appropriate on issue of intent, record could not support finding that credit corporation had intent to defraud subsequent buyer as it had listed mileage as estimated figure in application to state for repossession of title and inaccurate disclosure was attributable to clerical error on state's part. Motion granted. Bedsworth v. G & J Automotive, Inc., Reprinted with permission from 650 F. Supp. 763 (E.D. Mo. 1986), Copyright©1987 West Publishing Co.

DOMESTIC RELATIONS

Blood Test in Paternity Suit. Mother petitioned for writ of mandamus to direct circuit court judge to order blood test in paternity suit. The Court of Civil Appeals... held that mother was not entitled to additional blood tests after initial blood test failed to exclude either of two males as father, as any additional test results tending to exclude one of them as father would be conflicting and under statute could not be used as evidence. Writ of mandamus denied. Phillips v. Robinson (Alabama ex rel. Phillips), Reprinted with permission from 500 So. 2d 1131 (Ala. Civ. App. 1986), Copyright © 1987 West Publishing Co.

Custody of Children. Former wife appealed from that portion of judgment of the 47th Judicial District Court... in divorce case, which awarded custody to former husband. The Court of Appeals... affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. On remand, the district court appointed husband managing conservator of two children. Wife appealed. The Court of Appeals ... held that state and federal constitutional rights to free exercise of religion and against establishment of religion prohibited consideration of wife's religious beliefs and practices in absence of evidence that beliefs and practices would cause serious bodily or mental injury to children or would cause wife to neglect children and prohibited consideration of beliefs and practices in determining custody of children. Reversed and remanded. Marriage of Knighton, In re, Reprinted with permission from 723 S.W.2d 274 (Tex. Ct. App. 1987), Copyright © 1987 West Publishing Co.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Developer's Obligation to Donate to Community Organization. City of New York brought action to compel real estate developers who

Office for Civil Rights Moves to Withhold Federal Funds Because of Chicago Schools' Special Education Violations

The federal Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has moved to cut off at least $14 million in federal funds because of the Chicago public schools' failure to test and place handicapped children within legal time limits. As detailed in a formal complaint filed recently against the Chicago Board of Education and the Illinois State Board of Education, OCR investigators have found that 78 percent of Chicago students referred for special education evaluation were not assessed and reviewed for placement within the legally required 60 working days. Further, 41 percent of those children who were judged to need special education services were not placed in special education programs within the legal time limits. A substantial number of students waited two years or more to be tested and placed, and delays were particularly severe for Hispanic students. OCR concludes that Chicago lacks an adequate system for managing the special education process, as well as sufficient numbers of psychologists, social workers, and special education teachers to conduct a legally adequate program. Designs for Change, a research and advocacy group, will ask the federal judge hearing the case to allow the group to represent the interests of Chicago's 44,000 children in the proceedings. For more information, contact Donald R. Moore, Designs for Change, 220 S. State St., Suite 1900, Chicago, IL 60604, (312) 922-0317.

participated in federally funded and locally administered neighborhood strategy area program to donate $156,211 to community organization. The District Court... held that city's regulations, promulgated under federally funded neighborhood strategy area program, which fixed minimum amount of developers' donation to community organization was rational method of achieving city's objective of returning profits from public housing developments to local community, so that real estate developers who participated in neighborhood strategy area program would be required to donate $156,211 to program. Judgment for plaintiff. City of New York v. Rapgal Assocs., Reprinted with permission from 649 F. Supp. 1504 (S.D.N.Y. 1986), Copyright © 1987 West Publishing Co.

EDUCATION

Racial Discrimination. Local school board brought action challenging action by State Board of Education withholding funds for local board's gifted student program on ground of alleged racial discrimination in administration of program. The Circuit Court... entered summary judgment in favor of local board, and State Board appealed. The Appellate Court... held that: (1) doctrine of sovereign immunity did not bar local board's action; (2) rule requiring separate causes of action to be pleaded in separate counts was not applicable; and (3) neither State Board's general supervisory power over gifted student programs nor federal antidiscrimination statutes authorized State Board to withhold funds upon unilateral determination of racial discrimination. Affirmed. Board of Educ. of Peoria v. Sanders, Reprinted with permission from 502 N.E.2d 730 (Ill. App. Ct. 1987), Copyright © 1987 West Publishing Co.

EMPLOYMENT

Discrimination Against Alcoholic Employee. Former employee brought employment discrimination action against employer, alleging that employer fired employee because he was handicapped person, namely, an alcoholic. Upon jury verdict, the United States District Court...entered judgment for employer, and employee appealed. The Court of Appeals... held that: (1) trial court's instruction that employee had to prove that alcoholism was sole cause of termination did not constitute plain error; (2) evidence did not support instruction that employer had statutory obligation to make reasonable accommodation to employee's handicap; (3) error, if any, was harmless in trial court's failure to instruct jury regarding employer's alleged failure to rehire; and (4) trial court properly refused to modify scheduling order. Affirmed. Sexton v. Gulf Oil Corp., Reprinted with permission from 809 F.2d 167 (1st Cir. 1987), Copyright © 1987 West Publishing Co.

Termination of Transitory Employee. Transitory employee brought § 1983 civil rights action seeking damages and reinstatement to government employment. Defendants moved for summary judgment on ground that they had not violated clearly established law and hence were entitled to qualified immunity. The District Court...denied defendants' motion without opinion. Defendants appealed. The Court of Appeals... held that: (1) it was not clearly established law at time of employee's job termination that transitory employee, with only subjective expectation of permanent employment, had property interest in employment beyond fixed term entitled to protections of due process, and (2) it was clearly established law at time of employee's termination that even transitory employee, who had only subjective expectation of permanent employment and who had been employed for nearly six years, enjoyed protection from politically based nonrenewal. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions. Pacheco v. Gonzalez, Reprinted with permission from 809 F.2d 125 (1st Cir. 1987), Copyright © 1987 West Publishing Co.

Patronage Discharge. Second deputy recorder of deeds moved to enjoin his patronage discharge. The United States District Court... granted motion. On appeal, the Court of Appeals... held that second deputy's potential for succession under Pennsylvania statute to elected office with ministerial duties, though important factor, was insufficient to demonstrate that party affiliation was appropriate requirement for effective performance of that office, and that deputy was entitled to preliminary injunction against patronage discharge. Affirmed. Furlong v. Gudknecht, Reprinted with permission from 808 F.2d 233 (3d Cir. 1986), Copyright © 1987 West Publishing Co.

Retaliatory Nonhiring. Unsuccessful job applicant sought damages from not-for-profit employer providing health care to the indigent, claiming that he had been rejected from position in retaliation for having filed earlier civil rights claim against previous employer. The United States District Court... dismissed Title VI claim against employer, Title VI and Title VII claims against employer's president individually, and entered judgment in favor of employer on Title VII retaliation claim. Plaintiff appealed and employer cross-appealed. The Court of Appeals... held that: (1) job applicant established prima facie case of retaliatory nonhiring, and (2) employer's reasons for hiring first job applicant, rather than job applicant involved in civil rights litigation with previous employer, were not pretextual. Affirmed; claim for attorney fees on appeal denied. Wrenn v. Gould, Reprinted with permission from 808 F.2d 493 (6th Cir. 1987), Copyright © 1987 West Publishing Co.

Retaliatory Discharge. Worker brought retaliatory discharge action against former employer alleging that he was discharged for filing workers' compensation claim. The Circuit Court...granted former employer's motion to dismiss, finding that action was barred due to prior arbitration proceeding. Worker appealed. The Appellate Court... held that worker was not barred from maintaining cause of action for retaliatory discharge due to prior arbitration proceeding where there was not common core of operative facts in two proceedings. Reversed and remanded. Beckman v. Freeman United Coal Mining Co., Reprinted with permission from 502 N.E.2d 64 (Ill. App. Ct. 1986), Copyright © 1987 West Publishing Co.

Sexual Harassment. The Human Rights Commission held that employer violated Human Rights Act by permitting women employees to be harassed because of their sex. The Circuit Court... held that Act did not prohibit sexual harassment prior to amendment of Act, and Commission appealed. The Appellate Court... held that Human Rights Act prohibited sexual harassment as form of sex discrimination prior to amendment of Act to specifically include such prohibition. Reversed. Old Ben Coal v. Illinois Human Rights Comm'n, Reprinted with permission from 501 N.E.2d 920 (Ill. App. Ct. 1986), Copyright © 1987 West Publishing Co.

FOOD PROGRAMS

Deduction of Student Loans. Claimant sought judicial review of decision of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services reducing amount of food stamp benefits. The District Court of Appeal... held that vocational school attended by claimant, which did not require its students to have high school diplomas or equivalency certificates, did not qualify as "institution of higher education," for purpose of food stamp regulation allowing claimant to deduct student loans from income only to extent they were used at institutions of higher education. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. London v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., Reprinted with permission from 502 So. 2d 57 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987), Copyright 1987 West Publishing Co.

HANDICAPPED PERSONS

Rehabilitation Act's Coverage of Contagious Diseases. The United States Supreme Court has held that a person afflicted with the contagious disease of turberculosis may be a handicapped person within the meaning of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794. Section 504 provides that no qualified handi

capped individual shall, solely by reason of handicap, be excluded from participation in any program receiving federal financial assistance. Plaintiff, an elementary school teacher, was discharged because of the continued recurrence of tuberculosis. After she was denied relief in state administrative proceedings, plaintiff brought suit in district court alleging a violation of section 504. The district court held that plaintiff was not a handicapped person under the Act, and the Eleventh Circuit reversed, holding that persons with contagious diseases are within section 504's coverage. In affirming, the Supreme Court has held that plaintiff is a handicapped person as defined by section 706(7)(B) of the Act and HHS regulations. Section 706 defines handicapped person" as any person who has a physical impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities and has a record of such an impairment. The Court concluded that plaintiff's prior hospitalization for a disease that affected her respiratory system establishes that she has a record of impairment as required under the Act. The Court reasoned that just because the person with the impairment is contagious does not remove the person from the Act's coverage. The Court concluded that to allow such a distinction to be made between contagious and noncontagious diseases would be to allow unfair discrimination in contravention of the Act and its legislative history. The Court held that, to determine whether an individual handicapped by a contagious disease is otherwise qualified for a job under section 504, there must be an individualized inquiry based on reasonable medical judgments about the nature of the risk of transmission of the disease, the severity and duration of the risk, and the probability that the disease would be transmitted. The court must then determine whether any reasonable accomodations can be made by the employer. The Court thus remanded the case to the district court for a determination of whether plaintiff is otherwise qualified for her job. School Bd. of Nassau County v. Arline, 55 U.S.L.W. 4245 (U.S. Mar. 3, 1987).

Reimbursement for Child's Treatment for Mental Illness. Noncustodial parent brought action under Education of the Handicapped Act seeking review of final administrative order denying reimbursement for costs he incurred while his son was undergoing treatment for serious mental illness. The District Court... held that: (1) noncustodial parent could object to individualized educational program designed for son; (2) school district was responsible for son's education under Act only for period that son actually lived within the district; (3) noncustodial parent was not entitled to reimbursement for costs of son's psychiatric hospitalization at institution which was not a state-approved special education facility; and (4) noncustodial parent was entitled to reimbursement from school district for costs of individual psychotherapy and

Health Care Financing Review

The Health Care Financing Administration has published the Fall 1986 issue of Health Care Financing Review. A statistical report entitled "National health expenditures, 1985," by Daniel Waldo, Katharine Levit, and Helen Lazenby, is presented. In addition, the following research articles are included: "Outcomes of surgery in the Medicare aged population: Rehospitalization after surgery," by Gerald Riley and James Lubitz; "Case-mix reimbursement for nursing home services: Simulation approach," by E. Kathleen Adams and Robert E. Schlenker; "Factors affecting appropriateness of hospital use in Massachusetts," by Joseph D. Restuccia, Bernard E. Kreger, Susan M.C. Payne, Paul M. Gertman, Susan J. Dayno, and Gregory M. Lenhart; "Should children's hospitals have special consideration in reimbursement policy?," by Michael J. Long, Janice L. Dreachslin, and James Fisher; and "The economics of information exchange: Medicaid in Wisconsin," by Ralph Andreano, Eugene Smolensky, and Thomas Helminiak. Finally, the issue contains a special report entitled "Prospective payment for Medicare skilled nursing facilities: Background and issues," by Korbin Liu, George Schieber, Joshua Wiener, and Pamela Doty.

Volume 8, number 1 of the Health Care Financing Review is available for $4.25 from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402.

pensation agreement, until carrier accumulated charge data from at least three months of calendar year preceding annual, reasonable, charge incurred in transporting child to educational center after school district refused to do so; and (6) child, parents and family care provider were entitled to award of attorney's fees. Judgment entered in favor of plaintiffs. Holbrook ex rel. Taylor v. Board of Educ. of Copake-Taconic Hills Cent. School Dist., Reprinted with permission from 649 F. Supp. 1253 (N.D.N.Y. 1986), Copyright © 1987 West Publishing Co.

Reimbursement for Private School Placement. Parents of handicapped children brought an action under § 1983 alleging deprivation of rights secured by the Education for All Handicapped Children Act through policies of the North Carolina State Board of Education. The District Court... held that: (1) procedural safeguards of the Act required defendant city board of education to conduct an administrative hearing and render decision in that hearing on claim for tuition reimbursement for cost of placing handicapped children in private school; (2) state board of education's interpretation of North Carolina law precluding state hearing officer from conducting administrative hearing on issue of reimbursement violated Act; and (3) dismissal of claim against one named defendant would be allowed. So ordered. S-1 v. Spangler, Reprinted with permission from 650 F. Supp. 1427 (M.D.N.C. 1986), Copyright © 1987 West Publishing Co.

group therapy provided son. Judgment accordingly. Doe v. Anrig, Reprinted with permission from 651 F. Supp. 424 (D. Mass. 1987), Copyright © 1987 West Publishing Co.

Reimbursement for Transportation Expenses. Action was brought on behalf of handicapped child by his parents and family care provider alleging that board of education deprived child of his rights under Education of the Handicapped Act, the Rehabilitation Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983, and New York Education Law. The District Court... held that: (1) school district's committee on handicapped failed to meet procedural requirements of both Education of the Handicapped Act and New York state law; (2) individualized educational program developed for handicapped child was not reasonably calculated to enable him to receive educational benefits to which he was entitled; (3) child was not entitled to relief under Rehabilitation Act; (4) child was not entitled to relief under § 1983; (5) family care provider was entitled to reimbursement for transportation expenses and babysitting fees

that: (1) single piece of qualifying evidence invokes interim presumption of total disability due to pneumoconiosis, and (2) coal miner presented at least one qualifying ventilatory study and one qualifying physicians' opinion, thus, invoking interim presumption of total disability due to pneumoconiosis. Reversed and remanded. Revak v. National Mines Corp., Reprinted with permission from 808 F.2d 996 (3d Cir. 1986), Copyright © 1987 West Publishing Co.

Medicare Physician Fee Freeze. Medicare recipients brought action against Secretary of [HHS] and Administrator of [HCFA] to challenge freeze of customary charges of physicians who changed to direct billing after November 1, 1982. Recipients moved for summary judgment, and Secretary and Administrator moved to dismiss. The District Court... held that: (1) regulation, which required insurance carrier to determine customary charges of physician, who changed from compensation agreement with hospital to direct fee-for-services billing, on basis of former com

HEALTH

Black Lung Benefits. Coal miner petitioned for review of order of Benefits Review Board of the Department of Labor denying claim for black lung benefits. The Court of Appeals...held update, was not on its face contrary to law, and (2) Secretary's freeze, which was placed on customary charges for physicians, who switched from hospital-based to direct fee-for-services billing after November 1, 1982 and which limited medicare compensation to levels paid under hospital compensation agreement, was arbitrary and capricious application of 15-month statutory freeze on medicare reimbursement in conjunction with regulation. Motion to dismiss granted in part and denied in part, and motion for summary judgment denied. Cosgrove v. Bowen, Reprinted with permission from 649 F. Supp. 1433 (S.D.N.Y. 1986), Copyright © 1987 West Publishing Co.

Hospital Care for Indigent Pregnant Women. Hospital brought action to recover from county for services rendered to county's indigent pregnant residents. The Superior Court...entered judgment in favor of hospital and county appealed.

The Supreme Court... held that: (1) court would not consider constitutional challenges to the Hospital Care for Pregnant Women Act based on hypothetical facts; (2) Act does not violate constitutional prohibition on county exercising powers outside its boundaries; (3) complaint stated a claim upon which relief could be granted; (4) regulations which are to be used for determining indigency and which require payment for intrapartum and postpartum care of mother and for pediatric examination of newborn are valid; (5) Act is not unconstitutionally vague or ambiguous; (6) Act is not special legislation; (7) county's obligation was not altered by hospital's receipt of some payment from patients or receipt of promissory notes from some patients; and (8) hospital was not required to comply with notice of claims statute. Affirmed. Terrell County v. Albany/Dougherty Hosp. Auth., Reprinted with permission from 352 S.E.2d 378 (Ga. 1987), Copyright © 1987 West Publishing Co.

Nursing Home License. Revocation of nursing home license was affirmed by the Administrative Hearing Commission, and licensee appealed. The Court of Appeals... affirmed, and transfer was ordered. The Supreme Court... held that the legislature did not intend to give the Department of Social Services authority under the Omnibus Nursing Home Act to revoke license based on single incident which was not in itself life-threatening, under the circumstances of the instant case. Reversed. Villines v. Division of Aging, Reprinted with permission from 722 S.W.2d 939 (Mo. 1987), Copyright © 1987 West Publishing Co.

HOUSING

HUD Housing Assistance. Action was brought challenging President's deferring expenditure of funds earmarked for four HUD housing assistance programs and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.... The United States District Court... granted relief sought, holding invalid provision of Impoundment Control Act which authorized deferrals, and Government appealed. The Court of Appeals... held that: (1) legislation overturning deferrals did not render request for declaratory relief moot, and (2) unconstitutional legislative veto provision of Act was inseverable from deferral provision and, thus, deferral provision was invalid. Ordered accordingly. City of New Haven v. United States, Reprinted with permission from 809 F.2d 900 (D.C. Cir. 1987), Copyright © 1987 West Publishing Co.

Administrative Grievance Procedures. Ten

ants of federally funded public housing brought action to compel implementation of administrative grievance procedures. On remand from the

Court of Appeals... the District Court... held that hearing officers of local public housing authorities are empowered to order whatever relief is appropriate to resolve tenants' grievances and are not limited to monetary or other economic relief. Judgment for plaintiffs. Samuels v. District of Columbia, Reprinted with permission from 650 F. Supp. 482 (D.D.C. 1986), Copyright © 1987 West Publishing Co. [39,480].

Secretary's Duty to Maintain Property. Tenant brought suit against Secretary of [HUD] and apartment manager, alleging that they failed to maintain her apartment in habitable condition, and seeking damages or restitution of rental payments. The District Court... held that: (1) Secretary is under statutory duty to take reasonable steps to maintain property in his control in decent, safe and sanitary condition, unless he specifically determines that to do so would be inappropriate in particular case, and such steps must include elimination of hazards to life, health and [safety of tenants]; (2) state law claims asserted by tenant conflicted with Secretary's discretion; (3) federal courts can enforce Secretary's duty to take reasonable steps to maintain HUD-controlled property in decent, safe and sanitary condition, by granting equitable relief for its violation; and (4) extraordinary remedy of order of restitution was unwarranted. [Counts] dismissed. Conille v. Pierce, Reprinted with permission from 649 F. Supp. 1133 (D. Mass. 1986), Copyright © 1987 West Publishing Co.

IMMIGRATION

Standard Governing Asylum Applications. The United States Supreme Court has held that the clear probability standard applicable to suspensions of deportation under section 243(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act does not apply to asylum applications under section 208(h) of the Act. Respondent is a Nicaraguan citizen who entered the United States in 1979 as a visitor and failed to leave voluntarily. After the INS commenced deportation proceedings against her, respondent requested withholding of deportation pursuant to section 243(h) of the Act and asylum as a refugee pursuant to section 208(h). Section 243(h) allows withholding of deportation when it is shown that it is more likely than not that the alien would be subject to persecution in the country to which he or she would be deported. Section 208(h), on the other hand, allows asylum to be granted if the alien can show a well-founded fear of persecution. At respondent's hearing, the immigration judge applied the section 243 more likely than not proof standard to her section 208 asylum request, holding that she had not established a clear probability of persecution and therefore was not entitled to relief. The Board of Immigration

Appeals affirmed, but the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that section 208's well-founded fear standard is more generous than the section 243 standard, in that it only requires asylum applicants to show good reason to fear future persecution. In affirming, the Supreme Court has held that section 243's clear probability standard does not govern asylum applications under section 208 because the plain meaning of the statutory language indicates a congressional intent that the proof standards under section 208 and section 243 should differ. The Court reasoned that the government's argument, that it is anomalous for section 208 to have a less stringent eligibility standard than section 243 since section 208 affords greater benefits, fails because it does not account for the fact that an alien who satisfies the section 208 standard must still face a discretionary asylum decision by the Attorney General. The Court also disagreed with the government's argument that substantial deference should be given to the Board of Immigration Appeals' position that the two standards are equivalent, since the narrow question of identicality is a question of statutory construction within the traditional purview of the courts. INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 55 U.S.L.W. 4313 (U.S. Mar. 9, 1987).

Hardship Caused by Deportation. Alien petitioned for suspension of deportation, alleging that she had resided in United States for past seven years and that deportation would result in extreme hardship on teenage nieces who were living with her. The Board of Immigration Appeals denied application, and alien petitioned for judicial review. The Court of Appeals... remanded to Board of Immigration Appeals and [INS] petitioned for writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court... reversed. On remand, the Court of Appeals held that Board of Immigration Appeals was not required to consider hardship that alien's deportation might have on third parties other than "spouse, parent or child," for purposes of deciding whether alien was entitled to suspension of deportation. Prior judgment vacated, petition for review denied. Hector v. INS, Reprinted with permission from 810 F.2d 65 (3d Cir. 1987), Copyright © 1987 West Publishing Co.

Suspension of Deportation. Aliens sought review of decision by Board of Immigration Appeals upholding immigration judge's denial of their applications for the suspension of deportation. The Court of Appeals... held that Board of Immigration Appeals' failure to explain why it refused or failed to consider alternative hardship to alien parents and their citizen children of separation, upon parents' deportation, on ground that citizen children were of tender age so that, in all likelihood, they would go with parents to Mexico, upon their parents' deportation, required remand for consideration of pos

sibility of hardship caused by separation. Vacated and remanded. Cerrillo-Perez v. INS, Reprinted with permission from 809 F.2d 1419 (9th Cir. 1987), Copyright © 1987 West Publishing Co.

JUVENILES

Discovery of Child Abuse Evidence. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that a trial court's in camera review of state agency files will serve defendant's sixth and fourteenth amendment right to discover favorable evidence without destroying the state's need to protect the confidentiality of those involved in child abuse investigations. The Court held that the defendant, who was convicted of child abuse, is entitled to know whether the Pennsylvania Children and Youth Services' (CYS's) file contains information that may have changed the outcome of his trial had it been disclosed. This file contains information of CYS's investigation of defendant's alleged sexual attacks on his 13year-old daughter. If, upon remand for further proceedings, the trial court finds that the file contains information that probably would have changed the outcome of his trial, defendant must be given a new trial. However, the lower court will be free to reinstate the prior conviction if the records maintained by CYS contain no such information, or if the nondisclosure was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court notes that it is essential that the child have a state-designated person to whom he or she may turn with the assurance of confidentiality. This interest would be frustrated if confidential material had to be disclosed upon demand to a defendant charged with criminal child abuse. However, if a defendant is aware of specific information contained in the file (e.g., the medical report), the defendant is free to request it directly from the court and to argue in favor of its materiality. Moreover, the duty to disclose is ongoing; information that may be deemed immaterial upon original examination may become important as the proceedings progress, and the court would be obligated to release information material to the fairness of the trial. A four-judge plurality of the Court also asserted that the confrontation clause protects only a defendant's trial rights and has no relevance to pretrial discovery. In his concurrence, Justice Blackmun disagreed with this point, stating that there might well be a confrontation violation if, as here, a defendant is denied pretrial access to information that would make possible effective cross-examination of a crucial prosecution witness. Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 55 U.S.L.W. 4180 (U.S. Feb. 24, 1987) [41,895].

Investigation of Child Abuse. Grandparents, as guardians ad litem, brought private tort action on behalf of child against her father, alleg

ing sexual abuse. The United States District Court... dismissed the action without prejudice, for mother's refusal to comply with discovery request. The Court of Appeals... held that it was not error for district court to dismiss action without prejudice, where child's mother refused to permit child to be examined by psychologists and physician pursuant to father's discovery request, unless mother were permitted to be present at all times during examination. Affirmed. Schempp v. Reniker, Reprinted with permission from 809 F.2d 541 (8th Cir. 1987), Copyright © 1987 West Publishing Co.

Parents' Liability for Acts of Minor. Individual injured when attacked by 16-year-old child sought to recover from parents of child on a theory of negligence in failing to heed warnings about child and in allowing child to remain free to move about community at will. The Circuit Court... sustained parents' demurrer, and individual appealed. The Supreme Court... held that parents could not, in absence of a principalagent relationship, be held liable for malicious, intentional acts of their minor child based on independent negligence of parents in failing to control child. Affirmed. Bell v. Hudgins, Reprinted with permission from 352 S.E.2d 332 (Va. 1987), Copyright © 1987 West Publishing Co.

Mentally Ill Parent. Commissioner of Department of Children and Youth Services petitioned to terminate mother's parental rights. The Superior Court... entered judgment terminating parental rights. Mother appealed. The Appellate Court... held that: (1) evidence supported termination of parental rights, and (2) trial court's decision to terminate parental rights due to impact that mother's schizophrenia had on ability to function as parent did not terminate parental rights due to status of mother as mentally ill person and, therefore, did not violate equal protection rights of mother under State Constitution. No error. T., Nicolina, In re, Reprinted with permission from 520 A.2d 639 (Conn. App. Ct. 1987), Copyright © 1987 West Publishing Co.

LANDLORD/TENANT

Ordinance Requiring Landlords to Rent Vacant Apartments. Unincorporated association of developers owning residential rental property in city sued for declaratory judgment that ordinance requiring landlords to rent vacant apartments to paying tenants violated federal constitutional and statutory rights and that ordinance was preempted by New Jersey legislation. On city's motion to dismiss and developers' motion for preliminary injunction, the District Court ... held that: (1) ordinance was not unconstitu

tional taking or violation of due process or equal protection; (2) ordinance was not void for vagueness; (3) residential land use regulation I did not fall within ambit of federal antitrust laws; and (4) court was free to decline to take pendent jurisdiction over state law claims. Motion to dismiss granted. Help Hoboken Hous. v. City of Hoboken, Reprinted with permission from 650 F. Supp. 793 (D.N.J. 1986), Copyright © 1987 West Publishing Co.

MENTAL HEALTH

Involuntary Commitment. Parents sought commitment of their son. The County Court... directed commitment of son for unspecified time, and committed individual appealed. The Court of Appeals... held that: (1) appeal was not rendered moot by fact that individual had been provisionally discharged and that no medication was forced upon him during his hospitalization; (2) court improperly authorized future involuntary administration of medication by treatment facility to committed individual; and (3) findings, which summarily stated that there was no less restrictive alternative than commitment, listed neither alternatives considered nor reasons for rejecting them, identified no specific conduct of individual as supporting commitment, and made no mention of term of commitment, were inadequate to support commitment. Reversed and remanded. Danielson, In re, Reprinted with permission from 398 N.W.2d 32 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986), Copyright © 1987 West Publishing Co.

NATIVE AMERICANS

Exhaustion of Tribal Court Remedies. The United States Supreme Court has held that a federal court may not exercise diversity jurisdiction before the Indian tribal court system has had an opportunity to determine its own jurisdiction. Respondents, a husband and wife who are members of the Blackfeet Indian Tribe, brought an action in Blackfeet Tribal Court against the husband's employer for injuries he suffered on the job and against his employer's insurer for bad faith refusal to settle. Subsequent to the tribal court's ruling that it does have jurisdiction over the suit, the insurance company filed an action in federal district court against the employer and respondents, alleging diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 as the basis for federal jurisdiction. The district court granted the employer's motion for dismissal, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court has' held that, although the Blackfeet Tribal Court's determination of tribal jurisdiction is ultimately subject to review, petitioner must exhaust available tribal remedies before instituting suit in federal court. The