|
|
|
Court seems divided over Miranda rights case
Court Center |
2011/10/05 17:46
|
The Supreme Court seemed split Tuesday on whether to require police to read Miranda rights to prison inmates every time they interrogate them about crimes unrelated to their current incarceration.
The high court heard arguments from lawyers from the state of Michigan who want a federal appeals court decision overturning Randall Lee Fields' conviction thrown out.
Fields was serving a 45-day sentence in prison on disorderly conduct charges when a jail guard and sheriff's deputies from Lenawee County, Mich., removed him from his cell and took him to a conference room. The deputies, after telling him several times he was free to leave at any time, then questioned him for seven hours about allegations that he had sexually assaulted a minor. Fields eventually confessed and was charged and convicted of criminal sexual assault.
Fields was then sentenced to 10 to 15 years in prison but appealed the use of his confession, saying that he was never given his Miranda rights on the sexual assault charges.
On appeal, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati threw out his confession and conviction, ruling that it is required that police read inmates their Miranda rights anytime they are isolated from the rest of the inmates in situations where they would be likely to incriminate themselves. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Swiss sports court overturns Olympic doping rule
Legal Watch |
2011/10/05 16:39
|
Olympic champion LaShawn Merritt was cleared to defend his 400-meter title in London next year after the American won his appeal Thursday against an IOC rule banning doping offenders from the games.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport annulled the International Olympic Committee rule that bars any athlete who has received a doping suspension of more than six months from competing in the next summer or winter games.
The three-man CAS panel said the rule, adopted in 2008, was "invalid and unenforceable" because it amounted to a second sanction and did not comply with the World Anti-Doping Agency code. It said the rule amounted to a "disciplinary sanction" rather than a matter of eligibility.
Merritt, the American 400-meter gold medalist in Beijing, had been ineligible under the IOC rule to compete in London even though he completed his doping ban this year after testing positive for a banned substance found in a male-enhancement product. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Samsung Seeking To Block Sale Of New IPhone 4S
Headline News |
2011/10/05 10:46
|
Samsung said it will file court injunctions in France and Italy seeking to block the sale of Apple's latest iPhone amid an intensifying patent fight between the smartphone giants.
Samsung plans to file preliminary injunctions in Paris and Milan asking that courts block Apple's iPhone 4S from being sold in France and Italy, alleging patent infringement of wireless telecommunications technology, the company said Wednesday.
"Apple has continued to flagrantly violate our intellectual property rights and free ride on our technology, and we will steadfastly protect our intellectual property," Samsung said in a statement.
The South Korean company did not say when the French and Italian filings would take place, but also said it plans similar moves in other countries "after further review."
The announcement comes one day after Apple Inc. unveiled the iPhone 4S in the United States.
Seoul-based Apple spokesman Steve Park, speaking by phone from Japan, declined to comment on Samsung's announcement.
The companies have been at odds since April when Apple took legal actions claiming Samsung's Galaxy line of smartphones and tablet computers copy the iPhone and iPad. Samsung has responded by taking Apple to court over what it alleges are violations of its patents covering wireless communications. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court: Can gov't get involved in church dispute?
Top Legal News |
2011/10/04 17:46
|
The Supreme Count on Tuesday seemed deeply divided on how far the government can intrude inside the employment practices of churches and religious groups, a decision being closely watched by religious institutions concerned about their independence and by civil rights groups looking out for their employees.
The issue in the dispute between the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School of Redford, Mich., and former teacher Cheryl Perich is whether a government agency has the right to sue the school on her behalf for firing her after she complained of discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Perich was promoted from a temporary lay teacher to a "called" teacher in 2000 at the Redford, Mich., school by a vote of the church's congregation and hired as a commissioned minister. She taught secular classes, as well as a religious class four days a week. She also occasionally led chapel service.
She got sick in 2004 but tried to return to work from disability leave despite being diagnosed with narcolepsy. The school said she couldn't return because they had hired a substitute for that year. They fired her after she showed up and threatened to sue to get her job back.
Perich complained to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which sued the church for violations under the disabilities act.
A federal judge threw out the lawsuit, saying that Perich fell under the ADA's ministerial exception, which keeps the government from interfering with church affairs. But the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated her lawsuit, saying Perich's "primary function was teaching secular subjects" so the exception didn't apply. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wis. Supreme Court takes payday loan case
Legal Watch |
2011/09/26 16:48
|
The state Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether Wisconsin law permits judges to determine when payday loan interest rates are too high.
The court will consider whether state statutes block judges from determining if a particular interest rate is unconscionable and, if they don't, what evidence would prove rates are too high.
The case stems from loans Jesica Mount of Onalaska secured from Payday Loan Stores of Wisconsin Inc. in 2008. According to court documents, annual interest rates on the loans varied from 446 percent to 1,338 percent.
The loan company filed a lawsuit against Mount after she failed to make her payments. Mount filed a counterclaim alleging the loans violated the Wisconsin Consumer Act because the rates were unconscionable. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Files Class Action
Press Releases |
2011/09/26 16:47
|
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of a proposed class of Allos Therapeutics, Inc. shareholders who held Allos common stock during the period beginning July 20, 2011 through and including the closing of the proposed acquisition of Allos by AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from today. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiffs’ counsel, Darren Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com. If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action online at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/allostherapeutics. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.
The complaint charges Allos and its Board of Directors (the “Board”) with breaches of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty under state law and the Board and AMAG with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“1934 Act”). Allos is a biopharmaceutical company that engages in the development and commercialization of anti-cancer therapeutics.
The action arises from Allos and AMAG’s July 20, 2011 announcement that Allos had entered into a definitive merger agreement (the “Merger Agreement”) under which Allos would be acquired by AMAG in a transaction valued at approximately $260 million (the “Proposed Acquisition”). Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, Allos stockholders will receive a fixed ratio of 0.1282 shares of AMAG common stock for each share of Allos common stock held. The deal values Allos stock at $2.44 a share using AMAG’s prior closing price of $19.07. The complaint alleges that the Proposed Acquisition significantly undervalues Allos, as Allos shares traded as high as $4.21 as recently as January 12, 2011, and after the announcement of the Proposed Acquisition the price of AMAG common stock has fallen to $13.58 per share, giving the deal a real value of just $1.74 per Allos share.
The complaint further alleges that in an attempt to secure shareholder support for the Proposed Acquisition, on August 22, 2011, defendants issued a materially false and misleading Preliminary Joint Proxy/Prospectus on Form S-4 (the “Proxy”). The Proxy, which recommends that Allos shareholders vote in favor of the Proposed Acquisition, omits and/or misrepresents material information about the unfair sales process for the Company, conflicts of interest that corrupted the sales process, the unfair consideration offered in the Proposed Acquisition, and the actual intrinsic value of the Company on a stand-alone basis and as a merger partner for AMAG, in contravention of §§14(a) and 20(a) of the 1934 Act and/or defendants’ fiduciary duty of disclosure under state law.
Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief on behalf of all shareholders of Allos who held Allos common stock during the period beginning July 20, 2011 through and including the closing of the proposed acquisition of Allos by AMAG (the “Class”). The plaintiffs are represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud.
Robbins Geller, a 180-lawyer firm with offices in San Diego, San Francisco, New York, Boca Raton, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and Atlanta, is active in major litigations pending in federal and state courts throughout the United States and has taken a leading role in many important actions on behalf of defrauded investors, consumers, and companies, as well as victims of human rights violations. The Robbins Geller Web site (http://www.rgrdlaw.com) has more information about the firm. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 Attorneys From Girard Gibbs Selected to Best Lawyers in America 2012
Law Firm Business |
2011/09/26 16:47
|
Girard Gibbs LLP (www.GirardGibbs.com) announced today that two attorneys in the firm’s San Francisco office were recently selected by their peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America® 2012 (Copyright 2011 by Woodward/White, Inc., of Aiken, S.C.). Girard Gibbs’ Daniel Girard was honored for his work in class action and securities litigation, and Eric Gibbs was recognized for his work in class action litigation.
Daniel Girard has served as lead counsel in a wide range of cases, including class actions arising under the securities, financial services, civil rights and telecommunications laws. He serves as outside counsel to the California State Teachers Retirement System and the Kansas Public Employees Retirement System. His current work includes serving as lead counsel for investors in litigation against several major banks, including multi-district proceedings against UBS AG in connection with the Lehman Brothers collapse. He also represents individual and corporate clients in international arbitration proceedings.
Mr. Girard was appointed by Chief Justice William Rehnquist to the United States Judicial Conference Committee on Civil Rules in 2004. He was reappointed to a second three-year term by Chief Justice John Roberts in 2007. He is a member of the American Law Institute, and serves on the Advisory Board of the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System, a national, non-partisan organization dedicated to improving the process and culture of the civil justice system.
Mr. Girard was selected for inclusion in Northern California Super Lawyers from 2007 through 2011, and has earned an AV-Preeminent rating from Martindale-Hubbell, recognizing him in the highest class of attorneys for professional ethics and legal skills. 2011 is the first year he is listed in The Best Lawyers in America.
Eric Gibbs is a founding partner at Girard Gibbs and specializes in the prosecution of consumer and employment class actions. Mr. Gibbs serves as court-appointed lead counsel, class counsel and liaison counsel in various class and collective actions in federal court and in arbitration throughout the United States. His experience in complex litigation extends to matters involving defective products, false advertising, unfair competition, privacy rights, employment misclassification and wage and hour issues.
Mr. Gibbs is the immediate past co-chair of American Association for Justice’s Class Action Litigation Group and past editor of the group’s Quarterly Newsletter; he also serves on the Board of Governors of the Consumer Attorneys of California and is a member of Public Justice’s Class Action Preservation Project Committee.
Mr. Gibbs was selected for inclusion in Northern California Super Lawyers in 2010 and 2011, and has earned an AV-Preeminent rating from Martindale-Hubbell, recognizing him in the highest class for professional ethics and legal skills. Mr. Gibbs frequently speaks on current issues concerning class action litigation. 2011 is the first year he is listed in The Best Lawyers in America. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
