Latest 4 Cases This Week: Momox-Caselis v. Donohue (9th Cir.), Yanes-Mirabal v. Badasay (Ind.), Wilbourn v. Wilbourn (Miss.)

No Good Men?

SHERRY F. COLB

Cornell law professor Sherry F. Colb comments on a film called “Promising Young Women,” which purports to be a feminist movie about date rape. While Professor Colb describes the movie as interesting, thought-provoking, and “definitely” worth seeing, she argues that it suggests a view of men and sexual assault that is erroneous and potentially even anti-feminist.

Read More

Last Call at the Bar: Grading the Briefs in Trump Impeachment 2.0

DEAN FALVY

Dean Falvy, a lecturer at the University of Washington School of Law in Seattle, offers thoughts on the legal tactics and briefs filed by each side in former President Trump’s second impeachment trial. Mr. Falvy argues that if Trump can survive a second impeachment vote, it will show that he is still operating where he has always believed himself to be: well beyond the reach of the law.

Read More

Momox-Caselis v. Donohue

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Docket: 19-15126

Opinion Date: February 3, 2021

Judge: Wallace

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Family Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of individual employees of the Clark County DFS and the County in an action brought by plaintiffs under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and state law, alleging that defendants wrongfully removed plaintiffs' infant daughter, M.M., from plaintiffs' home, wrongfully removed M.M. from her foster mother's home, and then placed her in a neglectful foster home that caused her death. The panel held that plaintiffs waived several appellate arguments where these arguments were either not raised before the district court, are inconsistent with positions employed there, or are presented without argument. The panel also held that each of plaintiffs' asserted factual disputes are either resolved by the record or are insufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact on its claims. In this case, plaintiffs' third claim of failure to train has been waived whereas its fifth claim of state-law negligence was effectively dismissed. Furthermore, plaintiffs fail to present a genuine dispute that M.M. was wrongfully removed from their home or that defendants acted with deliberate indifference. Finally, the panel held that the district court properly decided the question of causation for the state negligence claim as a matter of law rather than a matter of fact, and that plaintiffs waived their wrongful death claim.

Yanes-Mirabal v. Badasay

Court: Supreme Court of Indiana

Docket: 20S-JP-00554

Opinion Date: December 18, 2020

Judge: Steven H. David

Areas of Law: Family Law

The Supreme Court reversed the determination of the trial court finding Mother in contempt of court and ordering that Father have sole legal and physical custody of the parties' infant child, holding that the court abused its discretion by conflating Mother's contempt of court with the best interest of the child. Father filed a petition for rule to show cause alleging that Mother had violated a previous order by relocating the parties' child from Indiana. The trial court granted full relief to Father, finding Mother in contempt for relocating the child out of Indiana and for denying Father parenting time. The court then ordered that Father have sole legal and physical custody of the child. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that where Mother's alleged contempt appeared to be the catalyst for the trial court's order granting Father sole legal and physical custody, the trial court's order could not stand.

Wilbourn v. Wilbourn

Court: Supreme Court of Mississippi

Citation: 2019-IA-00954-SCT

Opinion Date: February 4, 2021

Judge: Josiah D. Coleman

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Family Law, Personal Injury

This interlocutory appeal stemmed from a trial judge granting partial summary judgment, dismissing a claim of malicious prosecution. Richard and Victoria Wilbourn were in a longstanding domestic matter. Victoria accused Richard of misconduct towards their children, but the chancellor determined that the accusations were unfounded. Victoria went to the Ridgeland Police Department for help and filed an eight-page report against Richard, restating his alleged misconduct. The Ridgeland Police Department followed protocol, investigated, and referred the case to the district attorney’s office. The case was presented to a grand jury; the grand jury returned no bill. Notably, Richard was never charged, indicted, or arrested in connection with the investigation, and Victoria did not swear an affidavit against him. In the summer of 2016, Richard discovered the investigation and grand jury presentment and responded by filing suit, claiming malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. In response, Victoria moved for summary judgment. And after a hearing, the trial judge granted partial summary judgment, dismissing Richard’s claim of malicious prosecution but retaining the others. Definitively, the trial judge found that “no criminal proceedings were instituted and therefore [Richard] cannot satisfy the first element of his claim.” With no arrest or indictment, or Richard otherwise being subjected to oppressive litigation of criminal charges for the report that Victoria gave to the Ridgeland Police Department, the Mississippi Supreme Court concluded the trial court did not err in dismissing Richard's malicious-prosecution claim. The matter was remanded for further proceedings.

RA v. State

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Citation: 2021 WY 18

Opinion Date: February 1, 2021

Judge: Kautz

Areas of Law: Family Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the juvenile court relieving the State of Wyoming's Department of Family Services (DFS) from its statutory responsibility to make reasonable efforts to reunify Father with Child, holding that the juvenile court violated Father's due process rights by failing to give him reasonable notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard early in the child protection action. Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) there were several due process violations in this case stemming from Father's lack of involvement in the juvenile court action, which colored the court's determination that it was appropriate to release DFS from its obligation to reunite the family, and under the circumstances, Father was materially prejudiced by the due process violations; and (2) the juvenile court abused its discretion when it ruled that the State had proven by clear and convincing evidence that aggravating circumstances existed that would make reunification between Father and Child unlikely.