text:
Ando, H., T. Imamura, A. Nabatov, Y. Futaana, T. Iwata, H. Hanada, K. Matsumoto, N. Mochizuki, Y. Kono, H. Noda, Q. Liu, K.-I. Oyama, Z. Yamamoto, A. Saito, Dual-spacecraft radio occultation measurement of the electron density near the lunar surface by the SELENE mission, J. Geophys. Res., 117, 8, A08313, DOI: 1029/2011JA01714, 2012.
André, M., C.M. Cully, Low-energy ions: A previously hidden solar system particle population, Geophys. Res. Lett, 39, 3, L03101, DOI: 10.1029/2011GL050242, 2012.
Andrews, D. J., S.W.H. Cowley, M. K. Dougherty, L. Lamy, G. Provan, and D. J. Southwood, Planetary period oscillations in Saturn’s magnetosphere: Evolution of magnetic oscillation properties from southern summer to post- equinox, J. Geophys. Res., 4, 117, A04224, DOI: 10.1029/2011JA017444, 2012.
Arnault, J., S. Kirkwood, Dynamical influence of gravity waves generated by the Vestfjella Mountains in Antarctica: radar observations, fine-scale modeling and kinetic energy budget analysis, Tellus A, 64, 1, 17261, DOI: 10.3402/tellusa.v64i0.17261, 2012.
Arridge, C.S., C.B. Agnor, N. André, K.H. Baines, L.N. Fletcher, D. Gautier, M.D. Hofstadter, G.H. Jones, L. Lamy, Y. Langevin, O. Mousis, N. Nettelmann, C.T. Russell, T. Stallard, M.S. Tiscareno, G. Tobie, A. Bacon, C. Chaloner, M. Guest, S. Kemble, L. Peacocke, N. Achilleos, T.P. Andert, D. Banfield, S. Barabash, M. Barthelemy, C. Bertucci, P. Brandt, B. Cecconi, S. Chakrabarti, A.F. Cheng, U. Christensen, A. Christou, A.J. Coates, G. Collinson, J.F. Cooper, R. Courtin, M.K. Dougherty, R.W. Ebert, M. Entradas, A.N. Fazakerley, J.J. Fortney, M. Galand, J. Gustin, M. Hedman, R. Helled, P. Henri, S. Hess, R. Holme, O. Karatekin, N. Krupp, J. Leisner, J. Martin-Torres, A. Masters, H. Melin, S. Miller, I. Müller-Wodarg, B. Noyelles, C. Paranicas, I. de Pater, M. Pätzold, R. Prangé, E. Quémerais, E. Roussos, A.M. Rymer, A. Sánchez-Lavega, J. Saur, K.M. Sayanagi, P. Schenk,G. Schubert, N. Sergis, F. Sohl, E.C. Sittler Jr., N.A. Teanby, S. Tellmann, E.P. Turtle, S. Vinatier, J.-E. Wahlund, P. Zarka, Uranus Pathfinder: exploring the origins and evolution of Ice Giant planets, Exp. Astro., 33, DOI: 10.1007/s10686-011-9251-4, 2012.
Axelsson, K., T. Sergenko, H. Nilsson, U. Brändström, Y. Ebihara, K. Asamura, M. Hirahara, Spatial characteristics of wave-like structures in diffuse aurora obtained using optical observations, Ann. Geophys., 30, 12, DOI: 10.5194/angeo-30-1693-2012, 2012.
Axelsson K., T. Sergienko, I. Sandahl, U. Brändström. A study on the possibility to deduce the 2D distribution of the auroral electron precipitation from multi wavelength optical measurements with auroral imagers. In Sección Especial: 37th AMASON, Opt. Pura. Apl. 44, 2011.
Badman, S.V., D.J Andrews, S.W.H. Cowley, L. Lamy, G. Provan, C. Tao, S. Kasahara, T. Kimura, M. Fujimoto, H. Melin, T. Stallard, R. H. Brown, K. H. Baines, Rotational modulation and local time dependence of Saturn’s infrared H3 + auroral intensity, J. Geophys. Res., 117, 9, A09228, DOI: 10.1029/2012JA017990, 2012.
Bamford, R.A., B. Kellett, W.J. Bradford, C. Norberg, A. Thornton, K.J. Gibson, I.A. Crawford, L. Silva, L. Gargaté, R. Bingham, Minimagnetospheres above the lunar surface and the formation of lunar swirls, Phys. Rev. Lett., 109, 8, 081101, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.08110, 2012.
Barabash, S., Classes of the solar wind interactions in the solar system, Earth Plan. Space, 64, 2, DOI: 10.5047/eps.2012.01.005, 2012.
Barabash, V., A. Osepian, P. Dalin, S. Kirkwood, Electron density profiles in the quiet lower ionosphere based on the results of modeling and experimental data, Ann. Geophys., 30, 9, DOI: 10.5194/angeo-30-1345-2012, 2012.
Barghouthi A., H Nilsson, S Ghithan, Comparison between the simulation results of Barghouthi model for ion outflows in the polar wind and auroral regions, J. Association of Arab Universities for Basic and Appl. Sci., 12, 1, DOI: 10.1016/j.jaubas.2012.08.001, 2012.
Belova, E., S. Kirkwood, T.N. Rao, S. Satheesh Kumar, T. Sergienko, Spectral characteristics and scatter cross-section of low latitude mesospheric echoes measured by the Indian MST radar at Gadanki, Ann. Geophys., 30, DOI: 10.5194/angeo-30-983-2012, 2012.
Berthomier, M., A.N. Fazakerley, C. Forsyth, R. Pottelette, O. Alexandrova, A. Anastasiadis, A. Aruliah, P.-L. Blelly, C. Briand, R. Bruno, P. Canu, B. Cecconi, T. Chust, I. Daglis, J. Davies, M. Dunlop, D. Fontaine, V. Génot, B. Gustavsson, G. Haerendel, M. Hamrin, M. Hapgood, S. Hess, D. Kataria, K. Kauristie, S. Kemble, Y. Khotyaintsev, H. Koskinen, L. Lamy, B. Lanchester, P. Louarn, E. Lucek, R. Lundin, M. Maksimovic, J. Manninen, A. Marchaudon, O. Marghitu, G. Marklund, S. Milan, J. Moen, F. Mottez, H. Nilsson, N. Ostgaard, C.J. Owen, M. Parrot, A. Pedersen, C. Perry, J.-L. Pinçon, F. Pitout, T. Pulkkinen, I.J. Rae, L. Rezeau, A. Roux, I. Sandahl, I. Sandberg, E. Turunen, J. Vogt, A. Walsh, C.E.J. Watt, J.A. Wild, M. Yamauchi, P. Zarka, I. Zouganelis, Alfvén: magnetosphere-ionosphere connection explorers, Exp. Astron., 33, 2-3, DOI: 10.1007/s10686-011-9273-y, 2012.
Brändström U., C.-F. Enell, O. Widell, T. Hansson, D. Whiter, S. Mäkinen, D. Mikhaylova, K. Axelsson,F. Sigernes, N. Gulbrandsen, N.M. Schlatter, A.G. Gjendem, L. Cai, J.P. Reistad, M. Daae, T.D. Demissie, Y.L. Andalsvik, O. Roberts, S. Poluyanov, S. Chernouss, Results from the intercalibration of optical low light calibration sources 2011, Geosci. Instrum. Method. Data Syst., 1, DOI: 10.5194/gi-1-43-2012, 2012.
Buehler, S.A., S. Östman, C. Melsheimer, G. Holl, S. Eliasson, V. O. John, T. Blumenstock, F. Hase, G. Elgered, U. Raffalski, T. Nasuno, M. Satoh, M. Milz, J. Mendrok, A multi-instrument comparison of integrated water vapour measurements at a high latitude site, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 22, DOI: 10.5194/acp-12-10925-2012, 2012.
Campbell-Brown, M. D., J. Kero, C. Szasz, A. Pellinen-Wannberg, R.J. Weryk, Photometric and ionization masses of meteors with simultaneous EISCAT UHF radar and intensified video observations, J. Geophys. Res., 117, 9, A09323, DOI: 10.1029/2012JA017800, 2012.
Collinson, G.A., D.G Sibeck, A. Masters, N. Shane, J.A. Slavin, A.J.Coates, T.L. Zhang, M. Sarantos, S. Boardsen, T.E. Moore, S. Barabash, Hot flow anomalies at Venus, J. Geophys. Res., 117, 4, A04204, DOI: 10.1029/2011JA017277, 2012.
Collinson, G. A., L.B.Wilson, D.G. Sibeck, N. Shane, T.L. Zhang, T.E. Moore, A.J. Coates, S. Barabash, Short large-amplitude magnetic structures (SLAMS) at Venus, J. Geophys. Res., 117, 10, A10221, DOI: 10.1029/2012JA017838, 2012.
Dalin, P., S. Kirkwood, M. Hervig, M. Mihalikova, D. Mikhaylova, I. Wolf, A. Osepian, Wave influence on polar mesosphere summer echoes above Wasa: experimental and model studies, Ann. Geophys. 30, DOI: 10.5194/angeo-30-1143-2012, 2012.
Dalin, P., N. Pertsev, V. Romejko, Notes on historical aspects on the earliest known observations of noctilucent clouds, History of Geo- and Space Sci., 3, DOI: 10.5194/hgss-3-87-2012, 2012.
Diéval, C., E. Kallio, G. Stenberg, S. Barabash, R. Jarvinen, Hybrid simulation of the proton precipitation onto the upper atmosphere of Mars, Earth,Plan. Space, 64, 2, DOI: 10.5047/eps.2011.08.015, 2012.
Diéval, C., E. Kallio, S. Barabash, G. Stenberg, H. Nilsson, Y. Futaana, M. Holmström, A. Fedorov, R.A. Frahm, R. Jarvinen, D.A., Brain, A case study of proton precipitation at Mars: Mars Express observations and hybrid simulations, J. Geophys. Res., 117, 6, A06222, DOI: 10.1029/2012JA017537, 2012.
Diéval, C., Solar wind ions inside the induced magnetosphere of Mars, Doctoral thesis, Swedish Institute of Space Physics, Kiruna, Department of Computer Science, Electrical and Space Engineering, Luleå University of Technology, ISBN:978-91-7439-525-9, 2012.
Dubinin, E., M. Fraenz, J. Woch, T.L. Zhang, J. Wei, A. Fedorov, S. Barabash, R. Lundin, Bursty escape fluxes in plasma sheets of Mars and Venus, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39,1, L01104, DOI: 10.1029/2011GL049883, 2012.
Dubinin, E., M. Fraenz, J. Woch, R. Modolo, G Chanteur, F. Duru, D.A. Gurnett, S. Barabash, R. Lundin, Upper ionosphere of Mars is not axially symmetrical, Earth, Plan. Space, 64, 2, DOI: 0.5047/eps.2011.05.022, 2012.
Ekeberg, J., G. Wannberg, L. Eliasson, I. Häggström, Soliton-induced spectrally uniform ion line power enhancements at the ionospheric F region peak, Earth Plan. Space, 64, 7, DOI: 10.5047/eps.2012.02.005 2012.
Ezoe, Y., R. Fujimoto, N.Y. Yamasaki, K. Mitsuda, T. Ohashi, K. Ishikawa, S. Oishi, Y. Miyoshi, N. Terada, Y. Futaana, F. S. Porter, G. V. Brown, Suzaku observations of charge exchange emission from solar system objects, Astronomische Nachrichten, 333, 4, DOI: 10.1002/asna.201211664, 2012.
Farrell, W. M., J.-E. Wahlund, M. Morooka, D. A. Gurnett, W. S. Kurth, R.J. MacDowall, The electromagnetic pickup of submicron-sized dust above Enceladus’s northern hemisphere, Icarus, 219, DOI: 10.1016/j.icarus.2012.02.033, 2012.
Fatemi, S., M. Holmström, Y. Futaana, The effects of lunar surface plasma absorption and solar wind temperature anisotropies on the solar wind proton velocity space distributions in the low-altitude lunar plasma wake, J. Geophys. Res., 117, 10, DOI: 10.1029/2011JA017353. 2012.
Forsyth, C., A.N. Fazakerley, A.P. Walsh, C.E.J. Watt, K.J. Garza, C.J. Owen, D. Constantinescu, I. Dandouras, K.-H. Fornaçon, E. Lucek, G.T. Marklund, S. S. Sadeghi, Y. Khotyaintsev, A. Masson, N. Doss, Temporal evolution and electric potential structure of the auroral acceleration region from multispacecraft measurements, J. Geophys. Res., 117, 12, A12203, DOI: 10.1029/2012JA017655, 2012.
Fu, H.S., Y.V. Khotyaintsev, A. Vaivads, M. André, S.Y. Huang, Occurrence rate of earthward-propagating dipolarization fronts, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, L10101, DOI: 10.1029/2012GL051784, 2012.
Fu, H.S., Y.V. Khotyaintsev, A. Vaivads, M. André, S.Y. Huang, Electric structure of dipolarization front at sub-proton scale, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, L06105, DOI: 10.1029/2012GL051274, 2012.
Fu, H.S., J.B. Cao, Q.-G. Zong, H.Y. Lu, S.Y. Huang, X. H. Wei, Y.D. Ma, The role of electrons during chorus intensification: Energy source and energy loss, J. Atmos. Sol.-Terr. Phys., 80, DOI: 10.1016/j.jastp.2012.03.004, 2012.
Fu, H.S., J.B. Cao, F. S. Mozer, H.Y. Lu, B. Yang, Chorus intensification in response to interplanetary shock, J. Geophys. Res., 117, A01203, DOI: 10.1029/2011JA016913, 2012.
Fu, H., Y. V. Khotyaintsev, A. Vaivads, M. André, V.A. Sergeev, S.Y. Huang, E. A. A. Kronberg, P. W. Daly, Pitch angle distribution of suprathermal electrons behind dipolarization fronts: A statistical overview, J. Geophys. Res. 117, 12, A12221, DOI: 10.1029/2012JA018141, 2012.
Futaana, Y., S. Barabash, M. Wieser, M. Holmström, C. Lue, P. Wurz, A. Schaufelberger, A. Bhardwaj, M. B. Dhanya, K. Asamura, Empirical energy spectra of neutralized solar wind protons from the lunar regolith, J. Geophys. Res., 117, 5, E05005, DOI: 10.1029/2011JE004019, 2012.
Garnier, P., J.-E. Wahlund, M. K. G. Holmberg, M. W. Morooka, S. Grimald, A. Eriksson, P. Schippers, D. A. Gurnett, S. M. Krimigis, N. Krupp, A. Coates, F. Crary, G. Gustafsson, 2012, The detection of energetic electrons with the Cassini Langmuir probe at Saturn, J. Geophys. Res. 117, 10, A10202, DOI: 10.1029/2011JA017298, 2012.
Ghail, R.C., C. Wilson, M. Galand, D. Hall, C. Cochrane, P. Mason, J. Helbert, F. MontMessin, S. Limaye, M. Patel, N. Bowles, D. Stam, J.-E. Wahlund, F. Rocca, D. Waltham, T. A. Mather, J. Biggs, M. Genge, P. Paillou, K. Mitchell, L. Wilson, U. N. Singh, EnVision: Taking the pulse of our twin planet, Exp. Astronomy, 33, DOI: 10.1007/s10686-011-9244-3, 2012.
Gunell, H., H. Nilsson, G. Stenberg, M. Hamrin, T. Karlsson, R. Maggiolo, M. André, R. Lundin, I. Dandouras, Plasma penetration of the dayside magnetopause, Phys. Plasmas, 19, 7, 072906, DOI: 10.1063/1.4739446, 2012.
Haaland, S., A. Eriksson, E. Engwall, B. Lybekk, H. Nilsson, A. Pedersen, K. Svenes, M. André, M. Förster, K. Li, C. Johnsen, N. Østgaard, Estimating the capture and loss of cold plasma from ionospheric outflow, J. Geophys. Res., 117, 7, A07311, DOI: 10.1029/2012JA017679, 2012.
Hamrin, M., O. Marghitu, P. Norqvist, S. Buchert, M. André, B. Klecker, L.M. Kistler, I. Dandouras, The role of the inner tail to midtail plasma sheet in channeling solar wind power to the ionosphere, J. Geophys. Res., 117, 6, A06310, DOI: 10.1029/2012JA017707, 2012.
Hietala, H., N. Partamies, T.V. Laitinen, L.B.N. Clausen, G. Facskó, A. Vaivads, H.E.J. Koskinen, I. Dandouras, H. Rème, E.A. Lucek, Supermagnetosonic subsolar magnetosheath jets and their effects: from the solar wind to the ionospheric convection, Ann. Geophys., 30, 1, DOI: 10.5194/angeo-30-33-2012, 2012.
Hill, T.W., M.F.Thomsen, R.L. Tokar, A.J. Coates, G.R. Lewis, D.T. Young, F.J. Crary, R.A. Baragiola, R.E. Johnson, Y. Dong, R.J. Wilson, G.H. Jones, J.-E. Wahlund, D.G. Mitchell, M. Hornyi, Charged nanograins in the Enceladus plume, J. Geophys. Res., 117, 5, A05209, DOI: 10.1029/2011JA017218, 2012.
Hoffmann, C.G., D.E. Kinnison, R.R. Garcia, M. Palm, J. Notholt, U. Raffalski, G. Hochschild, CO at 40-80 km above Kiruna observed by the ground-based microwave radiometer KIMRA and simulated by the Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 7, DOI: 10.5194/acp-12-3261-20122012, 2012.
Holmberg, M. K. G., J.-E. Wahlund, M.W. Morooka, A.M. Persoon, Ion densities and velocities in the inner plasma torus of Saturn, Plan. Space Sci., 73, 1, DOI: 10.1016/j.pss.2012.09.016, 2012.
Holmström, M., S. Fatemi, Y. Futaana, H. Nilsson, The interaction between the Moon and the solar wind, Earth, Plan. Space, 64, 2, DOI: 10.5047/eps.2011.06.040, 2012.
Huang, S.Y., M. Zhou, F. Sahraoui, A, Vaivads, X.H. Deng, M. André, J.S. He, H.S. Fu, H.M. Li, Z.G. Yuan, D.D. Wang, Observations of turbulence within reconnection jet in the presence of guide field, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, 11, L11104, DOI: 10.1029/2012GL052210, 2012.
Huang, S.Y., A. Vaivads, Y.V. Khotyaintsev, M. Zhou, H.S. Fu, A. Retinò, X.H. Deng, M. André, C. M. Cully, J.S. He, F. Sahraoui, Z.G. Yuan, Y. Pang, Electron acceleration in the reconnection diffusion region: Cluster observations, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, 11, L11103, DOI: 10.1029/2012GL051946, 2012.
Imamura, T., A. Nabatov, N. Mochizuki, T. Iwata, H. Hanada, K. Matsumoto, H. Noda, Y. Kono, Q. Liu, Y. Futaana, H. Ando, Z. Yamamoto, K.-I. Oyama, A. Saito, Radio occultation measurement of the electron density near the lunar surface using a subsatellite on the SELENE mission, J. Geophys. Res., 117, 6, A06303, DOI: 10.1029/2011JA017293, 2012.
Kallio, E., R. Jarvinen, S. Dyadechkin, P. Wurz, S. Barabash, F. Alvarez, V.A. Fernandes, Y. Futaana, A.-M. Harri, J. Heilimo, C. Lue, J. Mäkelä, N. Porjo, W. Schmidt, T. Siili, Kinetic simulations of finite gyroradius effects in the lunar plasma environment on global, meso, and microscales, Plan. Space Sci., 74, 1, DOI: 10.1016/j.pss.2012.09.012, 2012.
Kallio, E., S. Barabash, Magnetized Mars: Spatial distribution of oxygen ions, Earth Plan. Space, 64, 2, DOI: 10.5047/eps.2011.07.008, 2012.
Karlsson, T., N. Brenning, H. Nilsson, J.-G. Trotignon, X. Vallières, G. Facsko, Localized density enhancements in the magnetosheath: Three-dimensional morphology and possible importance for impulsive penetration, J. Geophys. Res., 117, 3, A03227, DOI: 10.1029/2011JA017059, 2012.
Kero, J., Y. Fujiwara, M. Abo, C. Szasz, T. Nakamura, MU radar head echo observations of the 2011 October Draconids, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 424, DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21255.x, 2012.
Kerzenmacher, T., B. Dils, N. Kumps, T. Blumenstock, C. Clerbaux, P.-F. Coheur, P. Demoulin, O. García, M. George, D. W. T. Griffith, F. Hase, J. Hadji-Lazaro, D. Hurtmans, N. Jones, E. Mahieu, J. Notholt, C. Paton-Walsh, U. Raffalski, T. Ridder, M. Schneider, C. Servais, M. De Mazière, Validation of IASI FORLI carbon monoxide retrievals using FTIR data from NDACC, Atmos. Measurement Tech., 5, DOI: 10.5194/amt-5-2751-2012, 2012.
Kohlhepp, R., R. Ruhnke, M.P. Chipperfield, M. De Mazière, J. Notholt, S. Barthlott, R.L. Batchelor, R.D. Blatherwick, Th. Blumenstock, M.T. Coffey, P. Demoulin, H. Fast, W. Feng, A. Goldman, D.W.T. Griffith, K. Hamann, J.W. Hannigan, F. Hase, N.B. Jones, A. Kagawa, I. Kaiser, Y. Kasai, O. Kirner, W. Kouker, R. Lindenmaier, E. Mahieu, R.L. Mittermeier, B. Monge-Sanz, I. Murata, H. Nakajima, I. Morino, M. Palm, C. Paton-Walsh, U. Raffalski, Th. Reddmann, M. Rettinger, C.P. Rinsland, E. Rozanov, M. Schneider, C. Senten, C. Servais, B.-M. Sinnhuber, D. Smale, K. Strong, R. Sussmann, J.R. Taylor, G. Vanhaelewyn, T. Warneke, C. Whaley, M. Wiehle, S. W.Wood, Observed and simulated time evolution of HCl, ClONO2, and HF total column abundances, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 7, DOI: 10.5194/acp-12-3527-2012, 2012.
Kosovichev, A., H. Lundstedt, A. Brandenburg, Special issue on current research in astrophysical magnetism, Physica Scripta, 86, 1, 010201, DOI: 10.1088/0031-8949/86/01/010201, 2012.
Kouyama, T., T. Imamura, M. Nakamura, T. Satoh, Y. Futaana, Horizontal structure of planetary-scale waves at the cloud top of Venus deduced from Galileo SSI images with an improved cloud-tracking technique, Plan. Space Sci., 60, 1, DOI: 10.1016/j.pss.2011.08.008, 2012.
Kurita, S., Y. Katoh, Y. Omura, V. Angelopoulos, C.M. Cully, O. Le Contel, H. Misawa, THEMIS observation of chorus elements without a gap at half the gyrofrequency, J. Geophys. Res., 117, 11, A11223, DOI: 10.1029/2012JA018076., 2012.
Lammer, H., M. Güdel, Y. Kulikov, I. Ribas, T. V. Zaqarashvili, M. L. Khodachenko, K. G. Kislyakova, H. Gröller, P. Odert, M. Leitzinger, B. Fichtinger, S. Krauss, W. Hausleitner, M. Holmström, et al.,Variability of solar/stellar activity and magnetic field and its influence on planetary atmosphere evolution, Earth Planets Space, 64, 2, DOI: 10.5047/eps.2011.04.002, 2012.
Leyser, T.B., F. Waldemarsson, S.C. Buchert, Plasma angular momentum effects and twisted incoherent scatter radar beams, Radio Sci., 47, 4, RS5004, DOI: 10.1029/2011RS004819, 2012.
Li, K., S. Haaland, A. Eriksson, M. André, E. Engwall, Y. Wei, E.A. Kronberg, M. Fraenz, P.W. Daly, H. Zhao, Q.Y. Ren, On the ionospheric source region of cold ion outflow, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, 17, L18102, DOI: 10.1029/2012GL053297, 2012.
Liang, J., B. Ni, C.M. Cully, E.F. Donovan, R M. Thorne, V. Angelopoulos, Electromagnetic ELF wave intensification associated with fast earthward flows in mid-tail plasma sheet, Ann. Geophys., 30, 3, DOI: 10.5194/angeo-30-467-2012, 2012.
Luhmann, J.G., D. Ulusen, S. A. Ledvina, K. Mandt, B. Magee, J.H. Waite, J. Westlake, T.E. Cravens, I. Robertson, N. Edberg, K. Ågren, J.-E. Wahlund, Y.-J. Ma, H. Wei, C.T. Russell, M.K. Dougherty, Investigating magnetospheric interaction effects on Titan’s ionosphere with the Cassini orbiter Ion Neutral Mass Spectrometer, Langmuir Probe and magnetometer observations during targeted flybys, Icarus, 219, 2, DOI: 10.1016/j.icarus.2012.03.015, 2012.
Mandt, K.E., D.A. Gell, M. Perry, J.H. Waite Jr., F.A. Crary, D. Young, B.A. Magee, J.H. Westlake, T. Cravens, W. Kasprzak, G. Miller, J.-E. Wahlund, K. Ågren, N.J.T. Edberg, A.N. Heays, B.R. Lewis, S.T. Gibson, V. de la Haye, M.-C. Liang, Ion densities and composition of Titan’s upper atmosphere derived from the Cassini Ion Neutral Mass Spectrometer: Analysis methods and comparison of measured ion densities to photochemical model simulations, J. Geophys. Res., 117, 10, E10006, DOI: 10.1029/2012JE004139, 2012.
Mari, E., F. Tamburini, G.A. Swartzlander Jr., A. Bianchini, C. Barbieri, F. Romanato, B. Thidé, Sub-Rayleigh optical vortex coronagraphy, Optics Express, 20, 3, DOI: 10.1364/OE.20.002445, 2012.
Marklund, G. T., S. Sadeghi, B. Li, O. Amm, J.A Cumnock, Y. Zhang, H. Nilsson, A. Masson, T. Karlsson, P.-A. Lindqvist, A. Fazakerley, E. Lucek, J. Pickett, Cluster multipoint study of the acceleration potential pattern and electrodynamics of an auroral surge and its associated horn arc, J. Geophys. Res., 117, 10, A10223, DOI: 10.1029/2012JA018046, 2012.
Matsui, H., F. Darrouzet, J. Goldstein, P.A. Puhl-Quinn, Y.V. Khotyaintsev, P.-A. Lindqvist, E. Georgescu, C.G. Mouikis, R.B. Torbert, Multi-spacecraft observations of small-scale fluctuations in density and fields in plasmaspheric plumes, Ann. Geophys., 30, DOI: 10.5194/angeo-30-623-2012, 2012.
Mihalikova, M., S. Kirkwood, J. Arnault, D. Mikhaylova, Observation of a tropopause fold by MARA VHF wind-profiler radar and ozonesonde at Wasa, Antarctica: comparison with ECMWF analysis and a WRF model simulation, Ann. Geophys. 30, 9, DOI: 10.5194/angeo-30-1411-2012, 2012.
Nilsson, H., G. Stenberg, Y. Futaana, M. Holmström, S. Barabash, R. Lundin, N.J.T. Edberg, A. Fedorov, Ion distribution in the vicinity of Mars: signatures of heating and acceleration processes, Earth, Plan. Space, 64, DOI: 10.5047/eps.2011.04.011, 2012.
Nordblad, E. Transverse and lateral shifts of the center of gravity of a refracted nonparaxial Bessel beam, Phys. Rev. A., 85, 1, 013847, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.85.013847, 2012.
Norgren, C., A. Vaivads, Yu. V. Khotyaintsev, M. André, Lower hybrid drift waves: Space observations, Phys. Rev. Lett., 109, 5, 055001, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.055001, 2012.
Rehman, S., J. Burchill, A. Eriksson, R. Marchand, Earth magnetic field effects on Swarm electric field instrument, Plan. Space Sci., 73, 1, DOI: 10.1016/j.pss.2012.10.004, 2012.
Roussos, E., P. Kollmann, N. Krupp, C. Paranicas, S.M. Krimigis, D.G. Mitchell, A.M. Persoon, D.A. Gurnett, W. S. Kurth, H. Kriegel, S. Simon, K.K. Khurana, G. H. Jones, J.-E. Wahlund, M.K.G. Holmberg, Energetic electron observations of Rhea’s magnetospheric interaction, Icarus, 22, 1, DOI: 10.1016/j.icarus.2012.07.0062012, 2012.
Sandahl I., U. Brändström, T. Sergienko, T Leyser. Networks of people and infrastructure for ground-based auroral research, Sección Especial: 37th AMASON, Opt. Pura Apl., 44, 2011.
Sergienko, T., B. Gustavsson, U. Brändström, K. Axelsson, Modelling of optical emissions enhanced by the HF pumping of the ionospheric F-region, Ann. Geophys., 30, 5, DOI: 10.5194/angeo-30-885-2012, 2012.
Sjögren, A., A. Eriksson, C.M. Cully, Simulation of spacecraft sheath impact on Langmuir probe measurements, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci., 40, 4, DOI: 10.1109/TPS.2012.2186616, 2012.
Slapak, R., H. Nilsson, L.-G. Westerberg, A. Eriksson, Observations of oxygen ions in the dayside magnetosheath associated with southward IMF, J. Geophys. Res., 117, 7, A07218, DOI: 10.1029/2012JA017754, 2012.
Smirnova, M., E. Belova, S. Kirkwood, Aspect sensitivity of polar mesosphere summer echoes based on ESRAD MST radar measurements in Kiruna, Sweden in 1997-2010, Ann. Geophys., 30, 3, DOI: 10.5194/angeo-30-457-2012, 2012.
Soobiah, Y., S. Barabash, H. Nilsson, G. Stenberg, R. Lundin, A. J. Coates, D. Winningham, R. Frahm, Energy distribution asymmetry of electron precipitation signatures at Mars, Plan. Space Sci., 10.1016/j.pss.2012.10.014, 2012.
Tamburini, F., E. Mari, A. Sponselli, B. Thidé, A. Bianchini, F. Romanato, Encoding many channels on the same frequency through radio vorticity: First experimental test, New J. Phys. 14, 033001, DOI: 10.1088/1367-2630/14/3/033001, 2012.
Tao, J.B., R.E. Ergun, D. L. Newman, J. S. Halekas, L. Andersson, V. Angelopoulos, J. W. Bonnell, J. P. McFadden, C. M. Cully, H.-U. Auster, K.-H. Glassmeier, D. E. Larson, W. Baumjohann, M. V. Goldman, Kinetic instabilities in the lunar wake: ARTEMIS observations, J. Geophys. Res., 117, 3, A03106, DOI: 10.1029/2011JA017364, 2012.
Ulusen, D., J.G. Luhmann, Y.J. Ma, K.E. Mandt, J.H. Waite, M.K. Dougherty, J.E. Wahlund, C.T. Russell, T.E. Cravens, N.J.T. Edberg, K. Ågren, Comparisons of Cassini flybys of the Titan magnetospheric interaction with an MHD model: Evidence for organized behavior at high altitudes, Icarus, 217, 1, DOI: 10.1016/j.icarus.2011.10.009, 2012.
Vaivads, A., G. Andersson, S.D. Bale, C.M. Cully, J. de Keyser, M. Fujimoto, S. Grahn, S. Haaland, H. Ji, Y. V. Khotyaintsev, A. Lazarian, B. Lavraud, I. R. Mann, R. Nakamura, T.K.M. Nakamura, Y. Narita, A. Retinò, F. Sahraoui, A. Schekochihin, S.J. Schwartz, I. Shinohara, L. Sorriso-Valvo, EIDOSCOPE: Particle acceleration at plasma boundaries. Exp. Astron., 33, 2-3, DOI: 10.1007/s10686-011-9233-6, 2012.
Vorburger, A., P. Wurz, S. Barabash, M. Wieser, Y. Futaana, M. Holmström, A. Bhardwaj, K. Asamura, Energetic Neutral Atom Observations of Magnetic Anomalies on the Lunar Surface, J. Geophys. Res., 117, 7, A07208, DOI: 10.1029/2012JA017553, 2012.
Waara, M., H. Nilsson, R. Slapak, M. André, G. Stenberg, Oxygen ion energization by waves in the high altitude cusp and mantle, Ann. Geophys., 30, 9, DOI: 10.5194/angeo-30-1309-2012, 2012.
Wang, R., R. Nakamura, Q. Lu, A. Du, T.L. Zhang, W. Baumjohann, Y. V. Khotyaintsev, M. Volwerk, M. André, M. Fujimoto, T. Nakamura, A.N. Fazakerley, J. Du, W.-L. The, E.V. Panov, B. Zieger, Y. Pan, S. Lu, Asymmetry in the current sheet and secondary magnetic flux ropes during guide field magnetic reconnection, J. Geophys. R es., 117, 7, A07223, DOI: 10.1029/2011JA017384, 2012.
Wang, Z., B. Wu, T. Sergienko, A non-linearity correction method for calibration of optical sensor at low level light, Communications in Computer and Information Science, 323 CCIS, 1, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-34384-1_16, 2012.
Wei, Y., M. Fraenz, E. Dubinin, A.J. Coates, T.L. Zhang, W. Wan, L. Feng, A. Angsmann, A. Opitz, J. Woch, S. Barabash, R. Lundin, A teardrop-shaped ionosphere at Venus in tenuous solar wind, Plan. Space Sci., 73, DOI: 10.1016/j.pss.2012.08.024, 2012.
Wei, Y., M. Fraenz, E. Dubinin, J. Woch, H. Luehr, W. Wan, Q.-G. Zong, T.L. Zhang, Z.Y. Pu, S.Y. Fu, S. Barabash, R. Lundin, I. Dandouras, Enhanced atmospheric oxygen outflow on Earth and Mars driven by a corotating interaction region, J. Geophys. Res., 117, 3, A03208, DOI: 10.1029/2011JA017340, 2012.
Westlake, J.H., C.P. Paranicas, T.E. Cravens, J.G. Luhmann, K.E. Mandt, H.T. Smith, D.G. Mitchell, A.M. Rymer, M.E. Perry, J.H. Waite, J.-E. Wahlund, The observed composition of ions outflowing from Titan, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, 19, L19104, DOI: 10.1029/2012GL053079, 2012.
Westlake, J. H., J. H. Waite Jr., K. E. Mandt, N. Carrasco, J. M. Bell, B. A. Magee, J.-E. Wahlund, Titan’s ionospheric composition and structure: Photochemical modeling of Cassini INMS data, J. Geophys. Res., 117, 1, E01003, DOI: 10.1029/2011JE003883, 2012.
Yamauchi, M., Secondary wind transport of radioactive materials after the Fukushima accident, Earth Plan. Space, 64, 1, DOI:10.5047/eps.2012.01.002, 2012.
Yamauchi, M., I. Dandouras, H. Reme, F. El-Lemdani Mazouz, Equatorially confined warm trapped ions at around 100 eV near the plasmapause, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, 15, L15101, DOI: 10.1029/2012GL052366, 2012.
Yamauchi, M., M. Takeda, M. Makino, T. Owada, I. Miyagi, Settlement process of radioactive dust to the ground inferred from the atmospheric electric field measurement, Ann. Geophys., 30, 1, DOI: 10.5194/angeo-30-49-2012, 2012.
Yamauchi, M., Y. Futaana, A. Fedorov, R.A. Frahm, E. Dubinin, R. Lundin, J.-A. Sauvaud, J.D. Winningham, S. Barabash, M. Holmström, Ion Acceleration by Multiple Reflections at Martian Bow Shock, Earth Plan. Space, 64, 2, DOI: 10.5047/eps.2011.07.007, 2012.
Zhang, T.L., Q.M. Lu, W. Baumjohann, C.T. Russell, A. Fedorov, S. Barabash, A.J. Coates, A.M. Du, J.B. Cao, R. Nakamura, W.L. Teh, R.S. Wang, X.K. Dou, S. Wang, K.H. Glassmeier, H.U. Auster, M. Balikhin, Magnetic reconnection in the near Venusian magnetotail, Science, 336, 6081, DOI: 10.1126/science.1217013, 2012.
Ågren, K., N.J.T. Edberg, J.-E. Wahlund, Detection of negative ions in the deep ionosphere of Titan during the Cassini T70 flyby, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, 10, L10201, DOI: 10.1029/2012GL051714, 2012.
Ågren, K., On the Formation and Structure of the Ionosphere of Titan, Doctoral thesis, Uppsala university, Digital Comprehensive Summaries of Uppsala Dissertations from the Faculty of Science and Technology, ISBN 978-91-554-8344-9, 2012.
Adams, E., K. Hibbard, E. Turtle, E. Reynolds, B. Anderson, C. Paranicas, G. Rogers, J. McAdams, D. Roth, P. Christensen, A. McEwen, M. Wieser, N. Thomas, P. Wurz, J. Janesick, Io Volcano Observer’s (IVO) integrated approach to optimizing system design for radiation challenges, IEEE Aerospace Conference Proceedings, 6187177, DOI : 10.1109/AERO.2012.6187177, 2012.
Enell C.-F., B. Gustavsson, B. U. E. Brändström, T. I. Sergienko, P. T. Verronen, P. Rydesäter, I. Sandahl, Tomography-like retrieval of auroral volume emission ratios for the 31 January 2008. Geosci. Instrum. Method. Data Syst. Discuss., 2, 2012.
Enell C.-E., N. Partamies, S. Mäkinen, J. Mattanen, L. Sangalli, M. Veijonsuo, B. Gustavsson, U. Brändström, T. Aslaksen, EMCCD cameras for auroral imaging. Optics Days 2011, Oulu, Finland, May 2011.
Eriksson, A. I.T. Nilsson, J.-E. Wahlund, Interpretation of Langmuir probe data obtained close to a spacecraft, Proceedings of the 16th International Congress on Plasma Physics, European Physical Society, 2012.
Haider, S.A., S. Lal, W.-H. Ip, S. Barabash, Preface, Plan. Space Sci., 63-64, DOI: 10.1016/j.pss.2012.02.001, 2012.
Liszka, L., The cross-correlation parameters of the infrasonic wave field on the ground, IRF Scientific Report 303, ISBN: 978-91-977255-9-0, 2012.
Matéo-Vélez, J.-C., P. Sarrailh, B. Thiébault, J. Forest, A. Hilgers, J.-F. Roussel, G. Dufour, B. Rivière, V. Génot, S. Guillemant, A. Eriksson, C. Cully, SPIS Science: modelling spacecraft cleanliness for low-energy plasma measurement, Proceedings of the 12th Spacecraft Charging Technology Conference (SCTC-12), JAXA, 2012.
Tamburini, F., B. Thidé, E. Mari, A. Sponselli, A. Bianchini, F. Romanato, Reply to comment on ’Encoding many channels on the same frequency through radio vorticity: First experimental test’. New J. Phys. 14, 118002, DOI: 10.1088/1367-2630/14/11/118002, 2012, 2012.
Wedlund, C.L., H. Lamy, B. Gustavsson, T. Sergienko, U. Brändström, J. De Keyser., Auroral electron fluxes and characteristic energy of precipitating electrons inferred by Alis and Eiscat. EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts, 14, 2012.
Ashfaque, Madeeha, Precipitation of solar wind ions in the Venusian atmosphere : An ASPERA-4 investigation, Master thesis, Department of Com-puter Science, Electrical and Space Engineering, Luleå University of Technology, 2012.
Johlander, Andreas, Photoemission on the Rosetta spacecraft, Master thesis, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Uppsala University, 2012.
Zanjani, Zahra Vaziri, Radiation Effects on Ceramic Channel Electron Multipliers : Analysis, Simulation and Sensor Design, Master thesis, Department of Computer Science, Electrical and Space Engineering, Luleå University of Technology, 2012.

matches: V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V.


Litigation Procedure and Law - § 8-11 - § 8-13 :: Virginia Family Law Resource Raynor & Farmer, P.C.
Equitable doctrines such as laches and estoppel are generally rejected in divorce suits because the body of divorce law is now chiefly statutory in character.
A court will not compel a vain and useless undertaking.
Even a court of equity, in an effort to do equity, cannot disregard the provisions of a lawful decree, nor is such a court justified in offsetting against payments required to be made under such a decree voluntary payments.
Laches is the neglect or failure to assert a known right or claim for an unexplained period of time under circumstances prejudicial to the adverse party. The burden of proving laches and prejudice is uponthe litigant asserting the defense. When a trial court considers the defense of laches, it does not apply an absolute rule such as a statute of limitations, but instead examines each case in light of the particular circumstances. Therefore, whether a claim is barred by laches is primarily a decision resting within the discretion of the trial court. Absent an abuse of that discretion, the decision will not be overturned on appeal.
The doctrine of laches may not be interposed by the obligor spouse to a spousal support arrearage claim.
If the fugitive disentitlement doctrine applies in a particular case, the remedy afforded by the doctrine is a dismissal of the litigant’s claims or a complete bar to the litigant’s participation in the action. If a lesser alternative to such an extreme remedy is available, the doctrine does not apply. The doctrine and its various rationales do not grant a non-fugitive party a right to the imposition of any particular lesser remedy in a specific case.
Where husband did not request that wife be barred from pursuing her action, but instead simply requested that she be forced to appear in person rather than via telephonic deposition, he acknowledged that a remedy less than dismissal or complete bar was available. Thus, he could not successful argue that the court erred in refusing to apply the fugitive disentitlement doctrine to wife.
Circuit court had no jurisdiction to entertain action for declaratory judgment where other remedies were available to the party seeking the judgment. When appellant opposed appellee’s motions to register and enforce out-of-state custody orders in the trial court, she pursued those other available remedies. The harm she alleged “may be suffered” had, in fact, already been suffered, as the appellee had already moved to register and enforce the orders.
Trial court did not err in dismissing claims for injunctive relief, as appellant had and was currently pursuing an adequate remedy at law by defending against appellee’s motion to register and enforce custody orders. Courts will not enjoin the prosecution of an action at law when the defendant can make a full and adequate defense in such action.
To secure an injunction, a party must show irreparable harm and the lack of an adequate remedy at law. The injunction must also be specific in its terms, and it must define the exact extent of its operation so that there may be compliance. In other words, the injunction should set forth what is enjoined in a clear and certain manner and its meaning should not be left for speculation or conjecture.
Trial court erred in granting injunction prohibiting the father from “making defamatory comments about the mother to third parties.” The mother presented no evidence that, absent the injunction, she would be irreparably harmed, nor did she demonstrate the lack of an adequate remedy at law, as a common law action for defamation would have been available had the father actually made defamatory comments. Moreover, the injunction was vague and overbroad, in that it failed to adequately delineate which of the father’s potential comments might violate the injunction.
The “clean hands” doctrine is unavailable to a party when it is asserted in the context of equitable distribution proceedings or in the context of the determination of spousal support pursuant to Code §20-107.1. Although divorce cases appear on the chancery side of the docket, the many statutory limitations placed on divorces differentiate those cases from ordinary suits in equity.
The Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine springs from the inherent power of courts to enforce their judgments and protect their dignity. In essence, it provides that a fugitive from justice may not seek relief from the judicial system whose authority he/she evades. The doctrine applies in both criminal and civil cases. In order to employ the doctrine, the record must show (i) that the party against whom the doctrine is advanced is a fugitive; (ii) that there is a nexus between the current case and the party's status as a fugitive; and (iii) that dismissal is necessary to effectuate the policy concerns underlying the doctrine. Some of the policy concerns include prejudice to the opponent, delay, frustration, and unenforceability. Use of the doctrine must be a reasonable response to the problems and the needs of the case. Because it is a severe sanction, the court must exercise discretion in determining whether to apply the doctrine.
Although a litigant may qualify as a fugitive by fleeing the jurisdiction, a litigant may also “constructively flee” by remaining outside the jurisdiction and refusing to return.
Cases involving custody are in an entirely different category than other issues for fugitive disentitlement purposes. The best interests of a child are paramount in custody disputes, and barring a parent who has lost a child from even arguing that the child was wrongfully removed to another country is too harsh, particularly in the absence of any showing that the fugitive status has impaired the rights of the other parent. This is not to say that the doctrine should never be applied in custody cases, but simply that it should be used sparingly and where there is no significant negative impact on the best interests of any children.
The Court of Appeals refused to apply the fugitive disentitlement doctrine to bar mother’s appeal of a Virginia trial court’s refusal to register a Michigan custody order. Although the mother was a fugitive from outstanding arrest warrants in Michigan and from a federal indictment for parental kidnapping, her status as a fugitive had no nexus to her appeal of the Virginia court’s refusal to register the prior order. Her request for registration resulted, not from her absconding from Michigan to Austria with the child or from her refusal to submit to the jurisdiction of the Michigan courts, but from father’s actions in bringing the child back to Virginia. Furthermore, the father was not prejudiced in the present appeal by her refusal to submit to the jurisdiction of a Michigan court, as the Virginia courts had not been asked to determine custody, but instead, to simply give full faith and credit to the Michigan custody order.
The trial court erred in refusing to award Wife the fair market rental value of her interest in the parties’ former marital residence. Code of Virginia § 8.01-31 provides that “[a]n accounting in equity may be had against any fiduciary or by one joint tenant, tenant in common, or coparcener for receiving more than comes to his just share or proportion, or against the personal representative of any such party.” Upon the parties’ divorce, their former marital residence, which they had owned as tenants by the entirety, became their property as tenants in common pursuant to Code § 20-111, and thus fell within the scope of Code § 8.01-31. The Supreme Court of Virginia addressed this issue in Early v. Friend, 57 Va. 21, wherein the Court held, that “[w]hen instead of renting it out, [the co-tenant in possession] occupies and uses the whole [property] to the exclusion of his co-tenants, and thus, in effect, becomes himself the renter, . . . the just and true rule is, to charge him with a reasonable rent for the use and occupation of the property in the condition in which it was when he received it, and to hold him accountable to his co-tenants for their just shares of such rent.” Accordingly, Wife is entitled to an accounting from the date of the divorce, which initiated the commencement of the parties’ tenancy in common.
The trial court did not err in imposing a constructive trust in favor of Wife after Husband died intestate. During the marriage, Husband’s mother gifted to Husband a parcel of real property on which Husband and Wife placed a trailer and resided with their children. When, Husband filed for divorce, he conveyed the property back to his mother in an effort to exclude it from distribution as part of the divorce. Fearful that Wife might file suit against her, Husband’s mother conveyed the property to Husband’s brother. When Husband died intestate 12 years after filing for divorce, his brother still held title to the property, and Husband and Wife were still married and continued to live on the property.
The Supreme Court considered whether, viewing the record in the light most favorable to Wife, the trial court’s imposition of a constructive trust was based on clear and convincing evidence that Husband’s brother would be unjustly enriched if allowed to retain the property. Husband’s mother and brother each claimed that they did not hold the land for Husband’s benefit. Wife testified that Husband and Husband’s mother said the land was Husband’s “any time he wanted.” The parties’ children testified to similar statements by their father about the land. Based on this testimony and the circumstances surrounding the transfer, the Court found that Husband’s mother and brother were not beneficial owners of the property and any disposition of the property by either of them during Husband’s lifetime would have been subject to Husband’s wishes. Furthermore, although Husband’s and Wife’s relationship was volatile when Husband filed for divorce, Wife testified that it had been stable since and “great” in the two years preceding Husband’s death. Additionally, Wife had cared for Husband’s mother throughout their relationship. Finally, Wife had lived on the property since 1972. The Court found that these circumstances provided ample evidence that Husband’s brother would be unjustly enriched, and Wife unjustly deprived, if the Court permitted Husband’s brother to retain the property.
Trial court did not err in finding that husband was equitably estopped from contesting spousal support, where husband and his attorney specifically promised to wife, prior to her signing a settlement agreement wherein she waived spousal support, that husband would continue to support her and provide her with additional funds to meet her basic expenses. Wife had significant psychological conditions, and, according to the testimony of her counselor, was very gullible. She thought that the settlement agreement was being entered into solely for the purpose of enabling husband to receive a bond for his business.
Husband was estopped from contesting validity of decree as he had relied upon decree in remarrying.
The trial court did not err in finding that wife was equitably estopped from contesting the validity of a modification to the parties’ settlement agreement, where wife’s primary argument against the modification was that her and husband’s signatures to the modification were not notarized, and thus not executed “with the same formality” as the original agreement. The modification was in writing and signed by both parties, and both parties operated under the modification for over five years. Wife’s conduct in signing the modification and accepting modified child support payments by husband induced husband to believe that the modification was uncontested. Moreover, mother’s challenge, if successful, would result in a substantial back debt owed by father.
Husband, who fraudulently induced Wife to enter into a marital agreement, argued that Wife was estopped from repudiating the agreement due to his partial performance under the agreement. The equitable remedy of estoppel was unavailable to Husband due to the doctrine of “unclean hands.” Where the fraudulent acts of a party cause another party to enter into a contract, the party guilty of fraud is not entitled to restitution for his or her performance or partial performance under the contract.
The trial court did not err in determining that collateral estoppel barred Husband from challenging his paternity and attendant obligation to support the minor child where the final divorce decree stated that the child was born of the marriage. Under the principle of collateral estoppel, the parties to the first action and their privies are precluded from litigating in a subsequent action any issue of fact actually litigated and essential to a valid and final personal judgment in the first action. Incorporated in the parties’ final decree of divorce was the trial court’s finding that the child was born of the marriage. Implicit in that ruling was a finding by the court that Husband was the father of the child, and thereby obligated to make support payments until the child reached the age of majority. The issue of Husband’s paternity had thus already been conclusively adjudicated in the final divorce decree.
In order to establish a collateral estoppel bar, the party asserting collateral estoppel must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the precise issue or question sought to be precluded was raised and determined in a previous action. Before finding that a party has met this burden, the trial court is required to determine exactly what was decided in the earlier trial. The inquiry must be set in a practical frame and viewed with an eye to all the circumstances of the proceedings.
To establish equitable estoppel, it is not necessary to show actual fraud, but only that the person to be estopped has misled another to his prejudice, or that the innocent party acted in reliance upon the conduct or misstatement by the person to be estopped. Elements necessary to establish equitable estoppel, absent a showing of fraud and deception, are (i) a representation; (ii) reliance; (iii) a change of position; and (iv) detriment.
The trial court did not err in awarding guardian ad litem fees in excess of $11,000 or in ordering Mother to pay approximately $10,000 of the guardian’s fees. Although Mother relied on Code of Virginia §§ 16.1-267 and 19.2-163 to support her contention that the trial court erred, those sections are inapplicable because they pertain to juvenile and domestic relations district court cases and criminal cases respectively. This is a custody and visitation case which took place entirely in the circuit court. Further, the record demonstrates that Mother’s actions unnecessarily increased the expense necessary to conclude the case. Between the initial court proceeding when the guardian was appointed, and the final ruling approximately a year and a half later, the parties were required to attend four separate hearings at Mother’s request to address her refusal to undergo an independent psychological evaluation and her repeated, unsuccessful attempts to convince the court to dispense with the requirement.
The trial court erred in appointing a guardian ad litem sua sponte to determine whether Husband qualified for disability benefits and to present evidence of the same. Husband was already represented by counsel and the evidence regarding Husband’s alleged disability, which was presented prior to the trial court’s appointment of a guardian, was inconclusive. The circumstances of the case provided no statutory basis on which a guardian could be appointed.
The trial court did not err in denying Father’s request for a guardian ad litem because, although Father was incarcerated, he was not a party defendant to the lawsuit. Rather, Father was the party who filed the action in the court to amend his child support obligation. Code of Virginia § 8.01-9(a) provides that a person under a disability, including a convicted felon who is incarcerated, shall be appointed a guardian ad litem when he is a “party defendant.” The statute is not concerned with the capacity of a person under a disability to sue, but with the protection of such person when named as a defendant in a lawsuit. The filing of a lawsuit is a plaintiff’s affirmative act that does not carry with it the need for the type of court-initiated protection which may exist when a person with a disability is required to defend himself in litigation that he did not initiate.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to appoint a guardian ad litem for the child. A trial court has the discretionary power to appoint a guardian ad litem in a contested custody case when it finds that the best interests of the child are not adequately protected by the parties. Here, although the child was available to speak with the trial court, such conversation with the child was unnecessary because the trial court could ascertain the best interests of the child from parties’ and witness’s testimony.
Trial court abused discretion in appointing as guardian ad litem for child an attorney previously hired by and paid by mother to represent the child. Prior to the appointment, the attorney admitted that she had not met with the child, inquired as to the relationship the child had with the biological father, or done any investigation of the biological father, despite having taken an identical position as the mother in seeking to bar biological father’s petition to establish paternity.
While Va. Code § 16.1-278.19 is clearly designed to give the trial court authority to shift the burden of attorney’s fees and costs from one party to the other, it does not set out a requirement that a guardian ad litem’s fees must be divided among the parties based on their relative financial abilities. Moreover, under Va. Code § 16.1-267(A), the court is required to assess the total costs of the guardian ad litem’s representation of the child against both parents. Although that statute is silent as to how to apportion those costs between the parents, the trial court has discretion in doing so.
Trial court did not err in ordering husband to pay 80% of the guardian ad litem’s fees, based on findings by the court that husband “created the majority” of the need for the guardian’s extensive time on the case.
The decision to appoint guardian fees between both parties or to one party alone is a matter within the trial court’s sound discretion.
The trial court did not err in continuing the appointment of a guardian ad litem after having deemed the custody matters before it ended. Va. Code § 20-124.2 grants a court continuing authority and jurisdiction to make additional orders necessary to effectuate and enforce court-ordered custody and visitation arrangements. Thus, once a court has ruled on matters relating to custody and visitation of minor children, the court retains jurisdiction throughout the minority status of the child involved. That authority includes the power to order the continued appointment of a guardian ad litem until the children have reached the age of majority.
Trial court did not err in allowing the guardian ad litem to utilize staff members to carry out duties such as home visits. There is no authority standing for the proposition that a guardian ad litem is barred, in an appropriate case, from utilizing court-approved or designated staff to assist with fulfilling his/her obligations as guardian ad litem.
The trial court in a divorce case has authority to appoint a guardian ad litem, and to apportion the costs among the parties. A finding that the appointment is necessary and would be in the best interest is an essential prerequisite.


Mr. Wiener has testified extensively before the US Congress, the Internal Revenue Service, the Philadelphia Art Commission, the Canadian government and the US Treasury Department. A partial list of such testimony is given below.
2009: Member of working group of 5 experts retained to develop and recommend new standards for donation appraisal reports concerning audio, visual and related photographic material to be considered by the Canadian Cultural Properties Export Review Board for potential Canadian tax deductions.
1990: Established with the Resolution Trust Corporation a national database of appraisers to help in the liquidation of assets of failed savings & loan institutions.
1986: Testimony submitted to the House Ways and Means Committee, Subcommittee on Oversight, concerning the IRS Art Advisory Panel. Testimony published by the Government Printing Office with the proceedings of the Hearing.
1985: Testimony before the IRS and Treasury on the new IRS regulations for donations of personal property to charitable institutions.
1985: Expert witness for the Treasury Department in the United States of America v. Jarelco, Inc. As a result of this action, the Treasury Department was able to reclaim more than $50 million in lost revenue.
1984: Participant at the meeting of IRS and Treasury officials and invited representatives of the appraisal profession to discuss the ramifications of the new legislation and rules regarding donations of personal property to charitable institutions.
2016: MunnWorks v. 645 Mac Realty: Expert witness in case involving water damage to a large volume of prints.
2016: Robert Fletcher and Bartlow Gallery Ltd. v. Peter Doig: Expert witness in case involving disputed authorship of a painting.
2013-16: Paul A. Gardner, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent: Expert witness in case involving disputed valuation for the donation of a collection of natural history specimens.
2015:United States v. Luke D. Brugnara: United States v. Luke D. Brugnara: Expert witness in criminal (fraud) case involving non-payment for works by several modern artists including a set of 16 works on paper attributed to Willem de Kooning.
2014: City of Detroit (Bankruptcy): Expert witness in trial involving the valuation of the entire collection of the Detroit Institute of Arts (DIA).
2014: ACG Credit Company II, LLC v. Veronica Hearst: Case involving the valuation of a collection of Old Master paintings. Settled out of court.
2011-2013: Marguerite Hoffman v. L&M Arts, David Martinez and Studio Capital, Inc.: Expert witness in case involving breach of contract and valuation issues concerning a major Mark Rothko painting. Mrs. Hoffman won on all counts of breach of contract and was awarded damages.
2011-2013: Cin-Con Heating v. Shapiro and Weigner: Case involving claimed damage to a fixture and interior attributed to Frank Lloyd Wright. Settled out of court.
2011-2013: The Dorothy G. Bender Foundation, Inc. and John McEnroe v. Joseph P. Carroll and Joseph P. Carroll Limited: Case involving the valuation of an Arshile Gorky painting and two other works of art connected with the settlement of the Lawrence Salander assets. The case was won by the Bender Foundation and John McEnroe. The decision was published in the New York Law Journal.
2012: Ronald Appleby v. Her Majesty the Queen: Retention by the Justice Department of Canada and Canadian Revenue. Case concerning the donation of a monumental sculpture by Jean-Léon Gérôme to the Art Gallery of Hamilton (Ontario). Issues concerning re-fabrication of significant parts, use of undocumented ivory in the restoration, and issues concerning the sculpture’s Cuban provenance and its nationalization and subsequent sale by the Castro government.
2011-2012: American International Ins. Co., as subrogee of Theodore Forstmann, v. Acquavella Galleries, Inc.: Case involving a damaged Picasso portrait of Dora Maar. The case settled out of court.
2010-2012: Glacier Gallery and I.S.O. Art Ltd. v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc, Art Capital Group and ACG Galleries: Case involving a painting by Thomas Hart Benton damaged in shipping.
2009-2012: Atlantic Specialty Insurance Co. v. AE Outfitters: Case involving fire damage to an important sculpture by Jeff Koons owned by collector, Peter Brant.
v. Art Courier, et. al.: Case involving a highly important painting by Brice Marden, owned by Sotheby’s, which had been damaged when in custody of the Courier while it was being transported by the Gagosian Gallery.
2010-2011: AXA Art Insurance Corporation as subrogee of Steven A. Cohen v. Arenson Office Furnishings Inc.: Case involving a damaged important sculpture by Jeff Koons owned by collector Steven Cohen.
2010- 2011: Friedman Benda Gallery v. Museum of Modern Art et al.: Case involving the claimed damage to pieces of furniture by twentieth-century artist Ron Arad.
2009-2011: Richard Green (Fine Paintings) v. Doyle McClendon and Mary Alice McClendon: Case involving the current valuation of one of the most expensive Bonnard paintings ever sold.
2009: Cincinnati Art Gallery and Travelers v. Covenant: Case involving a damaged painting by William Glackens.
2009: Venetia Kapernekas v. Udo Fritz-Hermann Brandhorst: Expert witness in case involving the valuation of large-scale sculpture by Damien Hirst.
2009: 775 Park Avenue Corp, a/k/a Anton deBekessy v. Marguerite deBekessy: Expert witness in case involving the role of provenance in the auction sales of fine and decorative art.
2006-2009: P&E entertainment v. Chubb Insurance: Expert witness in case involving a loss claim for audio-visual and photographic sports entertainment material.
2008: Christie’s, Inc v. SWCA, Inc et al.: Expert witness in case concerning authentication procedures for a Picasso bronze.
2007: Trimount Foundation v. Dexter House Development, Boston: Expert witness in case involving the valuation and assessment of damages to a major Tiffany mosaic room decoration located in the Ayer Mansion, Boston. The case was settled out of court, although a deposition was taken and a videotaped testimony to be played in court in the event of a trial was made.
2005: United States v. Rocco de Simone. Expert witness in criminal case involving representation of French impressionist and modern paintings, consignment agreements and related art world practices. De Simone, who risked going to prison for approximately seven years, was exonerated based, in large part, on expert witness testimony.
2005: Levin v. Harned: Expert witness. Case involving art-world practices and representation of French furniture and decorative arts sold by Ed Hardy, Inc., San Francisco.
2005: Levin v. Harned: Expert witness. Case involving art-world practices and representation of French furniture and decorative arts sold by Foster Gwin, Inc., San Francisco.
2005: Levin v. Harned: Expert witness. Case involving art world practices and representation of French furniture and decorative arts sold by John J. Nelson Antiques, Inc., Los Angeles.
2004: Levin v. Harned: Expert witness. Case involving art world practices and representation of French furniture sold by Dalva Brothers, Inc., New York. Testified for Dalva Brothers who won on all counts.
2004: Cathers v. Barnes: Expert witness. Case involving allegation of non-payment of bill. Testified for defendant on art-market practices and representation of objects by dealers.
2003: Phoenix Art Gallery v. Kimbell Museum: Legal consultation. Case involving non-fulfillment of purchase and the interrelationship of provenance concerns.
2003: Charles Malette v. Her Majesty The Queen (Vancouver, Canada): Expert witness. Retained by the Department of Justice, Canada as an expert witness in appraisal methodology and blockage discount in a dispute concerning the donation of 981 works on paper by the Canadian artist, Harold Feist. The government’s position was upheld by the Court of Appeals with reliance upon my expert report as part of the justification for the decision.
2002: Insurance claim for artist Wen-Ying Tsai: Consultant and expert witness for the City of New York in the settlement of an insurance claim for artist Wen-Ying Tsai. Valuation considerations include issue of blockage discount.
2001—2002: Thomas Colville Fine Arts, LLC v. Kent Gilyard et al.: Expert witness testimony concerning art sales practices, issues of authenticity and auction-house sales practices and guarantees.
2002: Gay Culverhouse v. Centrifugal/ Mechanical Associates, Inc. et al.: Legal consultation case involving insurance damage and loss claim.
2002: Estate of Louise Nevelson et al v. Carro, Spanbock et al.: Expert witness testimony concerning the valuation of over 3,000 works of art by Louise Nevelson and issue of blockage discount.
2002: Nares et al v. M&W Waterproofing, Inc.: Legal consultation in case involving insurance damage and loss claim for artwork created by artist, James Nares.
1999—2001: Philadelphia Arts Commission re: Dream Garden Mosaic in the Curtis Office Building: Expert witness for the testimony of the Philadelphia Arts Commission. It was anticipated that litigation in this case would be heard in the U.S. Supreme Court since constitutional issues are involved.
1993: The Matter of the Definition of Legal Fees Payable to the Estate of Andy Warhol: Expert Witness on appraisal methodology and blockage discount. At issue was the valuation of an estate claimed to be in excess of $900 million. This was then the highest-value art valuation case ever to be tried in the U.S.
1992: Goldman v. Barnett. Expert Witness.
1985: Treasury Department in the United States of America v. Jarelco, Inc.: Expert Witness for the Treasury Department. As a result of this action, the Treasury Department was able to reclaim more than $50 million in lost revenue.


text:
instructions by published opinion. Judge Diaz wrote the opinion, in which Judge Wynn joined. Judge King filed a dissenting opinion.
of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") final order of removal.
Karimi contends the BIA erred when it ruled that his Maryland second-degree assault conviction was for a "crime of violence" under 18 U.S.C. 16, and thus an "aggravated felony"
BIA with instructions to reinstate Karimis asylee status.
United States in 1990. He was granted asylum in 1999.
[her] with his free hand." J.A. 321.
know that the other is a law enforcement officer, parole agent, or probation agent engaged in the performance of his or her official duties. Md.
bearing on whether it constitutes an "aggravated felony" under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
term, wholly suspended, for the DUI charge.
under the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"), 8 U.S.C.
which the term of imprisonment was at least one year.
aggravated felony, found him removable as charged, and terminated his asylum. The case was then transferred to Baltimore, Maryland, where Karimi filed a motion to reconsider.
issued a final order of removal in March 2011.
and they are now ripe for our review.
heard oral argument in this case.
by failing to raise it in his opening brief. See Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) (noting that pursuant to Fed.
denying Karimis motion to reconsider and reopen.
scope of 16, which is not a question of immigration law.
for reconsideration of these questions would serve no purpose.
prior conviction constitutes an aggravated felony. Mbea v.
deference. Garcia v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 465, 467 (4th Cir.
his BIA notice of appeal, J.A. 64.
evidence. Salem v. Holder, 647 F.3d 111, 116 (4th Cir. 2011).
the term of imprisonment" is "at least one year." 8 U.S.C.
used in the course of committing the offense.
4 (2004) (holding that an immigrants conviction under Floridas comparable DUI statute was not a conviction for a crime of violence that rendered him deportable).
at 167 (internal quotations omitted).
include "any felony offense which has as an element the use . . . of physical force against the person or property of another[.]" Id. at 1270-71.
holding. Id. Accordingly, we rely on Johnson here.
may apply a modified categorical approach. Johnson, 130 S.
of the charging document, . . . a plea agreement, . . . [a] transcript of colloquy between judge and defendant, . . . or . . .
conviction nor admitted by the defendant." United States v.
can tell whether the defendants plea "necessarily admitted"
facts identifying the offense as a crime of violence. Id. at 22425 (citing Shepard, 544 U.S. at 20-21, 24, 26).
convictions under that statute. See id. at 223; United States v.
an alien is removable as a result of a prior aggravated felony conviction.
of both violent and nonviolent conduct. See United States v.
(and therefore are not categorically "crime[s] of violence"
be unlawful (and therefore are not categorically "burglar[ies]"
conviction using the modified categorical approach.
approachesthe strict categorical or the modified categoricalcan sustain the BIAs determination that Karimi committed an aggravated felony.
including Karimis, cannot categorically be crimes of violence. See Johnson, 130 S. Ct. at 1270.
BIAs conclusion that he committed a crime of violence.
done to the officer" as a result of the grabbing. J.A. 292.
grabbing was so forceful as to be capable of causing harm.
forceeven when coupled with the act of grabbing.
recitation of evidence to be presented at trial.
The Attorney General argues that Karimis reliance on Alston is misplaced because Alstons plea was entered pursuant to North Carolina v.
his conviction necessarily rest on such facts.
and the judicial process would operate at its intended efficiency.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v.


In a previous blog entry, the principle of sovereign immunity and how they might apply to a County was discussed. What wasn’t discussed, was whether sovereign immunity would apply to a public university or public college. A case that addresses this is Doe v. Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, 280 Neb. 492, 788 N.W.2d 264 (2010). In this case, a medical student who was granted a leave of absence in order to receive treatment for depression, insomnia, and anxiety was eventually removed from the medical school after he returned from that leave of absence and things continued to not go well. Id. at 496-497. He brought suit alleging fraudulent concealment, disability discrimination, violation of his due process rights, and breach of contract. See Id. at 497.
The court had several issues before it, but for our purposes the issue to focus on is whether the University of Nebraska could successfully claim immunity under the 11th amendment to the plaintiff’s suit for disability discrimination. As has been noted when it comes to employment, states and arms of the states are going to have to specifically consent to being sued as sovereign immunity principles apply. However, as mentioned previously, when it comes to suing under title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, whether sovereign immunity principles apply is a very fact specific situation. As discussed previously, if a fundamental right is involved, then the state or, the state is not going to be able to successfully claim sovereign immunity. Thus, there are two questions. First, is a fundamental right involved? If a fundamental right is not involved, does that mean that the state or arm of the state automatically gets to claim sovereign immunity? Is education a fundamental right?
The Nebraska Supreme Court said that education is not a fundamental right. Id. at 521. However, as mentioned above, that doesn’t answer the question as to whether the state still has the right to claim sovereign immunity. The Nebraska Supreme Court concluded that even though education is not a fundamental right, the University of Nebraska still could not claim sovereign immunity with respect to a title II of the ADA suit. Id. They reasoned as followed. First, one of the things that United States Supreme Court did after deciding Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004), was to vacate several title II decision and remand them for reconsideration in light of that decision, including one from the Sixth Circuit concluding that sovereign immunity barred a student’s title II claim against the University. Id. at 520.
Second, the Nebraska Supreme Court relied on a case from the First Circuit in which they noted that there was a widespread pattern of state’s unconstitutionally excluding disabled children from public education and irrationally discriminating against disabled students within schools. See Id. at 522.
Third, under the cases interpreting Lane, the judicial decisions, statutes, and personal antidotes collected by the Congressional task force that indicated general history of discrimination of public education were sufficient to support the title II scheme. Id.
Fourth, the title II scheme was a narrow remedy to redress discrimination in education because: title II protects only qualified individuals with disabilities; a person must still meet the essential eligibility requirements of the program or activity regardless of disability; schools and universities are not required under title II to undertake any measures imposing undue financial or administrative burden or threatened historic preservation interest; and a school or university is not required to fundamentally alter the nature of the program or activity. Doe v. Board of Regents of the University Nebraska 788 N.W.2d at 523-524 citing to Toledo v. Sanchez 454 F.3d at 39. Accordingly, the title II scheme is a justified as a reasonably targeted system to prevent a persistent pattern of exclusion and irrational treatment of disabled students in public education especially when compared against the consequences of the harm from such discrimination. Id.
Preventive tips: If you are public entity, the very first thing you want to do is check to see whether the state that you are in has explicitly waived its sovereign immunity with respect to title II claims of the ADA. Illinois for example, has waived sovereign immunity with respect to ADA suits but not in all cases. See 745 I.L.C.S. 5/1.5(d) (Westlaw, Current through P.A. 97-1132 of the 2012 Reg. Sess.).
Second, if you are public entity and find that the state has not waived its sovereign immunity with respect to title II of the ADA lawsuits, feel free to argue that sovereign immunity prevents the lawsuit since the Nebraska Supreme Court is definitely not the last word we are going to see on the subject. For example, see Doe v. Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, 429 F. Supp. 2d 930 (N.D. Ill. 2006), for a contrary view.
Third, if you are student with a disability or are representing a student with a disability, it would be very helpful to compile an extensive dossier of any discrimination faced by students with disabilities in education by the states over time. See Toledo v. Sanchez 454 F.3d 24, 35 (1st Cir. 2006). The more you can find as a plaintiff , the better your ability is going to be to be able to argue that the title II of the ADA scheme is a proportionate response to the discrimination meant to be redressed. Another thing a plaintiff would want to do would be to be sure to exhaust the school or university’s administrative process.
Fourth, the plaintiff might want to consider filing a claim with the Department of Justice. On the public entity’s side, as discussed previously, preventive systems are always best. Sure, you may win on a sovereign immunity grounds, but winning on such a ground doesn’t do anything for University or college’s image as a University or college that is amenable to persons with disabilities. Sovereign immunity litigation is also no doubt expensive. A grievance procedure/system that allows a full airing of the opinion with neutral and informed deciders is always recommended. If the public entity loses on sovereign immunity grounds, then a comprehensive and fair grievance system will go a long way towards ultimately winning the dispute as courts are extremely hesitant to overturn academic decisions in general, and especially where they are the result of a comprehensive and fair airing of the grievance.
Fifth, if you are a plaintiff or a person representing one, you may also want to have a claim against the public educational institution alleging violation of § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Having such a claim would allow you to argue that sovereign immunity was waived since the public entity in all probability receives federal funds and Congress made it a condition of receiving federal funds that the states waive their sovereign immunity. See Doe v. Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois 429 F. Supp. 2d at 940. The Rehabilitation Act and the ADA are extremely similar, which makes sense since the ADA was based upon the Rehabilitation Act. However, § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act does contain “sole cause,” language whereas title II of the ADA contains, “by reason of” language. Accordingly, it is possible that causation under the two acts may be different even though substantively they are otherwise the same.
Sixth, keep in mind, that sovereign immunity is not going to apply if you have a claim for prospective relief. Thus, a claim for injunctive relief could be very handy if you are plaintiff or are representing one.See Doe v. Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois 429 F. Supp. 2d at 940-941.
Finally, since you are seeing courts split on this, look for the question of whether Congress validly abrogated the states sovereign immunity with respect to title II of the ADA to eventually wind up before the United States Supreme Court.