACA funds to reduce the negative balance in the produce dealer's overdrawn account.

[03/12] E. ARMATA, INC. v. KOREA COMMERCIAL BANK OF NEW YORK
Under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA), a bank is not liable to the beneficiaries of a PACA trust for receipt of funds in breach of the trust where, having extended revolving overdraft privileges to a produce dealer covered by PACA, the bank routinely applied deposited PACA funds to reduce the negative balance in the produce dealer's overdrawn account. (Amended opinion)

More...