|
|
|
Group seeks appellate action on gays in military
Legal News |
2011/09/01 16:48
|
The military's ban on openly gay troops will be lifted within weeks, but the policy can still be re-enacted in the future.
That's why a Republican gay rights organization that sued the Obama administration to stop enforcement of the policy says it will ask the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday to declare the nearly 18-year-old law unconstitutional, affirming a lower court's ruling last year.
With several Republican presidential candidates, including Rep. Michele Bachmann, indicating they would favor reinstating the ban if elected, such a ruling is needed, said Dan Woods, the attorney for the Log Cabin Republicans. Declaring the law unconstitutional would also provide a legal path for thousands discharged under the policy to seek reinstatement, back pay or other compensation for having their careers cut short, Woods said.
"The repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell' doesn't say anything about the future," Woods said. "It doesn't (explicitly) say homosexuals can serve. A new Congress or new president could come back and reinstitute it. We need our case to survive so there is a constraint on the government to prevent it from doing this again."
During her campaign stop in Iowa in August, Bachmann told interviewer Candy Crowley on CNN's "State of The Union" when asked whether she would reinstitute the law: "It worked very well and I would be in consultation with our commanders, but I think, yes, I probably would."
Justice Department attorneys have filed a motion asking the appeals court to dismiss the case, arguing that the repeal process that will lift the ban Sept. 20 makes the lawsuit irrelevant.
The Log Cabin Republicans successfully won an injunction by U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips last year that halted enforcement of "don't ask, don't tell" briefly, before the 9th Circuit reinstated it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Court Cannot Exclude Evidence Because It Is Self-Serving
Legal News |
2011/08/31 15:47
|
In Reed v. City of Evansville, _ N.E.2d _ (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), Cause No. 82A05-1012-PL-768, Evansville sought to have some of the evidence the Reeds submitted in opposition to the City's motion for summary judgment because it was "self-serving." Today, the Court of Appeals clearly stated that parties should not make this same objection in the future.
The Reeds filed a claim against Evansville and Evansville moved for summary judgment, arguing that the notice was not timely under the Tort Claims Act. The trial court granted that motion and the Reeds appealed.
On appeal, the Court held that the trial court erred when granting summary judgment to the City, because there were genuine issues of material fact. The court then addressed the City's cross-appeal, which challenged the trial court's denial of the City's motion to strike some of the Reeds' evidence. The City moved to strike some of that evidence because it was "self-serving." The Court had none of it.
http://www.indianalawupdate.com/entry/A-Court-Cannot-Exclude-Evidence-Because-It-Is-Self-Serving |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 law firms in Louisiana and Mississippi to merge
Legal News |
2011/08/31 15:47
|
A New Orleans-based law firm is expanding into Mississippi as it merges with a firm based in Jackson.
The New Orleans firm is Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent, Carrere & Denegre L.L.P.
It is combining with Watkins Ludlam Winter & Stennis, P.A., a firm that includes former Mississippi Gov. William Winter.
The firms say in a news release Tuesday that the merger should be complete by Jan. 1, and the combined firm will have 375 attorneys.
It will go by the current name of the New Orleans firm, Jones Walker.
After the merger is complete, Jones Walker will have 15 offices in Louisiana, Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Mississippi, Texas and the District of Columbia. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shareholder Class Action Filed Against WebMD Health Corp.
Headline News |
2011/08/30 16:36
|
The following statement was issued today by the law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP:
Notice is hereby given that a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the securities of WebMD Health Corp., who purchased or otherwise acquired WebMD securities between February 23, 2011 and July 15, 2011, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the Complaint or join this class action online at http://www.ktmc.com/cases/webmd/.
Members of the class may, not later than October 3, 2011, move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Any member of the purported 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.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (Darren J. Check, Esq. or David M. Promisloff, Esq.) toll free at 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706, or via e-mail at info@ktmc.com. For additional information about this lawsuit, or to join the class action online, please visit http://www.ktmc.com/cases/webmd/. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court to hear appeal over medicating Loughner
Court Center |
2011/08/30 16:34
|
An appeals court will hear arguments Tuesday over a request to permanently ban prison officials from forcibly medicating the Tucson shooting rampage suspect with psychotropic drugs.
At issue in Jared Loughner's appeal before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal is whether prison officials or a judge should decide whether a mentally ill person who poses a danger in prison should be forcibly medicated.
Prosecutors say the decision is for prison officials to make, while Loughner's lawyers say it's up to a judge.
Loughner pleaded not guilty to 49 charges in the Jan. 8 shooting that killed six people and wounded 13 others, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.
He has been at a Missouri prison facility since late May in a bid to make him mentally fit to stand trial. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wyoming Supreme Court rules for bar owners
Headline News |
2011/08/30 16:34
|
The Wyoming Supreme Court has ruled that state law protects bar owners from lawsuits arising from the actions of their intoxicated patrons.
In a split decision Friday, the court upheld a lower court ruling against relatives of a Ten Sleep couple who died in a head-on crash in 2008. The couple's relatives had sued the owners of two Big Horn County saloons claiming they continued to serve the driver who plowed into the couple after he was drunk.
The court majority ruled state law from the 1980s holds bar owners can't be held liable for their patrons' actions.
Chief Justice Marilyn S. Kite and Justice William Hill filed a dissenting opinion saying they would allow lawsuits against bar owners if they violated local ordinances against serving alcohol to intoxicated persons. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC Announces Class Action
Firm Websites |
2011/08/29 16:36
|
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against SinoTech Energy Limited, and certain of its officers, directors and underwriters.
The lawsuit, which is captioned Crayder v. SinoTech Energy Limited, et al., 11-CV-05935, alleges violations of the United States securities laws on behalf of purchasers of SinoTech's American Depository Shares ("ADSs") from November 3, 2010 through August 16, 2011 (the "Class Period"), including purchasers of ADSs in the Company's November 3, 2010 initial public offering (the "November IPO"). Claims for November IPO purchasers arise under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"). Claims for other Class Period purchasers fall under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.
The lawsuit asserts numerous problems with SinoTech's previously issued financial statements and declarations about its future prospects. Among other claims, the complaint alleges that: (1) the Company's sole import agent, which accounted for more than $100 million worth of oil drilling equipment orders, is an empty shell company with no sign of operations; (2) the Company's only chemical supplier is also an empty shell company, with little or no revenues; (3) the Company's largest subcontracting customer, which provides the vast majority of SinoTech's revenues, has unverifiable operations with minimal revenues; (4) the financial statements SinoTech issued in the United States are inconsistent with similar filings the Company made in China; (5) the Company has engaged in undisclosed related-party transactions in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; and (6) positive statements the Company made regarding its internal financial controls were false and misleading.
On August 16, 2011, a research analyst writing under the name Alfred Little published an investigative report (the "Report") detailing these and other problems at SinoTech. The day the Report was issued, the Company's stock price plummeted more than 40%, falling from $4.02 per share on August 15, 2011 to $2.35 per share at the close of trading on August 16, 2011 - a decline of $1.67 per share on unusually high trading volume. The NASDAQ halted SinoTech trading after the market closed on August 16, 2011, announcing that trading would remain halted until the Company "fully satisfied NASDAQ's request for additional information." To date, trading has not resumed.
If you purchased the common stock of SinoTech and wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 18, 2011 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. To be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must decide that your claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that you will adequately represent the class. Your share in any recovery will not be enhanced or diminished by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Any member of the proposed class may retain Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC or other attorneys to serve as your counsel in this action, or you may do nothing and remain an absent class member.
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC has significant experience in prosecuting investor class actions and actions involving securities fraud. The firm has offices in Washington, D.C., New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, and West Palm Beach, and is active in major litigation pending in federal and state courts throughout the nation.
The firm’s reputation for excellence has repeatedly been recognized by courts which have appointed the firm to lead positions in complex multi-district or consolidated litigation. Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC has taken a lead role in numerous important cases on behalf of defrauded investors, and has been responsible for a number of outstanding recoveries which, in the aggregate, total over a billion dollars. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. For more information visit www.cohenmilstein.com. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
