Jump To Navigation



Personal Injury

[04/17] Texas town recovering year after deadly blast
[04/17] Firetruck plows into LA-area cafe; 15 hurt
[04/17] Blast on site of ammunition plant kills 1
[04/17] Blast at Tennessee plant kills 1, injures 3
[04/17] Death toll in Washington mudslide hits 39


Case Summaries

Family Law

[04/11] Drescher v. Gross
The trial court's order denying wife's request to modify her obligation to pay for half of her daughter's college education, as agreed to in the parties' marital settlement agreement, is reversed and remanded, where: 1) parents may contractually limit the court's jurisdiction to modify an adult child support order made pursuant to the parents' agreement under Family Code section 3587; but 2) the parties' marital settlement agreement in this case did not limit the court's jurisdiction.

[04/10] Marriage of Lin
Husband's appeal from the domestic violence restraining order entered against him, filed 119 days after entry of the order, is timely, where: 1) under the court rules, a notice of appeal must be filed within 60 days after service of a notice of entry of judgment or a file-stamped copy of the judgment; 2) if there is no notice, the notice of appeal must be filed within 180 days after entry of the judgment; 3) here, although husband was present at the hearing at which the restraining order was issued, neither the superior court clerk nor wife served a file-stamped copy of the domestic violence restraining order on husband in accordance with the California Rules of Court; and therefore, 4) the shorter 60-day filing period therefore does not come into play.

[04/08] In the Matter of Gabriela A.
The Appellate Division properly reversed the Family Court's dispositional order which found the juvenile, who was already designated as a "person in need of supervision" (PINS), to be a juvenile delinquent, and placed in a secure facility, where: 1) the Appellate Division found that the juvenile's resistance to being returned to the non-secure facility fell within the bounds of acting "beyond the lawful control of . . . lawful authority" rather than Penal Law section 195.05; and 2) this finding more nearly comports with the weight of the evidence.

[03/25] K.F. v. Superior Court
A petition for a writ of mandate challenging the trial court's findings that the parents abused the minor, or knew or reasonably should have know about the abuse, failed to protect the minor, and the denial of reunification services is: 1) denied in part, where there is sufficient evidence to support the court's abuse finding as to Father; but 2) granted in part, where the trial court erred in denying reunification services to the parents.

[03/25] Marriage of Metzger
The trial court's order appointing counsel to represent the parties' minor daughter in the parties' custody dispute and that father pay counsel's fees is affirmed, where: 1) the trial court did not violate father's right to advance his daughter's best interests; 2) father's right to decide with whom his daughter associates does not trump the court's authority to act in the minor's best interests; 3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in appointing counsel for the minor; and 4) requiring father to advance $100,000 to minor's counsel was not an abuse of discretion.

[03/21] Candelario-Del-Moral v. Efron
The district court's denial of former husband's motion to intervene in plaintiff-former wife's action against defendant-bank for negligently releasing funds in former husband's bank accounts that were subject to attachment is affirmed, where: 1) this court has jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal; 2) the district court acted well within the ambit of its discretion both in deeming former husband's motion to intervene untimely and in refusing to grant it; but 3) sanctions will not be imposed on former husband for pursing the appeal.


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.

The attorneys at the Law Offices of Krawczyk, Duginski & Rohr serve the people and businesses of New Berlin and Southeastern Wisconsin, including the cities of Brookfield, Delafield, Milwaukee, Mukwonago, Muskego, New Berlin, Oconomowoc, Pewaukee, Waukesha, and Wauwatosa, as well as the following counties: Milwaukee County, Waukesha County, Walworth County, Ozaukee County, Racine County, Kenosha County, Washington County, Jefferson County, Oneida County, Vilas County, Marathon County, and Dogde County.

FirmSite® by FindLaw, a Thomson Reuters business.