Jump to Navigation

FindLaw News

Case Summaries

Education

Read More

Family Law

[05/21] Astrue v. Capato
In a case in which a widow gave birth to twins conceived through in vitro fertilization using her husband’s frozen sperm and then applied for Social Security survivors benefits for the twins, the Social Security Administration (SSA) denial of her application is upheld, where: 1) under 42 USC section 416(h)(2)(A), the children could would qualify for benefits only if they could inherit from the deceased wage earner under state intestacy law, and Florida law did not allow them to; 2) the SSA's interpretation of the statutory scheme was reasonable and entitled to Chevron deference.

[05/16] Marriage of Green
In a dispute between ex-spouses over the husband's CalPERS pension, which included four years of credit for past military service purchased with community funds, the trial court's characterization of the credit as the husband's separate property is reversed, where prior to the marriage, the husband's right to the credit amounted to no more than an expectancy, which is not a property right divisible upon dissolution of marriage, since he held no unconditional, contractual right to the payment of benefits, or even a nonvested right to such credit, before he actually purchased the credit during the marriage, using community funds.

[05/15] In re A.S.
In juvenile court proceedings involving a brother and sister whose permanent plan called for them to be placed in foster care: 1) an order permitting the siblings to be placed separately is affirmed, and 2) an order approving an application to administer psychotropic medication to the boy is affirmed, as California Rules of Court, rule 5.640(c)(8) comports with due process.

[05/14] In re B.C.
In a case in which a man filed a JV-505 statement, requested genetic testing to determine whether he was a biological father, and filed a declaration stating that he wished to meet his paternal obligations, the Court of Appeal holds that under California Rules of Court 5.635 it was error for the juvenile court to have authorized testing but to have required the man to pay for it, and to have failed to make a determination of biological paternity.

[05/14] Southerland v. City of New York
In a suit by a father and his children under 42 USC section 1983 asserting that a children's services caseworker employed by the City of New York entered their home unlawfully and effected an unconstitutional removal of the children into state custody, a grant of summary judgment to the caseworker is: 1) affirmed with respect to the father's substantive due process claim, under the "brief removal" doctrine, but 2) vacated with respect to the father's and children's Fourth Amendment unlawful-search and Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claims, and the children's Fourth Amendment unlawful-seizure claim.

[05/08] Matter of Damian G.
By memorandum, the court holds that determinations of neglect against the appellants were not supported by legally sufficient evidence.

Read More

Family Law

[05/21] Astrue v. Capato
In a case in which a widow gave birth to twins conceived through in vitro fertilization using her husband’s frozen sperm and then applied for Social Security survivors benefits for the twins, the Social Security Administration (SSA) denial of her application is upheld, where: 1) under 42 USC section 416(h)(2)(A), the children could would qualify for benefits only if they could inherit from the deceased wage earner under state intestacy law, and Florida law did not allow them to; 2) the SSA's interpretation of the statutory scheme was reasonable and entitled to Chevron deference.

[05/16] Marriage of Green
In a dispute between ex-spouses over the husband's CalPERS pension, which included four years of credit for past military service purchased with community funds, the trial court's characterization of the credit as the husband's separate property is reversed, where prior to the marriage, the husband's right to the credit amounted to no more than an expectancy, which is not a property right divisible upon dissolution of marriage, since he held no unconditional, contractual right to the payment of benefits, or even a nonvested right to such credit, before he actually purchased the credit during the marriage, using community funds.

[05/15] In re A.S.
In juvenile court proceedings involving a brother and sister whose permanent plan called for them to be placed in foster care: 1) an order permitting the siblings to be placed separately is affirmed, and 2) an order approving an application to administer psychotropic medication to the boy is affirmed, as California Rules of Court, rule 5.640(c)(8) comports with due process.

[05/14] In re B.C.
In a case in which a man filed a JV-505 statement, requested genetic testing to determine whether he was a biological father, and filed a declaration stating that he wished to meet his paternal obligations, the Court of Appeal holds that under California Rules of Court 5.635 it was error for the juvenile court to have authorized testing but to have required the man to pay for it, and to have failed to make a determination of biological paternity.

[05/14] Southerland v. City of New York
In a suit by a father and his children under 42 USC section 1983 asserting that a children's services caseworker employed by the City of New York entered their home unlawfully and effected an unconstitutional removal of the children into state custody, a grant of summary judgment to the caseworker is: 1) affirmed with respect to the father's substantive due process claim, under the "brief removal" doctrine, but 2) vacated with respect to the father's and children's Fourth Amendment unlawful-search and Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claims, and the children's Fourth Amendment unlawful-seizure claim.

[05/08] Matter of Damian G.
By memorandum, the court holds that determinations of neglect against the appellants were not supported by legally sufficient evidence.

Read More

Probate Trusts

Read More

Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Users may not download or reproduce a substantial portion of the AP material found on this web site. AP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.

610-863-8502
Contact

Murphy & Murphy, P.C.
106 North Franklin Street, Suite 2
PO Box 97
Pen Argyl, PA 18072
Maps & Directions

Phone: 610-863-8502
610-863-9223
Fax: 610-863-3022