|
|
|
Texas abortion clinics reopen after court reprieve
Legal News |
2014/10/20 19:56
|
Texas abortion clinics that closed under tough new restrictions began reopening Wednesday after winning a reprieve at the U.S. Supreme Court, but the facilities were scheduling women with uncertainty and skeleton staffs.
A five-sentence ruling late Tuesday blocked parts of a sweeping Texas abortion law that required clinics to meet hospital-level operating standards starting Oct. 3. That had left only eight abortion facilities in the nation's second-most populous state.
Celebration among some abortion providers, however, was muted by logistics and fears that the victory is only temporary. Women seeking abortions kept phone lines busy at the Routh Street Women's Clinic in Dallas, where a former staff of 17 people is down to to single digits after the procedure was halted by the law earlier this month.
The high court only suspended the restrictions for now pending appeals, and offered no explanation for the decision.
"Some of them will come back, and some of them probably aren't," said Ginny Braun, the Dallas clinic director, about former employees that took other jobs in the past two weeks. "As one person eloquently put it this morning, whiplash is no longer a sustainable life choice for her."
Along the Texas-Mexico border, the only abortion clinic in 300 miles will resume abortion services in McAllen starting Friday, said Amy Hagstrom Miller, founder of Whole Woman's Health. But staffing and financial difficulties prevent any immediate reopening of clinics in Austin and Fort Worth, and the prospects of reopening another in Beaumont are even dimmer, she said.
Hagstrom Miller said she has laid off more than 50 employees since last year, and that the on-again, off-again status of her clinics have led to taking on $500,000 in debt over the last six months. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court takes up hear religious bias case over hijab
Attorneys News |
2014/10/03 16:20
|
The Supreme Court said Thursday it will consider whether retailer Abercrombie & Fitch discriminated against a Muslim woman who was denied a job because her headscarf conflicted with the company's dress code, which the clothing chain has since changed.
The justices agreed to hear the Obama administration's appeal of a lower court decision that ruled the New Albany, Ohio-based company did not discriminate because the job applicant did not specifically say she needed a religious accommodation.
At issue is how employers must deal with laws that require them to make allowances for a worker's religious practices, as long as doing so does not cause the business too much hardship.
A federal judge initially sided with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which sued on behalf of Samantha Elauf. The agency alleged Elauf wasn't hired at a Tulsa, Oklahoma, store because her hijab violated Abercrombie's "look policy," described at the time as a "classic East Coast collegiate style."
But the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision. The appeals court said Elauf never directly informed her interviewer she needed a religious accommodation, even though she was wearing the headscarf during her interview. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
French court extends adoption rights to lesbians
Headline News |
2014/09/23 21:11
|
France's highest court has ruled that married lesbians are allowed to adopt their partner's child born through in vitro fertilization or other medically assisted reproduction.
The Cour de Cassation's ruling is a consequence of the legalization of gay marriage in France last year.
France allows assisted reproduction only for heterosexual couples who have been together at least two years. The restriction has sent many gay couples abroad — many of them going to neighboring Belgium or Spain to have access to fertility treatment.
Upon return to France, French law recognized only the birth mother as the legal parent.
The court ruled Tuesday that married lesbians may adopt children born by their partners through assisted reproduction performed outside of France. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guilty plea in California meat recall case
Headline News |
2014/08/28 18:48
|
A co-owner of a Northern California slaughterhouse accused of processing cows with cancer has pleaded guilty to a criminal charge.
The San Francisco Chronicle reports that 77-year-old Robert Singleton, co-owner of Petaluma-based Rancho Feeding Corp., entered the plea on Friday to aiding and abetting in the distribution of adulterated, misbranded and uninspected meat. He has agreed to work with prosecutors who have filed charges against the company's other owner, Jesse Amaral Jr., and two employees, Eugene Corda and Felix Cabrera.
They have pleaded not guilty.
Prosecutors say the company slaughtered dozens of cows with skin cancer of the eye, and plant workers swapped the heads of diseased cattle with those of healthy cows.
Operations were halted in February after a series of recalls, including one for 8.7 million pounds of beef. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Massachusetts Eviction Attorney – Law Office of Alan Segal
Attorneys News |
2014/08/28 18:47
|
Landlord and Tenant relationships have a tendency to be complicated and challenging when it comes to Massachusetts Laws. Failure to properly notify tenants of late rent or other issues will result in the dismissal of an eviction case and the whole process must begin again. A Massachusetts Attorney must represent a Corporate Landlord as they cannot use an employee or agent in Eviction Proceedings.
The Massachusetts Eviction Attorneys at our firm have represented a number of Landlord and Tenants for many years. We’ve covered the entire State of Massachusetts and look forward to assisting you.
Massachusetts Eviction Process
November 8, 2004: Massachusetts Law providing important rights to tenants facing eviction/have been evicted has went into effect. A Massachusetts Eviction lawyer can help with most aspects of the Massachusetts eviction process.
Understand this law to ensure your property is protected and stored where you want it to be stored. The Massachusetts Law Reform Institute has created a booklet answering basic questions about the new eviction storage law. Learn more on how a Massachusetts eviction attorney can help you by visiting our evictions page.
Contact our Massachusetts Eviction Lawyers today for legal assistance with a Massachusetts Eviction Process.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
California high court strikes measure from ballot
Headline News |
2014/08/19 21:58
|
The California Supreme Court on Monday blocked an advisory measure backed by Democrats from the November ballot.
By a 5-1 vote, the court ordered the removal of Proposition 49, which would have asked voters if they want a federal constitutional amendment to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court's so-called Citizens United ruling allowing unlimited corporate spending in elections.
The majority opinion said no harm will come from removing the nonbinding measure while courts determine its validity. The court said it would consider the issue in more detail in September.
Writing separately, Justice Goodwin Liu agreed with the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, an anti-tax group that filed a lawsuit seeking to remove the measure from the ballot. The group argued that advisory measures are not a proper use of the ballot.
Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye said she would have allowed placing the proposition on the ballot, as a divided appeals court had ruled earlier.
The bill to place the measure on the ballot was introduced by Sen. Ted Lieu, D-Torrance, and it passed over Republicans' opposition. Brown, a Democrat, let the bill become law without his signature. Lieu's Sacramento office didn't return a phone call placed late Monday. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court: Silence can be used against suspects
Top Legal News |
2014/08/19 21:57
|
The California Supreme Court has ruled that the silence of suspects can be used against them.
Wading into a legally tangled vehicular manslaughter case, a sharply divided high court on Thursday effectively reinstated the felony conviction of a man accused in a 2007 San Francisco Bay Area crash that left an 8-year-old girl dead and her sister and mother injured.
Richard Tom was sentenced to seven years in prison for manslaughter after authorities said he was speeding and slammed into another vehicle at a Redwood City intersection.
Prosecutors repeatedly told jurors during the trial that Tom's failure to ask about the victims immediately after the crash but before police read him his so-called Miranda rights showed his guilt.
Legal analysts said the ruling could affect future cases, allowing prosecutors to exploit a suspect's refusal to talk before invoking 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
