United States v. Samuel Barotz & Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that it was appropriate to consider father’s challenge to allegations against mother, who did not appeal, where DHS did not object and the court’s findings on the allegations against both parents were “necessarily intertwined”
• concluding that it was appropriate to consider the father’s challenge to allegations against the mother, who did not appeal, where DHS did not object and the juvenile court’s findings on the allegations against both parents were “necessarily intertwined”
• concluding that it was appropriate to consider the father’s challenge to allegations against the mother, who did not appeal, where DHS did not object and the juvenile court’s findings on the allegations against both parents were “necessarily intertwined”
• rejecting as unpreserved an argument that the evidence was insufficient to support a jurisdictional allegation where the parent failed to challenge that basis below
• affirming jurisdiction based on domestic violence where nobody \shielded or otherwise protected [the child] from the domestic violence unfolding around him\ and there was no dispute that the child \was in a chaotic and physically threatening environment\
• declining to review de novo because “this is not an exceptional case”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).