A criminal defendant, who challenged the trial court's deliberations during his criminal trial, successfully proved on appeal that he was entitled to resentencing.

Court Finds in Favor of Defendants in Breach of Contract Case

Court Admits Earlier Will to Probate After Attorney Executor Steals Millions

Parents moved for judgment on the administrative record and court found district erred in placing child in local public school because the placement directly contradicted expert's recommendation, district and parents had an enforceable agreement to send child to the expert-recommended school and the equities supported full tuition reimbursement. Motion granted.

Court granted request to strike a previously stipulated discontinuance after learning that one of the defendant party's counsel erroneously signed the stipulation due to a clerical mistake.

The defendant company was liable for a judgment confessed against its predecessor under the "mere continuation" exception to the general rule on successor liability where the evidence made it clear that the defendant company was a mere continuation of the original business. The court granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.

Prosecutor Crossed Line of Fair Commentary by Referring to Defendant as a Liar Multiple Times During Closing Argument

Trial court erred in stripping appellant of her pension benefits under the Public Employee Pension Forfeiture Act after she was convicted of conspiracy to tamper with or fabricate physical evidence for telling her son to lie and take photo off the department-issued phone she let him use because she acted in her private capacity as a mother and did not conspire as part of her responsibilities as a public employee. Reversed.

Insurer sought summary judgment in its action seeking a declaration it had no duty to defend or indemnify defendant in personal injury action arising from a physical altercation with a trespasser that led to a criminal assault charge to which defendant pled nolo contendere and court found the criminal acts exclusion in the policy barred coverage and video of the incident showed no reasonable juror could have found defendant's actions were justified. Motion granted.

Public employer's prohibition on face coverings displaying political or social-interest messaging violated employees' First Amendment rights where employer was not entitled to restrict employees' speech and where employer had failed to show that the policy was sufficiently tailored to prevent potential disruptions to operations. Order of the district court affirmed.