eBriefs June 17, 2019

MONDAY, JUNE 17, 2019

 

Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

Constitutional Law

A 2018 presidential policy on individuals with gender dysphoria serving in the military was significantly different from a previously issued memorandum prohibiting military service by transgender persons since the policy involved a study by a panel of military experts that met 13 times over a period of 90 days, a 44-page report issued by the Department of Defense, and a substantive memorandum issued by the Secretary of Defense, as well as substantive differences from the memorandum; the district court must apply appropriate military deference to its evaluation of the 2018 policy, and the court must apply the “traditional” standard for injunctive relief to determine whether dissolution of the injunction that stayed implementation of the memorandum is warranted.

Karnoski v. Trump; filed June 14, 2019

http://sos.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0619//18-35347

Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 18-35347

 

California Court of Appeal

Criminal Law and Procedure

A trial court did not err in declining to issue an instruction on voluntary manslaughter on a heat of passion theory; an altercation four days prior to a fatal shooting did not constitute adequate provocation for the shooting; the taking of property alone is not sufficiently provocative; the combined effect of the altercation and theft also did not constitute provocation. Assuming the diversion provided by Penal Code §1001.36 can apply in all cases not yet final, application of the law to a murder defendant does not violate the ex post facto doctrine because the enactment of the murder exclusion did not change the consequences of his crime as of the time he committed it.

People v. McShane; Fourth District, Div. Two; filed June 14, 2019

http://sos.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0619//E069547

Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 2755

 

Professional Responsibility

The purpose of State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 4.2 is to prevent ex parte contact with employees who engaged in acts or conduct for which the employer might be liable, it is not designed to prevent a plaintiff’s lawyer from talking to employees of an organizational defendant who might provide relevant evidence of actionable misconduct by another employee for which the employer may be liable.

Doe v. Superior Court (Southwestern Community College District); Fourth District, Div. One; filed June 13, 2019

http://sos.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0619//D075331

Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 2761

 

Modification

Bennett v. Rancho California Water District; Fourth District, Div. Three; filed June 13, 2019

http://sos.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0619//G054617M

Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 2765