Law Firm News
Today's Legal News Bookmark Page
Ginsburg Reverses FOIA Denial
Court Center | 2008/06/16 14:45
An airplane enthusiast has the right to seek documents from the Federal Aviation Administration, though the lower court had denied his friend the same documents.

Greg Herrick was denied access to the documents, due to an exemption covering trade secrets. When his friend filed a similar lawsuit, the lower court said the lawsuit was precluded by the first ruling. The D.C. Circuit upheld, but Justice Ginsburg reversed, shooting down the Circuit's 5-point test for "virtual representation."

"Extending the preclusive effect of a judgment to a non-party runs up against the deep-rooted historic tradition that everyone should have his own day in court," Ginsburg wrote.

For a lawsuit to be precluded, the two parties must have "pre-existing substantive legal relationship" or one party must have assumed control over the previous litigation, according to the unanimous opinion.


Class Claims Steak House Knowingly Hires Illegals
Court Center | 2008/06/11 14:46
Ruth's Chris Steak House systematically hired undocumented workers and lets them use the Social Security numbers of previous workers, and harassed and threatened a legal worker who complained of it, a RICO class action claims in Federal Court.

The lawsuit claims that after an INS sweep of Ruth's Chris Steak House in Birmingham, many undocumented workers returned "wearing different name tags." It claims the restaurant hires undocumented workers on a "large scale," pays them in cash, knowingly accepts I-9 immigration forms containing false information, and otherwise knowingly violates immigration and employment laws.

Plaintiffs also accuse Ruth's Chris of "stealing" 20% to 25% of its workers' tips.


Judge Removed From Office For Phone Rage
Court Center | 2008/06/10 14:19
Niagara Falls City Judge Robert Restaino was removed from office in an apparent case of telephone rage. Frustrated that no one owned up to the cacophonous cell phone that rang in the back of his courtroom, Restaino sent 46 defendants to jail.

   The New York Court of Appeals said removal was proper, because Restaino acted in a way that eroded confidence in his ability to render fair, rational judgments.
When the cell phone went off, Restaino told the defendants in his courtroom, "Now, whoever owns the instrument that is ringing, bring it to me now or everybody could take a week in jail and please don't tell me I'm the only one that heard that."

After a fruitless inquiry to find the owner, he reiterated, "Everyone is going to jail; every single person is going to jail in this courtroom unless I get that instrument now. If anybody believes I'm kidding, ask some of the folks that have been here for a while. You are all going."

He questioned the 35 remaining defendants and recalled 11 defendants whom he had previously released before the phone rang. Dissatisfied with their responses, he revoked their recognizance release and imposed bail. He even set bail for a petitioner who had been standing next to the judge when the phone rang in the back of the room.

He then ranted about the breach of courtroom decorum. "You know, for some of you folks, this hurts me more than you imagine because someone in this courtroom has no consideration for you, no consideration for me and just doesn't care," he said. "Some of you people may not be in the (same) economic situation (as) this selfish person ... (is who) put(s) their interests (sic) above everybody else's. They don't care what happens to anybody."

The 46 defendants were transported to the city jail, booked, searched and placed in holding cells. Thirty-two defendants posted bail, while the remaining 14 who could not post bail were shackled and bused to the county jail.

The state court said the circumstances qualified as "truly egregious" to merit removal from office. "(I)t is ironic that petitioner displayed the very attributes by which he accused and summarily punished each defendant," the court added. Restaino had "more than 46 chances to correct himself and failed to do so."


Black Public Defenders Sue Atlanta
Court Center | 2008/06/05 14:51
In pursuit of "greater diversity," the City of Atlanta laid off five black female public defenders who were better qualified and had more experience than the white men it retained, the women claim in Federal Court.

The women claim, "the decision makers regarding the reduction in force laid off plaintiffs as part of an effort to achieve what they perceived as greater diversity in a department that had previously had primarily African American and female employees."

The woman want reinstatement, back pay, damages and costs, alleging racial and sexual discrimination.


9th Circuit Halts Logging In Sierra Nevada Forest
Court Center | 2008/05/15 14:39
The 9th Circuit has blocked the government's plan to log parts of the Sierra Nevada forest, rejecting the U.S. Forest Service's argument that it needs to cut and sell large trees in order to raise money for forest-fire prevention.

Sierra Forest Legacy and the state of California appealed the denial of an injunction against the Forest Service to ban the cutting of larger trees, in which several wildlife species thrive. Environmentalists claimed that the agency's plan to sell off trees to cover the costs of fire prevention failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act.

The Forest Service shirked its duty to "rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives" to logging in the Basin, Empire and Slapjack sites of the Sierra Nevada forests, plaintiffs claimed.

"In one sale, a fire hazard can be removed and the USFS paid so that it can remove the fuel of future fires," Judge Noonan wrote, acknowledging the seeming practicality of the plan. "Two for one always has an attractive ring. But are there no alternative ways of getting money to do the clearing that is imperative? Obviously, there may be."

Noonan suggested that the mere existence of a lumber-for-funds plan indicates that Congress needs to step in and provide more funding for forest fire prevention. Plaintiffs suggested other alternatives, including reprioritizing other funding and altering the Forest Service's fuel treatment program.

So long as the alternatives remain unexamined, the agency's plan violates federal law, Noonan wrote.

The court stressed that it was not deciding the merits of the case, but ruling that the government's choice of funding for fire reduction does not outweigh the state's preservation interests.
 


Supreme Court rules magistrates may preside
Court Center | 2008/05/15 14:36

The US Supreme Court ruled Monday in Gonzalez v. United States that allowing a magistrate judge to oversee jury selection does not deprive a criminal defendant of the right to a jury trial and complies with the Federal Magistrates Act. The holding affirmed a judgment of the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that defendant's counsel may waive the right to have an Article III judge preside over voir dire, and that it was not error to proceed without first getting the defendant's personal consent. Justice Kennedy announced the judgment of the Court; his opinion was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Alito. Justice Scalia filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, and Justice Thomas wrote a dissent.

In affirming the Fifth Circuit ruling, Justice Kennedy wrote:

Numerous choices affecting conduct of the trial, including the objections to make, the witnesses to call, and the arguments to advance, depend not only upon what is permissible under the rules of evidence and procedure but also upon tactical considerations of the moment and the larger strategic plan for the trial. These matters can be difficult to explain to a layperson; and to require in all instances that they be approved by the client could risk compromising the efficiencies and fairness that the trial process is designed to promote.

In a separate concurrence, Justice Scalia agreed with the conclusion but not with the reasoning upon which it was based. He wrote:

I would not adopt the tactical-vs.-fundamental approach, which is vague and derives from nothing more substantial than this Court’s say-so.

In his dissent, Justice Thomas advocated overruling the precedents for the decision and wrote:

Where, as here, a mistaken interpretation of a statute leaves the Court with no principled way to answer subsequent questions that arise under the statute, it seems to me that the better course is simply to acknowledge and correct the error.



Makers of Paxil, Zoloft Win
Court Center | 2008/04/25 14:48

In a significant victory for drug manufacturers, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the makers of Paxil and Zoloft cannot be sued for failing to warn of a risk of suicide because the Food & Drug Administration has explicitly refused to order such warnings.

Voting 2-1 in a pair of cases where the lower courts issued conflicting rulings, the 3rd Circuit found that such lawsuits must be pre-empted because they directly conflict with action already taken by the FDA.

Writing for the majority, 3rd Circuit Judge Dolores K. Sloviter said the FDA has "actively monitored" the possible risk of suicide from taking the class of antidepressant drugs known as selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors, or SSRIs, for two decades, and concluded that the suicide warnings demanded by plaintiffs "are without scientific basis and would therefore be false and misleading."

But Sloviter, who was joined by visiting Judge Jane A. Restani of the U.S. Court of International Trade, emphasized that the ruling was a narrow one.

"Our holding is limited to circumstances in which the FDA has publicly rejected the need for a warning that plaintiffs argue state law requires," Sloviter wrote in Colacicco v. Apotex Inc.

In dissent, 3rd Circuit Judge Thomas L. Ambro said he would have allowed both cases to go forward.



[PREV] [1] ..[38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45] [NEXT]
All
Legal News
Law Firm Business
Headline News
Court Center
Legal Watch
Legal Interview
Top Legal News
Attorneys News
Press Releases
Opinions
Lawyer Blogs
Firm Websites
Politics & Law
Firm News
Residents sue Tennessee city..
NC’s highest court hears ar..
Feds: US Supreme Court shoul..
Apps cost too much? Court al..
Supreme Court says 1 state c..
News attorneys: Opioid distr..
Trump, GOP states ask appeal..
Arizona court says Costco ca..
EPA reaffirms glyphosate saf..
Roggensack Re-Elected as Wis..
Wisconsin court says gun sit..
Ohio top court to hear argum..
Arkansas faces new court fig..
Court case threatens to take..
Supreme Court asked to void ..
Nissan ex-chair Ghosn appeal..
Kansas tells court broad sup..
High court declines to take ..
   Law Firm News



San Francisco Trademark Lawyer
San Francisco Copyright Lawyer
www.onulawfirm.com
Immigration Law Office Web Designs
Immigration Attorney Website Templates
webpromo.com
Santa Ana Workers' Compensation Lawyers
www.davidgentrylaw.com
 
 
© Legal World News Center. All rights reserved.

The content contained on the web site has been prepared by Legal World News Center as a service to the internet community and is not intended to constitute legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case or circumstance. Legal Blog postings and hosted comments are available for general educational purposes only and should not be used to assess a specific legal situation. Business Law Web Design.