relationship in the wrongful death context,” arguing that to require, "in addition to the intent to shoot with reckless disregard as to the consequences, a specific awareness on the defendant’s part that the plaintiff had chil dren who would be deprived of his companionship if he were killed would effectively nullify the right altogether in the wrongful death context”). However, Greene cited neither Supreme Court nor Second Circuit decisions clearly establishing the proposition that (refusing to extend familial association claim "to encompass deprivations resulting from governmental actions affecting the family only incidentally”). Wh stated that specific intent is not required, for adult, as well as minor, children. See Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 686 (9th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); Ward v. City of San Jose, 967 F.2d 280, 284
holding that plaintiffs adequately alleged familial association claim with no discussion of specific intent holding that to violate a specific intent statute the defendant must act with the purpose of violating the law holding that although plaintiffs failed to adequately allege  1962c claim against professional broker and its officer based on operating or managing enterprise they adequately alleged rico conspiracy to violate  1962a against same defendants holding that there was no error where one instruction did not inform the jury that in order to convict defendant of attempted murder the evidence must show that defendant had a specific intent to commit murder but where subsequent instruction did inform jury of this requirement and concluding that the instructions when read as a whole adequately informed the jury of the requirement of specific intent to kill holding that attempted sexual abuse is a specific intent crime