News

Case Summaries

Family Law

[03/11] Schaar v. Lehigh Valley Health Servs., Inc.
In plaintiff's suit against her former employer for violation of the FMLA, summary judgment in favor employer is vacated and remanded as an employee may satisfy her burden of proving three days of incapacitation through a combination of expert medical and lay testimony. Here, when expert medical opinion of a doctor that plaintiff was incapacitated for two days because of her illness is combined with plaintiff's lay testimony that she was incapacitated for two additional days, it necessarily follows that a material issue of fact exists as to whether plaintiff suffered from a serious health condition.

[03/11] A.H. v. Sup. Ct.
A father's writ of mandate seeking relief from a juvenile court order terminating his family reunification services and setting a permanency hearing is denied as the court correctly weighed and considered all relevant factors under all three code provisions, including the father's incarceration, in making its decision and the court's reasoning was logical and amply supported by the record.

[03/05] People v. Warwick
Conviction of defendant of child abuse and neglect and jury's true finding on the enhancement that she personally inflicted great bodily injury on her child is affirmed as, when she gave birth to her son in her bedroom and concealed the birth causing severe injuries, defendant inflicted great bodily injury on her child.

Read More

Oil & Gas

[03/10] US v. Valencia
Defendants' wire fraud convictions arising from alleged efforts to manipulate natural gas markets are affirmed where: 1) the extensive, incriminating in-court testimony provided by a witness and others, in conjunction with inculpatory, properly admitted exhibits, heavily dampened the magnitude of whatever prejudicial effect an erroneously admitted whistle-blower letter had upon the jury; 2) because a witness's knowledge and analysis were derived from duties he held at defendants' employer, his opinions were admissible as testimony based upon personal knowledge and experience gained while employed there; 3) the district court did not err in allowing the government's expert to testify about the tendency of defendants' false trade reports to affect the indices published by Inside FERC and NGI.

[03/04] MacClarence v. EPA
In a petition for review of the EPA's order denying petitioner's request that the EPA object to the issuance of a Clean Air Act Title V permit for pollutant-emitting activities at an oil and gas processing facility, the petition is denied where: 1) the EPA Administrator's conclusion that petitioner failed to provide adequate information to support his claim that the entire facility should be aggregated was not arbitrary or capricious; and 2) the Administrator's order denying the petition properly set forth petitioner's burden under 42 U.S.C. section 7661d(b)(2), stating that "to justify exercise of an objection by EPA to a title V permit pursuant to section 7661d(b)(2), a petitioner must demonstrate that the permit is not in compliance with the requirements of the CAA" and later concluding that "the general allegations of the Petitioner in the April 2004 Petition . . . fail to demonstrate a basis for Petitioner's claim that Revision 1 to the GC 1 Permit violates the CAA . . . ."

[03/02] Mac's Shell Serv., Inc. v. Shell Oil Prods. Co.
In an action under the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (Act) by service station franchisees, alleging that a petroleum franchisor, Shell, and its assignee had constructively terminated their franchises and constructively failed to renew their franchise relationships by substantially changing the rental terms that the dealers had enjoyed for years, increasing costs for many of them, a circuit court's order partially affirming judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed in part where a franchisee who signs and operates under a renewal agreement with a franchisor may not maintain a constructive nonrenewal claim under the Act. However, the court of appeals' order is reversed in part where a franchisee cannot recover for constructive termination under the Act if the franchisor's allegedly wrongful conduct did not compel the franchisee to abandon its franchise.

Read More