|
|
|
Lohan lawyer in NYC courthouse in nightclub case
Legal Watch |
2013/01/10 03:56
|
Lindsay Lohan's attorney has gone to a New York City courthouse in connection with the actress's alleged fight at a Manhattan nightclub.
Lohan was arrested on a charge of misdemeanor assault in the Nov. 29 incident at the club Avenue.
Office of Court Administration spokesman David Bookstaver said Monday that a criminal complaint has not been drawn up at this time. He says paperwork will be signed but no hearing will be held.
The "Mean Girls" and "Liz and Dick" star allegedly struck a woman in the face during an argument.
At the time of her arrest, her attorney, Mark Heller, said Lohan was "a victim of someone trying to capture their 15 minutes of fame." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
NY court: Lap dances are not art and are taxable
Legal Watch |
2012/10/27 21:07
|
Lap dances are taxable because they don't promote culture in a community the way ballet or other artistic endeavors do, New York's highest court concluded Tuesday in a sharply divided ruling.
The court split 4-3, with the dissenting judges saying there's no distinction in state law between "highbrow dance and lowbrow dance," so the case raises "significant constitutional problems."
The lawsuit was filed by Nite Moves in suburban Albany, which was arguing fees for admission to the strip club and for private dances are exempt from sales taxes.
The court majority said taxes apply to many entertainment venues, such as amusement parks and sporting events. It ruled the club has failed to prove it qualifies for the exemption for "dramatic or musical arts performances" that was adopted by the Legislature "with the evident purpose of promoting cultural and artistic performances in local communities."
The majority reached similar conclusions about admission fees to watch dances done onstage around a pole, as well as for lap dances or private dances.
W. Anderson McCullough, attorney for the club, said he and his client were bitterly disappointed by the judges' ruling. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feds seek full court review of cigarette warnings
Legal Watch |
2012/10/12 20:33
|
The U.S. government is asking a federal appeals court to rehear a challenge to a Food and Drug Administration requirement that tobacco companies to put large graphic health warnings on cigarette packages to show that smoking can disfigure and even kill people.
The Justice Department filed a petition Tuesday asking for the full court to rehear the case after a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington affirmed in August a lower court ruling blocking the mandate, saying it ran afoul of the First Amendment's free speech protections. However, the court rarely grants such appeals.
Some of the nation's largest tobacco companies, including R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., sued to block the mandate to include warnings to show the dangers of smoking and encouraging smokers to quit lighting up. They argued that the proposed warnings went beyond factual information into anti-smoking advocacy. The government argued the photos of dead and diseased smokers are factual. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court asked to throw out oil refinery permit
Legal Watch |
2012/10/05 22:50
|
Opponents of a proposed $10 billion oil refinery in southeastern South Dakota on Wednesday asked the state Supreme Court to strike down a state permit that would let a Texas company to begin construction.
Gabrielle Sigel, an attorney for three groups fighting the Hyperion Energy Center, said the Board of Minerals and Environment erred when it approved an air quality permit last year because its study did not include a full-blown environmental impact statement.
Sigel said the refinery would be the largest industrial project in state history and that the preparation of an impact statement should involve other agencies and evaluate a project's broader effect. State officials abused their discretion by bypassing that process, she said.
Attorneys for Hyperion and the board countered that an environmental impact statement is not required by state law that and board members took into account all relevant environmental issues when issuing the air quality permit.
The state Department of Environment and Natural Resources can require an impact statement but decided it wasn't necessary. "The board agreed," said Rick Addison, a Dallas-based attorney representing Hyperion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Federal court upholds Texas open meetings law
Legal Watch |
2012/09/29 23:05
|
A federal appeals court has upheld Texas' open meetings law as constitutional, rejecting a lawsuit that argued it stifled free speech for government officials.
The 1967 Texas Open Meetings Act prohibits a quorum of members of a governmental body from deliberating in secret. Violations are punishable by up to six months in jail and a $500 fine.
Officials from a group of 15 Texas cities, including Alpine, Arlington and Houston suburb Sugar Land, challenged the law in 2009. A U.S. district judge ruled against them, prompting an appeal the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
A three-judge panel ruled Tuesday that the law promotes disclosure of speech and does not restrict it.
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott called the decision a victory for open government. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
NY court protects French shoemaker's red soles
Legal Watch |
2012/09/05 23:04
|
A federal appeals court in Manhattan says the distinctive red soles of Christian Louboutin shoes are entitled to trademark protection.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday ruled in favor of the French maker of luxury shoes worn by stars such as Sarah Jessica Parker, Scarlett Johansson and Halle Berry.
The court says Louboutin is entitled to protect its brand against red-soled shoes made by competitor Yves Saint Laurent S.A.S., which is also based in Paris.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in 2008 had granted the trademark protection to Louboutin.
Louboutin has applied glossy vivid red to the outsoles of women's shoes since 1992. The shoes sell for up to $1,000 a pair. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
NC regulators hire law firm to probe Duke Energy
Legal Watch |
2012/08/17 18:12
|
North Carolina utilities regulators said Wednesday they have hired a former federal prosecutor with experience digging into corporate affairs to reveal whether regulators were misled ahead of a takeover that created America's largest electric company.
The North Carolina Utilities Commission said it has hired Anton Valukas and the Jenner & Block law firm, which he heads in Chicago. The ex-prosecutor and his firm are tasked with investigating what happened before regulators approved Charlotte-based Duke Energy Corp. taking over Raleigh-based Progress Energy Inc.
State law allows the costs associated with the utilities commission's investigation to be charged to Duke Energy and its shareholders rather than allowing the company to pass them along to its 3.2 million North Carolina customers.
A Duke Energy spokesman said the company was cooperating with regulators in their investigation.
The company on Wednesday separately sought to begin passing along to Carolinas energy consumers the first $89 million of $650 million in merger-related savings promised over the next five years. If that is approved, the average residential customer in North Carolina and South Carolina could save between 80 cents and 92 cents a month beginning in September. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
