Law Firm News
Today's Legal News Bookmark Page
Ohio top court mulls Planned Parenthood files
Legal Watch | 2008/10/08 14:19
Ohio Supreme Court justices appeared skeptical Tuesday that an abortion clinic's medical records on other patients are relevant to a lawsuit brought by parents of a 14-year-old girl who had an abortion without their consent.

Lawyers for the girl's family argued that the information they seek is necessary to prove that Planned Parenthood of Cincinnati had a pattern of violating Ohio's parental consent law and failing to report abuse. The unusual case pits a single plaintiff against the privacy interests of a decade's worth of patients.

Planned Parenthood attorney Daniel Buckley says the clinic has a legal obligation to protect the privacy of its clients' records.

Charles Miller, an attorney for the parents, told the justices the plaintiffs seek only three facts about other minors treated at the clinic: the girl's age, whether she had a sexually transmitted disease, and whether she entered the clinic pregnant. He said about 200 cases a year would be involved.

Chief Justice Thomas Moyer questioned how any of those three details would advance the family's case for damages.

"Where's the linkage?" he asked.

The court did not indicate when it would rule.

The case involves a girl who was 14 at the time of her abortion in 2004, when the state's parental consent law had not been completely settled by the courts. She had been impregnated by her 21-year-old youth soccer coach, John Haller.

The family's lawsuit accuses the Planned Parenthood clinic of failing to get parental consent, report suspected abuse or to inform the girl of risks and alternatives. It seeks unspecified damages.

Court records say the girl gave Haller's cell phone number as her father's, and clinic officials thought they had reached the father when they called inquiring about parental consent. Haller was later convicted on seven counts of sexual battery.

An appeals court ruled last year that records on other patients weren't necessary for the family's lawsuit.



High court could block 'light' cigarettes lawsuit
Legal Watch | 2008/10/07 14:12
The Supreme Court picked up Monday where it left off last term, signaling support for efforts to block lawsuits against tobacco companies over deceptive marketing of "light" cigarettes.

The first day of the court's new term, which is set in law as the first Monday in October, included denials of hundreds of appeals. Chief Justice John Roberts opened the new session in a crowded courtroom that included retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Last term, the justices handed down several opinions that limited state regulation of business in favor of federal power. Several justices posed skeptical questions in this term's first case, whether federal law prevents smokers from using consumer protection laws to go after tobacco companies for their marketing of "light" and "low tar" cigarettes.

The companies are facing dozens of such lawsuits across the country.

The federal cigarette labeling law bars states from regulating any aspect of cigarette advertising that involves smoking and health.

"How do you tell it's deceptive or not if you don't look at what the relationship is between smoking and health?," Chief Justice John Roberts said during oral arguments on the case.

Three Maine residents sued Altria Group Inc. and its Philip Morris USA Inc. subsidiary under the state's law against unfair marketing practices. The class-action claim represents all smokers of Marlboro Lights or Cambridge Lights cigarettes, both made by Philip Morris.

The lawsuit argues that the company knew for decades that smokers of light cigarettes compensate for the lower levels of tar and nicotine by taking longer puffs and compensating in other ways.

A federal district court threw out the lawsuit, but the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said it could go forward.

The role of the Federal Trade Commission could be important in the outcome. The FTC is only now proposing to change rules that for years condoned the use of "light" and "low tar" in advertising the cigarettes, despite evidence that smokers were getting a product as dangerous as regular cigarettes.



J.K. Rowling Smites Copyright Violator
Legal Watch | 2008/09/09 14:02
J.K. Rowling vanquished the forces of darkness Monday when a federaljudge permanently enjoined RDR Books from publishing "The Harry PotterLexicon," a guidebook to Rowling's best-selling series. U.S. DistrictJudge Robert Patterson Jr. blocked also ordered RDR to pay $6,750 instatutory damages.

Steven Jan Vander Ark, a librarian andHarry Potter fan, thus cannot publish his guide to Rowling's series,for which he said there was a considerable demand. Warner Bros., whichmade the Harry Potter movies, joined Rowling in suing for copyrightviolations.

The ruling came 5 months after a 4-day trial,during which Rowling described the "Lexicon" as "wholesale theft of 17years of my hard work."

The next day at trial, Vander Ark sobbed on the stand, clearly upset that he had annoyed Rowling.

Judge Patterson found that RDR Books "failed to establish its affirmative defense of fair use."


Ninth Circuit rules on 'no-fly' list
Legal Watch | 2008/08/20 14:07
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled Monday that those placed on the government's "no-fly list" can challenge their inclusion on the list in federal district courts. The issue came before the court in a case brought by a woman on the list, in which a district court had ruled that it lacked jurisdiction because of a law exempting Transportation Security Administration orders from federal trial court review. Reversing the decision, the Ninth Circuit held that the Terrorist Screening Center which actually maintains the list is a subsection of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and is therefore subject to review by the district courts:
Our interpretation of section 46110 is consistent not merely with the statutory language but with common sense as well. Just how would an appellate court review the agency’s decision to put a particular name on the list? There was no hearing before an administrative law judge; there was no notice-and comment procedure. For all we know, there is no administrative record of any sort for us to review. So if any court is going to review the government’s decision to put Ibrahim’s name on the No-Fly List, it makes sense that it be a court with the ability to take evidence.
The court also held that the woman could not bring two related claims because they were “inescapably intertwined” with TSA orders. The San Francisco Chronicle has more.

In July, the US terror watchlist, which includes the no-fly list, was criticized by the American Civil Liberties Union for being too large, containing inaccuracies, and lacking safeguards to prevent the unnecessary targeting of passengers for additional security screenings. In March, the US Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General issued a report saying that FBI had submitted inaccurate information to the list, that the information was rarely reviewed before its submission, and even if discrepancies become apparent they were often left unchanged. In response to the audit, FBI Assistant Director John Miller said that the agency was working with the DOJ and other partner agencies to "ensure the proper balance between national security protection and the need for accurate, efficient, and streamlined watchlist processes."


Second Circuit Protects Plaintiff's Anonymity
Legal Watch | 2008/08/18 15:27
A woman who filed a lawsuit for physical and sexual assault should be allowed to remain anonymous, the 2nd Circuit ruled in a question of first impression.

Judge Cabranes found that the district court improperly dismissed the plaintiff's case due to her refusal to give her name.

While plaintiffs usually must state their names to give the opposition a chance to mount a defense, Cabranes ruled that the district court stuck to the letter of the law without considering whether plaintiff had a legitimate need to keep her identity hidden.

"The district court did not balance the plaintiff's interest in proceeding anonymously against the interests of the defendants and the public," Cabranes wrote.


9th Circ. upholds denial of Oregon domestic partnership
Legal Watch | 2008/08/15 14:12
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled on Thursday that Oregon Secretary of State Bill Bradbury did not violate the constitutional rights of voters who signed a petition to hold a referendum on a state law establishing same-sex domestic partnerships. Bradbury struck over 200 signatures from the petition after officials found that many of the signatures did not match those on voter registration cards. He then announced that the petition was approximately 100 signatures short of the required number. Voters were not permitted to contest the decision by introducing extrinsic evidence, and so signators brought suit, alleging violations of due process and equal protection guarantees. The Ninth Circuit held that any burden placed on the plaintiffs' fundamental right to vote was minimal and held that there had been no constitutional violations:
The Secretary’s procedures already allow chief petitioners and members of the public to observe the signature verification process and challenge decisions by county elections officials. The value of additional procedural safeguards therefore is negligible, and the burden on plaintiffs’ interests from the state’s failure to adopt their proposed procedures is slight at most.
Plaintiffs had unsuccessfully asserted that Oregon was required to provide them with an opportunity to "rehabilitate" the stricken signatures, and also argued that the lack of uniform statewide rules for verifying referendum signatures violated Bush v. Gore.

The US District Court for the District of Oregon ruled in February that the domestic partnership law should be allowed to take effect after it was suspended last December. Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski signed the bill into law last May after it was passed by the Oregon House and the Oregon Senate. The law would have taken effect on January 1 of this year had there been no lawsuit.


Inmate Says He's Too Fat for Lethal Injection
Legal Watch | 2008/08/05 14:14
An obese death-row inmate claims his size could hinder the effect of one of the drugs used in lethal injection and will make it difficult for executioners to find his veins.

Richard Wade Cooey II filed a federal lawsuit asking Gov. Ted Strickland to bar his Oct. 14 execution until the state addresses his claims. At 5 feet 7, weighing more than 260 pounds, Cooey says he is too fat to be put to death. He claims the potential problems associated with his weight, including the possibility that the anesthetic will have a minimal effect on him, would render lethal injection a form of cruel and unusual punishment.

Cooey, 41, was sentenced to death for raping and killing two women in 1986.


[PREV] [1] ..[30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37] [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
Ex-West Virginia Supreme Cou..
Court case to tackle jails' ..
Spain's courts put to test b..
Liberals eye 2020 takeover o..
Man accused of kidnapping Wi..
Appellate judge announces ru..
Ginsburg makes 1st public ap..
NC high court sidesteps deci..
Changed Supreme Court weighi..
Lambert to be sworn in as Su..
New Jersey's top court won't..
Appeals court reopens case i..
Iowa Supreme Court contender..
Congress to Probe Report tha..
Lawyer: Incapacitated woman ..
Model in Russian court apolo..
Connecticut Supreme Court is..
Congo court poised to rule o..
   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.gentryashtonlaw.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. Law Firm Web Design by Law Promo