|
|
|
Lawmakers push back against Washington high court
Headline News |
2014/01/27 22:18
|
Washington state's highest court has exercised an unusual amount of power on education funding, and it's prompted some lawmakers to raise constitutional concerns.
Before last year's legislative session, the court ruled that the state wasn't meeting its obligation to amply pay for basic education. In response, the Legislature added about $1 billion in school-related spending, and lawmakers widely agree they'll add more funding in coming years.
Earlier this month, the court went a step further, analyzing specific funding targets while telling lawmakers to come back with a new plan by the end of April.
Those specific demands have irked budget writers in the Legislature.
"They are way out of their lane," said Republican Sen. Michael Baumgartner.
Baumgartner expects lawmakers will continue adding "substantially new resources" to the state education system, but he said the court's position could erode the proper balance of power in Olympia. Baumgartner hopes lawmakers will ignore the court's latest demands, or he fears justices may exercise more power going forward. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court: Bloggers have First Amendment protections
Headline News |
2014/01/20 22:20
|
A federal appeals court ruled Friday that bloggers and the public have the same First Amendment protections as journalists when sued for defamation: If the issue is of public concern, plaintiffs have to prove negligence to win damages.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a new trial in a defamation lawsuit brought by an Oregon bankruptcy trustee against a Montana blogger who wrote online that the court-appointed trustee criminally mishandled a bankruptcy case.
The appeals court ruled that the trustee was not a public figure, which could have invoked an even higher standard of showing the writer acted with malice, but the issue was of public concern, so the negligence standard applied.
Gregg Leslie of the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press said the ruling affirms what many have long argued: Standards set by a 1974 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc., apply to everyone, not just journalists. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court refuses to reopen oyster farm case
Headline News |
2014/01/16 23:06
|
A federal appeals court has refused to reconsider a decision that shutters a popular Northern California oyster farm in the Point Reyes National Seashore.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday said it wouldn't appoint a special 11-judge panel to reconsider the ruling of a three-judge panel.
The three-judge panel ruled in September that the federal government had legal authority to deny Drakes Bay Oyster Co. a new lease so the waters of the Drakes Estero could be returned to wilderness.
The small oyster farm's last remaining legal option is to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. A lawyer for Drakes Bay didn't immediately return a phone call. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court won't allow Daimler Chrysler suit in Calif
Headline News |
2014/01/16 23:06
|
The Supreme Court decided Tuesday not to allow a lawsuit to move forward in California that accuses a foreign company of committing atrocities on foreign soil. The decision could make it harder for foreign victims of foreign crime to seek justice in American courts.
The high court on Tuesday used a unanimous judgment to refuse to allow survivors and victims of Argentina's "dirty war" to sue in California the former DaimlerChrysler Corp. of Stuttgart, Germany, for alleged abuses in Argentina.
Victims who say they were kidnapped and tortured by the Argentine government in the late 1970s and relatives of those who disappeared sued in state court, alleging Mercedes-Benz was complicit in the killing, torture or kidnapping by the military of unionized auto workers.
In the 1970s and 1980s, thousands were killed, kidnapped or "disappeared," including trade unionists, left-wing political activists, journalists and intellectuals in Argentina in what has become known as the dirty war. The suit says "the kidnapping, detention and torture of these plaintiffs were carried out by state security forces acting under the direction of and with material assistance" from the Mercedes-Benz plant in Gonzalez-Catan, near Buenos Aires.
The lawsuit said that Daimler could be sued over the alleged Argentina abuses in California since its subsidiary, Mercedes-Benz USA, sold cars in that state. A federal judge threw that lawsuit out, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and said it could move forward. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
OJ Simpson appeal to Nevada court due in April
Headline News |
2014/01/13 23:09
|
O.J. Simpson's lawyers have been given until mid-April to file their written Nevada Supreme Court appeal for a new trial for the former football star in his Las Vegas armed robbery case, Simpson attorney Patricia Palm said this week.
A state high court order on Dec. 20 set a 120-day schedule for Simpson's claim that his fame stemming from his 1995 acquittal in Los Angeles in the deaths of his ex-wife and her friend meant he couldn't get a fair trial in Las Vegas, and that his trial lawyer botched his case.
The order voided a Monday deadline for what would have been expedited high court review.
Palm said she and Simpson attorneys Ozzie Fumo and Tom Pitaro were encouraged that the seven-member Supreme Court agreed to accept a 30-page appeal.
The full seven-member court has not decided whether to hear oral arguments.
Simpson, 66, already lost an initial appeal to the state Supreme Court, the only appeals court in Nevada.
He's in the fifth year of a nine-to-33 years prison sentence after a jury found him guilty of kidnapping, armed robbery and other charges for leading a group of armed men in a September 2007 confrontation with two sports memorabilia dealers at a Las Vegas casino hotel.
One co-defendant who stood trial and was convicted with Simpson and four former co-defendants who pleaded guilty to felonies before trial and testified against Simpson have served prison time and gone free. Simpson won't be eligible for parole until he is 70.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ind. Supreme Court to hear foul ball injury case
Headline News |
2014/01/10 23:44
|
The Indiana Supreme Court is taking up the case of a woman who wants to sue a minor-league baseball team over injuries she suffered when a foul ball struck her during a game.
The court was scheduled to hear oral arguments Thursday in Juanita DeJesus' effort to sue the Gary SouthShore RailCats over fractured facial bones and blindness in her left eye she says were caused by a ball striking her during a May 2009 game.
The Times of Munster reports DeJesus sued the RailCats' parent company in 2011 alleging it failed to install protective netting for spectators.
A local judge initially allowed her suit to proceed, but the Indiana Court of Appeals threw it out last year, ruling that foul balls' dangers are well-known to baseball fans. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
California appeals court upholds plastic bag ban
Headline News |
2014/01/06 19:41
|
A California appeals court has upheld San Francisco's ban on single-use plastic bags that can serve as a precedent for other cases.
The San Francisco Chronicle reports the 1st District Court of Appeal issued its ruling last month and published it Friday as precedent binding on lower courts. The ordinance was passed in February 2012 and prohibits plastic bags that can be used only once and requires stores to charge 10 cents for recyclable plastic or paper bags.
A lawsuit by Save the Plastic Bag Coalition said plastic bags took more energy to produce than plastic and take up more space in landfills.
Similar measures have been adopted in about 50 cities and counties in California and have survived legal challenges. The state Supreme Court upheld a plastic-bag ban in 2011.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
