Burrowing and Boobytraps: How Trump’s Eleventh-Hour Maneuvers Differ From Those of Previous Lame-Duck Presidents—and How They Don’t

MICHAEL C. DORF

Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf argues Trump’s actions during his final months are different from those of past presidents, and particularly dangerous. As Dorf explains, Trump is aiming to do damage for its own sake, whereas other lame-duck presidents have at least sought to advance policy aims in pursuit of some conception of the common good.

Read More

People v. The North River Insurance Co.

Docket: F080749(Fifth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: December 8, 2020

Judge: Smith

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

After Surety posted a bail bond for the release of a criminal defendant, he failed to appear for a scheduled hearing and the trial court ordered bail forfeited, later entering summary judgment on the bond. Surety contends that the trial court erred in denying its motion to vacate the void summary judgment. For purposes of the appeal, the Court of Appeal assumed without deciding that the criminal defendant has "sufficient excuse" for not appearing at the scheduled hearing and that the trial court lacked the "jurisdictional prerequisite" to declare a forfeiture of bail. The court published this opinion to set forth its interpretation of what the Supreme Court meant when it referred to the absence of a sufficient excuse as a jurisdictional prerequisite. The court concluded that the trial court had fundamental jurisdiction because, when it declared the forfeiture of bail, the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over the bail bond and forfeiture proceeding and had personal jurisdiction over Surety. Consequently, the order declaring the forfeiture of bail was, at most, an act in excess of the statutory authority conferred by Penal Code section 1305, subdivision (a). Accordingly, the forfeiture order was not void and the subsequently entered summary judgment was not void. The court affirmed the judgment.

In re T.G.

Dockets: B303987(Second Appellate District) , B304055(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: December 8, 2020

Judge: Dennis M. Perluss

Areas of Law: Family Law, Native American Law

At issue in these two appeals is whether the juvenile court and the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services complied with their duties of inquiry and notice under the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) and related California law. The Court of Appeal agreed that the Department failed to adequately investigate mother's claim of Indian ancestry and the juvenile court failed to ensure an appropriate inquiry had been conducted before concluding, if it ever actually did, ICWA did not apply to these proceedings. Therefore, the court disagreed with the holding In re Austin J. (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 870, 888-889, that amendments enacted by Assembly Bill No. 3176 were intended to limit the Department's robust duty of inquiry. The court conditionally reversed the orders for legal guardianship and remanded the matters to allow the Department and the juvenile court to rectify their errors and to take all other necessary corrective actions.