Blog

The statutory provisions relating to family law matters after trial are strict. Understanding what the court may, and may not do, may be vital to both an appeal and avoiding and a voidable judgment that may be set aside on appeal.

On Monday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit ruled that chalking tires requires a warrant.

California Statutory Marriage
In California, two unmarried persons 18 years of age or older, who are not otherwise disqualified, are capable of consenting to and consummating marriage.

In most states, to include California, marriage is defined by statute. However, ten states, and the District of Columbia, recognize common law marriages. What comprises a common law marriage differs from state to state. Generally, such marriage arises by cohabitation by persons who have the capacity to marry, who agree to be married, and who openly holding out to the world as a married couple. An agreement need not be expressed but can be implied by the conduct alone.

Common law is best described as oral tribal justice established in England thousands of years ago that continues to this day. Prior to the common law was the Anglo-Saxon law consisting of the written laws promulgated by the King, written statements relating to custom contained in such books as the Domesday Book or Book of Winchester, and other written legal rules and enactments. The common law of England was largely created in the period after the Norman Conquest of 1066.

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly issued a preliminary injunction that bans the Trump administration from implementing plans to ban transgender people in the military.

Scope of Travel Ban Challenged

On June 29, 2017, the Attorney General of Hawaii, Douglas S. Chin, asked for clarification regarding scope of President Trump's Travel Ban arguing the administration's limited definition of close familial relationship may be in violation of the Supreme Court's injunction. US District Court Judge Derrick K. Watson denied the request because Plaintiffs seek clarification of an injunction authored by the Supreme Court and therefore clarification should be sought there. Yesterday, Friday, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals also refused to expand those exempt from President Trump’s travel ban, suggesting the order was procedural defective because the Supreme Court is the proper court to file a request for clarification.

Today, the Supreme Court narrowed the scope of the injunctions against President Trump’s second executive order commonly referred to as the Travel Ban.

A recent Harvard�Harris Poll reports that 80% of respondents support the president's crack down on sanctuary cities. This blog discusses the balance of power and state obligations to detain individuals for the federal government.

STATE OF WASHINGTON, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellants. ________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington
Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-00141-JLR
The Honorable James L. Robart