Ex parte A.J. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: J.C. v. A.J.)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 10/5/12 Notice: This o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 2110879 Ex p a r t e A . J . PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In r e : J.C. v. A.J.) (Cullman C i r c u i t Court, CS-11-93) BRYAN, J u d g e . A.J. mandamus court") ("the m o t h e r " ) p e t i t i o n s ordering t o vacate t h e Cullman a pendente l i t e this Circuit custody court f o ra writ of Court ("the t r i a l order. We d e n y t h e 2110879 petition. Procedural History On J u l y 20, 2011, J.C. ("the f a t h e r " ) f i l e d s e e k i n g t o a d j u d i c a t e h i s p a t e r n i t y o f B.L.C. a c h i l d born requested i n J u l y 2010. In his petition, an a w a r d o f " p r i m a r y " custody a petition ("the c h i l d " ) , the f a t h e r a l s o of the c h i l d . The m o t h e r f i l e d an a n s w e r a n d a c o u n t e r c l a i m f o r an a d j u d i c a t i o n of p a t e r n i t y of the c h i l d the a n d an a w a r d o f " f u l l " custody of child. After April a hearing on M a r c h 29, 2012, t h e t r i a l 5, 2012, e n t e r e d agreement o f t h e p a r t i e s a "temporary ("the A p r i l order" 1 pursuant 5 order") t h e f a t h e r , among o t h e r t h i n g s , u n s u p e r v i s e d c o u r t , on that t o an awarded visitation with t h e c h i l d f r o m 4:00 p.m. on T u e s d a y A p r i l 10, 2012, u n t i l 1:00 p.m. 11, 2012. on Wednesday A p r i l I n the A p r i l 5 order, the There i s a d i s t i n c t i o n r e c o g n i z e d i n Alabama law between "pendente l i t e " custody o r d e r s , which " a r e g e n e r a l l y e n t e r e d o n l y d u r i n g t h e pendency o f t h e l i t i g a t i o n and a r e u s u a l l y r e p l a c e d by a f i n a l order or judgment t h a t i s e n t e r e d a t the end o f t h e l i t i g a t i o n , " a n d a " t e m p o r a r y " c u s t o d y o r d e r , w h i c h a c t u a l l y awards " p e r m a n e n t c u s t o d y s u b j e c t t o c h a n g e . " Ex p a r t e J . P . , 641 So. 2d 276, 278 ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) . Although the o r d e r e n t e r e d on A p r i l 5, 2012, was d e s i g n a t e d b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t as a " t e m p o r a r y o r d e r , " t h e o r d e r s e t t h e c a s e f o r t r i a l on A p r i l 25, 2012. A c c o r d i n g l y , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e A p r i l 5, 2012, o r d e r was a c t u a l l y a p e n d e n t e l i t e o r d e r . 1 2 2110879 trial court visitation April also awarded on A p r i l 25, 2 0 1 2 . the father $361 a month i n c h i l d was o r d e r e d support. Immediate Relief," temporary custody visitation with picked of requesting the c h i l d the c h i l d . up t h e c h i l d on t o pay t h e mother 3 On May 10, 2 0 1 2 , t h e f a t h e r f i l e d for night 17, 2 0 1 2 , a n d s e t t h e c a s e f o r t r i a l The f a t h e r 2 t h e same T u e s d a y an and The f a t h e r forv i s i t a t i o n t h e c h i l d "was c o v e r e d w i t h s c r a t c h e s an u n v e r i f i e d " M o t i o n order awarding him awarding alleged the mother that he h a d on May 1, 2012, a n d t h a t a n d b r u i s e s , a n d she was f i l t h y f r o m h e a d t o t o e . " The f a t h e r f u r t h e r a l l e g e d t h a t he had d i s c o v e r e d mother b i t e marks had a h i s t o r y s t a t e d t h a t he f e a r e d of the c h i l d and t h a t on t h e c h i l d ' s b a c k a n d t h a t t h e of b i t i n g her c h i l d r e n . The f o r t h e s a f e t y and p h y s i c a l t h e mother was u n a b l e father well-being to provide a I t appears from t h e m a t e r i a l s a t t a c h e d t o t h e mother's p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus t h a t t h e t r i a l s c h e d u l e d f o r A p r i l 25, 2012, was c o n t i n u e d . 2 A l t h o u g h t h e A p r i l 5 o r d e r does n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y a w a r d the mother pendente l i t e s o l e p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d , t h e t e r m s o f t h e o r d e r e s s e n t i a l l y make s u c h an a w a r d : t h e f a t h e r was a w a r d e d l i m i t e d v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e c h i l d a n d was o r d e r e d t o p a y c h i l d s u p p o r t t o t h e m o t h e r . C f . T.B. v. C.D.L., 910 So. 2d 794, 795 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2005) ( h o l d i n g that a child-support judgment i n a paternity action c o n s t i t u t e d a c u s t o d y award i n f a v o r o f t h e r e c i p i e n t p a r e n t ) . 3 3 2110879 healthy and attached safe environment t o h i s motion f o r the child. c h i l d that a l l e g e d l y supported father photographs s e v e r a l undated The of the his allegations. The f a t h e r ' s motion contained a c e r t i f i c a t e of s e r v i c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t the p l e a d i n g h a d b e e n s e r v e d on t h e m o t h e r . day, May 10, 2012, t h e t r i a l granting the court entered the f a t h e r temporary l e g a l child ("the May However, on t h e same 10 ex p a r t e awarded t h e mother s u p e r v i s e d an ex p a r t e and p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y order"). visitation The with trial court also suspended the o b l i g a t i o n pending f u r t h e r orders father's 10 court's ex p a r t e order order. violated The her due-process an o p p o r t u n i t y t o be h e a r d . The child-support a motion t o vacate the mother argued c h i l d was removed f r o m h e r c u s t o d y and on of the court. On May 17, 2012, t h e m o t h e r f i l e d May of court the c h i l d Mondays, Wednesdays, and F r i d a y s f o r two h o u r s e a c h day. trial order that rights without the trial because the g i v i n g her n o t i c e She a l s o a r g u e d t h a t t h e May 10 ex p a r t e o r d e r was e r r o n e o u s l y e n t e r e d b e c a u s e t h e f a t h e r ' s allegations affidavits were filed unverified, with there were no supporting the f a t h e r ' s motion, the photographs a t t a c h e d t o t h e m o t i o n were u n a u t h e n t i c a t e d , and t h e r e was no 4 2110879 allegation that irreparable injury. May 10 from the child allegations and in subject to and the the mother a t t a c h e d various the immediate of her motion to vacate In support ex p a r t e o r d e r , herself was f a m i l y members father's a l l e g e d t h a t t h e c h i l d was motion seven that for affidavits disputed immediate relief, unsafe i n the f a t h e r ' s custody, set f o r t h the mother's a b i l i t y t o care f o r the c h i l d . 18, 2012, the On and May the f a t h e r f i l e d a " v e r i f i e d answer" d i s p u t i n g the a l l e g a t i o n s i n t h e m o t h e r ' s m o t i o n t o v a c a t e , and he attached a f f i d a v i t s f r o m h i m s e l f , h i s c u r r e n t w i f e , and h i s m o t h e r t h a t supported set the a l l e g a t i o n s i n h i s motion f o r immediate relief, f o r t h h i s a b i l i t y t o c a r e f o r t h e c h i l d , and a l l e g e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r was not capable of c a r i n g f o r the child. The May S t a t e J u d i c i a l I n f o r m a t i o n S y s t e m i n d i c a t e s t h a t , on 21, 2012, conducted t h e May "sent on May the trial 31, 2012, court on 10 ex p a r t e o r d e r and to all." The scheduled a hearing the mother's motion t o materials attached to the attach a a h e a r i n g on May transcript of 31, 2012, that hearing 5 but to was mother's court the mother d i d her be vacate t h a t n o t i c e of the h e a r i n g p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e t r i a l conducted to petition. not The 2110879 trial court entered an o r d e r on June 1, 2012 o r d e r " ) , v a c a t i n g t h e May 10 e x p a r t e o r d e r . noted i n i t s June adjudicated 1 order the father that ("the June 1 The t r i a l court t h e f a t h e r had n o t y e t been of the c h i l d despite the fact that g e n e t i c t e s t i n g r e v e a l e d t h a t he was t h e f a t h e r o f t h e c h i l d . Thus, t h e t r i a l the court specifically father of the c h i l d . adjudicated The t r i a l court t h e f a t h e r as t h e n awarded t h e m o t h e r a n d t h e f a t h e r "week t o week v i s i t a t i o n " w i t h t h e c h i l d and still stated suspended. custody" this that the father's The t r i a l f o r a hearing petition court on June o b l i g a t i o n was s e t the "determination 19, 2012. The m o t h e r of filed f o r a w r i t o f mandamus on June 14, 2012. Issues In h e r p e t i t i o n , May child-support 10 e x p a r t e and R e l i e f Requested t h e mother argues t h a t t h e t r i a l order a n d i t s June 1 order court's a r e due t o be v a c a t e d b e c a u s e she was d e n i e d due p r o c e s s o f l a w . The m o t h e r s e e k s an o r d e r order from t h i s a n d t h e June court 1 order vacating so t h a t support p r o v i s i o n s i n the A p r i l t h e May 10 e x p a r t e the custody 5 order will and be r e i n s t a t e d . Discussion "'A writ of extraordinary remedy, 6 child- mandamus is and i t " w i l l an be 2110879 i s s u e d o n l y when t h e r e i s : 1 ) a c l e a r l e g a l right i n the p e t i t i o n e r t o the order s o u g h t ; 2 ) an i m p e r a t i v e d u t y upon t h e respondent t o perform, accompanied by a r e f u s a l t o do s o ; 3) t h e l a c k o f a n o t h e r a d e q u a t e remedy; a n d 4) p r o p e r l y i n v o k e d j u r i s d i c t i o n of the court."'" Ex parte Monsanto (quoting Ex p a r t e Co., 862 595, 604 ( A l a . 2003) 775 So. 2d 173, 176 Butts, So. 2d ( A l a . 2000) ( q u o t i n g i n t u r n Ex p a r t e U n i t e d S e r v . S t a t i o n s , I n c . , 628 So. 2d 5 0 1 , 503 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) ) ) . Initially, we n o t e t h a t t h e m o t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus i n s o f a r as i t c h a l l e n g e s t h e p r o p r i e t y o f t h e May 10 e x p a r t e o r d e r i s n o t r e v i e w a b l e b y t h i s c o u r t b e c a u s e t h e May 10 ex p a r t e court. Thus, order h a s a l r e a d y been v a c a t e d t h e May 10 ex p a r t e there i s nothing f o rthis Accordingly, we order i s a nullity, court to review. will consider by t h e t r i a l and 4 only the arguments p r e s e n t e d b y t h e m o t h e r r e g a r d i n g t h e p r o p r i e t y o f t h e June 1 order. The m o t h e r argues t h a t the t r i a l court v i o l a t e d her F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e m o t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus was n o t f i l e d w i t h i n a r e a s o n a b l e t i m e o f t h e e n t r y o f t h e May 10 e x p a r t e o r d e r . See Ex p a r t e A.E.Q., [Ms. 2110640, A u g u s t 10, 2012] So. 3d , ( A l a . C i v . App. 2012) ( d i s m i s s i n g a p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus t a k e n f r o m an order entered i n a p a t e r n i t y a c t i o n f o r lack of j u r i s d i c t i o n when t h e p e t i t i o n was n o t f i l e d w i t h i n 14 d a y s o f t h e e n t r y o f the order under r e v i e w ) . 4 7 2110879 due-process receiving rights any support of decision i n Ex Civ. App. parte 2005). custody judgment and pendente custody the of the the support the Russell, April the June mother 911 the So. 5 order 1 cites 2d In t h a t case, of the children in the father subsequently filed order. this 719, without Id. hearing at and 720. The court's 724-25 (Ala. awarded m o t h e r was trial awarded the In 5 sole parties' a divorce petition and a m o t i o n t o s e t an e x p e d i t e d p e n d e n t e hearing. lite to argument, physical custody modifying evidence her modify custody by court lite conducted f a t h e r pendente c h i l d r e n when t h e m o t h e r f a i l e d to a lite to appear at T h e m o t h e r a r g u e s t h a t t h e f a t h e r was r e q u i r e d t o meet the c u s t o d y - m o d i f i c a t i o n burden set forth i n Ex parte McLendon, 455 So. 2d 863 ( A l a . 1 9 8 4 ) , i n o r d e r t o m o d i f y t h e custody p r o v i s i o n s of the A p r i l 5 order. We d i s a g r e e . The A p r i l 5 o r d e r , l i k e t h e June 1 o r d e r , was a p e n d e n t e l i t e o r d e r , not a f i n a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n of custody. "[W]hether t o grant a pendente lite order i s i n the trial court's d i s c r e t i o n , " P.B. v. P.C., 946 So. 2d 896, 898 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 6 ) , and a t r i a l c o u r t ' s p e n d e n t e l i t e c u s t o d y d e t e r m i n a t i o n i s b a s e d on t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f t h e c h i l d . See Ex p a r t e R u s s e l l , 911 So. 2d 719, 725 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2005) ( c o n c l u d i n g t h a t the p a r e n t r e q u e s t i n g pendente l i t e custody of the c h i l d must p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e e s t a b l i s h i n g t h a t s u c h an a w a r d i s i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t o f t h e c h i l d ) . We a l s o n o t e , f o r t h e b e n e f i t o f t h e p a r t i e s , t h a t t h e e n t r y o f a p e n d e n t e l i t e o r d e r does not a f f e c t the a p p l i c a b l e burden of p r o o f r e g a r d i n g the u n d e r l y i n g p e t i t i o n s f o r c u s t o d y . See Sims v. S i m s , 515 So. 2d 1, 3 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1987) ( h o l d i n g t h a t a pendente l i t e c u s t o d y award, i n i t s e l f , does n o t " a c t i v a t e " t h e b u r d e n o f p r o o f s e t f o r t h i n Ex p a r t e McLendon, s u p r a ) . 5 8 2110879 the h e a r i n g . informed the I d . a t 720-21. t h a t t h e mother scheduled notation pendente When t h e t r i a l h a d n o t been lite on t h e c a s e - a c t i o n hearing, the t r i a l o r d e r was e n t e r e d ex p a r t e . I d . a t 7 2 1 . c o u r t made a t h e pendente The m o t h e r "'Why I s t a n d h e r e t o d a y ex p a r t e o r d e r set a another presented t h e t r i a l c o u r t . I d . A t t h a t h e a r i n g , t h e mother's stated: lite filed court scheduled h e a r i n g a t w h i c h o n l y t h e a r g u m e n t s o f c o u n s e l were to later served with notice of summary t h a t motion t o " r e c o n s i d e r , " and t h e t r i a l c o u r t was counsel i s simply t o t r y to get the r e v e r s e d and s e t a s i d e and g e t a h e a r i n g date so t h a t we c a n a d d r e s s t h e s e i s s u e s a n d g i v e my c l i e n t due process.'" I d . After the hearing, the t r i a l court entered a s e c o n d p e n d e n t e l i t e o r d e r , k e e p i n g t h e " s t a t u s quo," w i t h t h e f a t h e r m a i n t a i n i n g pendente l i t e at 722. The m o t h e r filed custody a petition of the children. I d . f o r a w r i t o f mandamus, and we h e l d t h a t t h e e x p a r t e p e n d e n t e l i t e o r d e r v i o l a t e d t h e mother's d u e - p r o c e s s r i g h t s because t h e mother g i v e n n o t i c e o r an o p p o r t u n i t y t o be h e a r d was no e v i d e n c e had n o t been and because there i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e h e a l t h and p h y s i c a l w e l l - b e i n g o f t h e c h i l d r e n were e n d a n g e r e d on t h e d a t e t h e ex p a r t e pendente l i t e o r d e r was e n t e r e d . 9 I d . a t 724. 2110879 We t h e n c o n s i d e r e d w h e t h e r t h e s e c o n d p e n d e n t e l i t e violated the mother's due-process rights "because order i t e n t e r e d i n t h e a b s e n c e o f any s u p p o r t i n g e v i d e n c e . " I d . was Thus, t h i s c o u r t c o n s i d e r e d "whether, i n a p o s t d i v o r c e p r o c e e d i n g i n a circuit court brought by a parent to modify custody, e v i d e n c e must be p r e s e n t e d t o j u s t i f y a p e n d e n t e l i t e custody order." process Id. at required that, pendente lite 724-25. before We the custody, concluded trial the court father "that due awarded the introduce father evidence e s t a b l i s h i n g t h a t an a w a r d o f p e n d e n t e l i t e c u s t o d y t o h i m was in the the best i n t e r e s t of the c h i l d . " I d . a t 725. Although p a r t i e s ' a t t o r n e y s had p r e s e n t e d arguments t o the c o u r t a t the second pendente statements, lite h e a r i n g , we factual assertions, noted that "[t]he unsworn and a r g u m e n t s o f c o u n s e l a r e n o t e v i d e n c e . " I d . ( c i t i n g S i n g l e y v. B e n t l e y , 782 So. 2d 803 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2000)). We t h e r e f o r e g r a n t e d t h e m o t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus and o r d e r e d t h e t r i a l vacate the second pendente lite order because court to the p e n d e n t e l i t e o r d e r was u n s u p p o r t e d by any e v i d e n c e and, v i o l a t e d the mother's due-process The mother in this 799, case asks 10 rights. court thus, Id. this second to order the 2110879 trial court to vacate t h e June 1 order, awarded t h e p a r t i e s pendente l i t e the child, because, she a s s e r t s , l i k e t h e r e was no e v i d e n c e custody award. joint presented However, we which p h y s i c a l custody i n Ex p a r t e t o support find essentially Russell, t h e pendente the facts of lite of t h i s case m a t e r i a l l y d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m t h e f a c t s i n Ex p a r t e R u s s e l l . First, although considered hearing, only t h e mother contends t h e arguments t h e mother of that counsel d i d not include a the t r i a l a t t h e May transcript hearing i n the materials attached to her p e t i t i o n of mandamus, so we have court of 31 that fora writ no way o f k n o w i n g what t r a n s p i r e d d u r i n g t h a t h e a r i n g . See Ex p a r t e G u a r a n t y P e s t C o n t r o l , I n c . , 21 So. 3d 1222, 1228 ( A l a . 2009) considers a petition materials before i n Ex p a r t e mother's petition requested request an writ of i t are the p e t i t i o n attachments t o those facts for a ("When [an a p p e l l a t e c ] o u r t documents."). Russell, fail to only Furthermore, u n l i k e the demonstrate the t r i a l the a n d t h e answer a n d any the materials evidentiary hearing f o r r e l i e f before mandamus, on attached that the the father's court entered to the mother pending i t s June 1 o r d e r . Thus, t o i s s u e a w r i t o f mandamus d i r e c t i n g t h e t r i a l 11 2110879 court to vacate conduct that an this the June 1 o r d e r b e c a u s e i t f a i l e d evidentiary hearing court would hold leaves the open trial the court f a i l i n g t o g r a n t r e l i e f t o t h e m o t h e r t h a t was by t h e m o t h e r . in Ex p a r t e R u s s e l l , pendente l i t e evidence. the Finally, custody we are unable t h a t the of the first possibility in error never for requested t o c o n c l u d e , as we f a t h e r ' s pending child to was not did petition supported for by any Even i f we assume t h a t no e v i d e n c e was p r e s e n t e d a t May 31 affidavits hearing, from the the trial mother, court the had father, and before i t their 10 family members c o n c e r n i n g e a c h p a r t y ' s a b i l i t y t o c a r e f o r t h e child. The i n the m o t h e r does n o t c o n t e n d affidavits the best t h a t t h e sworn s t a t e m e n t s do n o t s u p p o r t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t interests of the child w o u l d be s e r v e d by awarding t h e m o t h e r and t h e f a t h e r p e n d e n t e l i t e j o i n t p h y s i c a l of the child. The was custody mother contends vacated, the t r i a l 5 order. t h a t , once t h e May 10 ex p a r t e order c o u r t s h o u l d have r e i n s t a t e d t h e April However, e v e n a f t e r t h e t r i a l t h e May 10 ex p a r t e o r d e r was motion for pendente lite due that t o be v a c a t e d , t h e f a t h e r ' s custody 12 court determined of the child was still 2110879 pending. before Considering that the t r i a l i t and t h a t requested the there c o u r t h a d some i s no i n d i c a t i o n opportunity to present that evidence t h e mother additional evidence b e f o r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t r u l e d on t h e f a t h e r ' s m o t i o n , we c a n n o t conclude to t h a t t h e mother has d e m o n s t r a t e d a c l e a r l e g a l the r e l i e f sought i n her p e t i t i o n . Co., 862 So. 2d a t 604. The See Ex p a r t e Monsanto A c c o r d i n g l y , we deny t h e p e t i t i o n . mother's request f o r an a t t o r n e y f e e on a p p e a l i s denied. PETITION DENIED. Pittman, J . , concurs. Thompson, P . J . , c o n c u r s Moore, J . , c o n c u r s Thomas, J . , r e c u s e s right specially. i n the r e s u l t , without herself. 13 writing. 2110879 THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g A petitioner seeking a writ specially. o f mandamus b e a r s a high burden. "The w r i t o f mandamus i s an e x t r a o r d i n a r y remedy; i t w i l l n o t be i s s u e d u n l e s s t h e p e t i t i o n e r shows '"'(1) a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t i n t h e p e t i t i o n e r t o t h e order sought; (2) an i m p e r a t i v e d u t y upon t h e respondent t o perform, accompanied by a r e f u s a l t o do s o ; (3) t h e l a c k o f a n o t h e r a d e q u a t e remedy; a n d (4) p r o p e r l y i n v o k e d j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e c o u r t . ' " ' Ex p a r t e I n v e r n e s s C o n s t r . Co., 775 So. 2d 153, 156 ( A l a . 2000) ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e G a t e s , 675 So. 2d 3 7 1 , 374 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) ) ; Ex p a r t e P f i z e r , I n c . , 746 So. 2d 960, 962 ( A l a . 1 9 9 9 ) . " Ex p a r t e C h i l d r e n ' s Hosp. o f A l a b a m a , 931 So. 2d 1, 5-6 ( A l a . 2005). As d e t a i l e d i n t h e main o p i n i o n , A . J . , t h e m o t h e r , f a i l e d t o meet t h a t h i g h b u r d e n i n t h i s p e t i t i o n must be d e n i e d . 14 case; therefore, her

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.