|
|
|
Planned Parenthood Asks Supreme Court's Help In Texas
Top Legal News |
2013/11/04 22:13
|
Planned Parenthood is asking the Supreme Court to place Texas' new abortion restrictions on hold.
The group says in a filing with the high court Monday that more than a third of the clinics in Texas have been forced to stop providing abortions since a court order allowed the new restrictions to take effect Friday.
Planned Parenthood says that the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals went too far in overruling a trial judge who blocked the law's provision that requires doctors who perform abortions in clinics to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.
The filing was addressed to Justice Antonin Scalia, who oversees emergency matters from Texas. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fla. appeals court lifts temporary ban on auto law
Top Legal News |
2013/10/25 22:47
|
A Florida appeals court on Wednesday cleared the way for the enforcement of a controversial auto insurance law that backers say was designed to curb fraudulent claims.
The 1st District Court of Appeal ruled that Tallahassee Circuit Judge Terry Lewis was wrong when he sided with physical therapists and other health care providers challenging the 2012 law.
In March, Lewis ruled that modifications to some of the key provisions of Florida's no-fault auto insurance law were possibly unconstitutional, and he ordered a temporary ban on those provisions.
Lewis suspended the part of the law that requires a finding of emergency medical condition and prohibits payments to acupuncturists, massage therapists and chiropractors. He said the law violates the right of access to the courts found in the Florida Constitution.
But the appeals court contended that those seeking to block enforcement of the law had not shown they were actually being harmed by it.
"Without showing of an actual denial of access to courts ... the provider plaintiffs lack standing to assert this claim," states the unsigned opinion.
The ruling, however, does not end the ongoing lawsuit challenging the new law.
Florida legislators passed the state's no-fault insurance law — also known as Personal Injury Protection — in the early 1970s to ensure that anyone hurt in an automobile wreck could obtain medical treatment without delay, while waiting for a case to be resolved. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court to look at death row inmate with low IQ
Top Legal News |
2013/10/23 18:52
|
The Supreme Court will take up a Florida case over how judges should determine if a death row inmate is mentally disabled, and thus ineligible for execution.
The justices said Monday they will review a Florida Supreme Court ruling that upheld the death sentence for a man who scored just above the state's cutoff for mental disability as measured by IQ tests.
Freddie Lee Hall was sentenced to death for killing Karol Hurst, a 21-year-old, pregnant woman who was abducted leaving a grocery store in 1978.
Florida law prohibits anyone with an IQ of 70 or higher from being classified as mentally disabled, regardless of other evidence to the contrary. Hall's scores on three IQ tests ranged from 71 to 80.
In 2002, the Supreme Court banned the execution of mentally disabled inmates. But the 6-3 decision in Atkins v. Virginia essentially left it to the states to determine how to measure mental disability.
Florida is one of nine death penalty states with a strict IQ limit, said Florida Supreme Court Justice Barbara Pariente. The others are: Arkansas, Delaware, Idaho, Kentucky, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and Washington.
Pariente voted with the majority to uphold Hall's sentence, but noted there is no national consensus on how to determine mental disability.
Hall's case is legally complicated. In 1989, the Florida Supreme Court threw out Hall's original death penalty and ordered a new sentencing hearing. A judge then resentenced Hall to death, but declared he was mentally disabled. That took place before the 2002 U.S. Supreme Court ruling and before Florida passed a law setting the IQ limit. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Military high court to hear Kan. HIV exposure case
Top Legal News |
2013/09/30 22:21
|
The highest court for the U.S. armed forces has agreed to hear the appeal of a Kansas airman convicted of assault for exposing multiple sex partners to HIV at swinger parties in Wichita, his attorney said Friday.
David Gutierrez was a sergeant serving at McConnell Air Force base in Kansas when he was sentenced in 2011 to eight years in prison and stripped of his rank in an aggravated assault case. Prosecutors told the trial judge that a stiff sentence would send a message that the military values the integrity of its service members, saying Gutierrez played Russian roulette with his sexual partners' lives.
The defense on appeal has won a rare opportunity to present before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces an argument that his attorney says could set a far-reaching precedent across the military.
"It will set the table for the entire military services as to what kind of evidence is necessary to find that someone can cause grievous bodily injury after testing positive for HIV," said Kevin McDermott, one of his defense attorneys.
In addition to the HIV issue, the military appeals court agreed Tuesday to decide whether the evidence was sufficient to find Gutierrez committed adultery. The defense contends Gutierrez can't be guilty of adultery because his wife participated with her husband in the "swinger's lifestyle."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court asked to uphold BP settlement approval
Top Legal News |
2013/09/09 19:18
|
Plaintiffs' attorneys who brokered a multibillion-dollar settlement with BP following the company's 2010 Gulf oil spill have asked a federal appeals court to uphold a judge's approval of the deal.
Only a "paltry few objectors" have raised the "narrowest of concerns" about the settlement that U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier approved in December 2012, private lawyers said in a filing Tuesday with the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
"None of them complain of their compensation calculations, identify what compensation they are entitled to under the Settlement, or define what other or greater compensation they believe they should receive," the attorneys wrote.
On Friday, BP attorneys argued that a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit should overturn Barbier's approval order if the company's separate appeal of more recent rulings on settlement terms is unsuccessful. BP argues that Barbier misinterpreted the settlement and has allowed businesses to receive hundreds of millions of dollars for inflated or fictitious claims.
A different 5th Circuit panel heard the company's appeal in July but hasn't ruled yet. BP said it would still support Barbier's approval of the settlement if its appeal is successful.
Although Tuesday's brief doesn't explicitly address that dispute, plaintiffs' lawyers said BP initially was "thrilled" with how claims were being processed. They previously have argued that BP undervalued the settlement and underestimated how many claimants would qualify for payments.
Court-supervised claims administrator Patrick Juneau's office has made more than $4.5 billion in settlement offers to more than 55,000 Gulf Coast businesses and residents who claim the spill cost them money. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court won't reconsider judicial elections ruling
Top Legal News |
2013/08/19 22:52
|
An appellate court panel's decision to allow political parties to endorse candidates and make expenditures in Montana's nonpartisan judicial elections will stand, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday.
None of the 9th Circuit judges voted to rehear the three-judge panel's June decision, so the appellate court denied the state attorney general's petition.
The panel said in June the state's ban on party endorsements and expenditures in judicial races is unconstitutional, but ruled that candidates can't receive direct contributions from parties.
The state filed a petition for rehearing, calling it a matter of exceptional importance in Montana's authority to determine how to maintain an impartial and nonpartisan judiciary.
Montana's system of judicial elections reflects a deeply ingrained and repeatedly confirmed sovereign decision by the state and its voters, Assistant Attorney General Michael Black wrote in the petition.
A decision has not been made whether to take the appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, attorney general spokesman John Barnes said.
"We're looking at our options and will be making a decision on how to proceed from here," Barnes said in an emailed response to an Associated Press query. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appeals court allows capital retrial of Wolfe
Top Legal News |
2013/05/21 18:45
|
A federal appeals court will allow a capital murder case to proceed against an accused drug kingpin from northern Virginia.
In a 2-1 ruling, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond overturned a federal judge in Norfolk who had ordered a halt to the prosecution of Justin Wolfe and his immediate release.
That judge said misconduct by prosecutors in Prince William County made it impossible for Wolfe to get a fair trial.
But a majority on the appellate court disagreed. The judges ruled that a new trial can be done fairly. A dissenting judge said the misconduct was so bad that freeing Wolfe was the only proper outcome.
Wolfe was sent to death row in 2002 for a drug-related murder, but his original conviction and sentence were overturned. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
