|
|
|
High court to look at state immigration laws
Breaking Legal News |
2011/12/12 11:01
|
The Supreme Court has agreed to rule on Arizona’s controversial law targeting illegal immigrants.
The justices said Monday they will review a federal appeals court ruling that blocked several tough provisions in the Arizona law. One of those requires that police, while enforcing other laws, question a person’s immigration status if officers suspect he is in the country illegally.
The Obama administration challenged the Arizona law by arguing that regulating immigration is the job of the federal government, not states. Similar laws in Alabama, South Carolina and Utah also are facing administration lawsuits.
The court now has three politically charged cases on its election-year calendar. The other two are President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul and new electoral maps for Texas’ legislature and congressional delegation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court: Can lawsuit against casino go forward?
Court Watch |
2011/12/11 11:02
|
The Supreme Court will decide whether a lawsuit attempting to shut down a new tribal casino in southwestern Michigan can move forward.
The justices on Monday agreed to hear from the government and the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians, also known as the Gun Lake Tribe.
The tribe opened a casino earlier this year in Wayland Township, 20 miles south of Grand Rapids. But casino foe David Patchak sued to close the casino down, challenging how the government placed the land in trust for the tribe. A federal judge threw out his lawsuit, but the U.S. Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit said it could move forward. The justices will hear arguments next year. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
CA same-sex marriage ban gets another day in court
Breaking Legal News |
2011/12/09 13:15
|
The sponsors of California's gay marriage ban renewed their effort Thursday to disqualify a federal judge because of his same-sex relationship, but they met a skeptical audience in an appeals court panel.
It's the first time an American jurist's sexual orientation has been cited as grounds for overturning a court decision.
Lawyers for a coalition of religious conservative groups told a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker should have revealed he had a long-term male partner before he presided over a trial on the measure's constitutionality. He also should have stated whether he had any interest in getting married, the lawyers said.
Because he did not, Walker's impartiality stands in doubt and the decision he ultimately made to strike down Proposition 8 as a violation of Californians' civil rights must be reversed, said Charles Cooper, an attorney for the ban's backers.
"In May 2009, when Judge Walker read the allegations of the complaint, he knew something the litigants and the public did not know: He knew that he, too, like the plaintiffs, was a gay resident of California who was involved in a long-term, serious relationship with an individual of the same sex," Cooper said. "The litigants did not have any knowledge of these facts, and it appears that Judge Walker made the deliberate decision not to disclose these facts." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appeals court affirms Petters conviction, sentence
Court Watch |
2011/12/08 13:16
|
A federal appeals court Friday upheld the 2009 conviction and 50-year prison sentence of Minnesota businessman Tom Petters, who was found guilty of orchestrating a $3.7 billion Ponzi scheme.
The Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Petters got a fair trial.
A three-judge panel rejected defense claims that the U.S. District Judge Richard Kyle prevented his attorneys from presenting a complete defense by restricting their ability to question a key prosecution witness, Larry Reynolds, a convicted felon and disbarred lawyer who was in the witness protection program, about his links to organized crime.
The panel also said the judge acted properly when he rejected proposed jury instructions that would have highlighted Petters' claims that he was an unwitting participant in a fraud conceived by others, and that he acted in good faith on advice from his attorney.
It ruled that the judge did not err by denying a change in venue due to the extensive media coverage the case generated. The panel also rejected defense claims of procedural errors in Petters' sentencing.
A jury found Petters guilty of 20 counts of wire fraud, mail fraud, money laundering and conspiracy.
According to testimony and documents presented at trial, Petters Co. Inc. used fake purchase orders and phony bank records to dupe investors into financing what they were told would be purchases of electronics such as big-screen televisions that PCI would resell to discount retailers such as Sam's Club and Costco. In reality, the prosecution contended, the merchandise never existed and the sales never took place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NYC lawyer: Boy a menace before shopping cart case
Court Watch |
2011/12/07 09:18
|
Officials say a 13-year-old had a history of troubling behavior before he helped push a shopping cart that fell on a woman from a fourth-floor walkway at a New York City mall.
A city lawyer told a judge Tuesday the boy tried to run schoolmates over on his bike, threw things in the lunchroom and hit his mother's cat.
The attorney says the boy joked around at a police precinct after his Oct. 30 arrest and expressed more concern about his sneakers than about the woman who was seriously hurt.
The boy's lawyer says the teen needs and wants counseling for his behavioral problems.
The boy was charged as a juvenile and pleaded guilty in Family Court last month to assault. His sentencing was postponed Tuesday until later this month.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bank of America settles mortgage suit for $315 mln
Breaking Legal News |
2011/12/06 10:58
|
Bank of America agreed to pay $315 million to settle claims by investors that they were misled about mortgage-backed investments sold by its Merrill Lynch unit.
The settlement was disclosed in court papers filed late Monday in U.S. District Court in Manhattan and requires the approval of a judge.
The class action lawsuit was led by the Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi pension fund. The fund claimed that the investments were backed by poor quality mortgages written by subprime lenders Countrywide Financial Corp., First Franklin Financial, and IndyMac Bancorp, a bank that failed in 2008.
The settlement represents another attempt by Charlotte, North Carolina-based Bank of America Corp. to put its legal issues behind it. In the first half of the year alone the bank put up $12.7 billion to settle similar claims from different groups of investors.
U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff has to approve the settlement, something that could prove difficult since the settlement includes no admission of guilt from Bank of America.
Just last week, Rakoff struck down a $285 million settlement that Citigroup Inc. reached with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The settlement would have imposed penalties on Citigroup even as it allowed the company to deny allegations that it misled investors. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court to hear suit over Cheney event arrest
Breaking Legal News |
2011/12/05 10:17
|
The Supreme Court said Monday it will hear an appeal from Secret Service agents who say they should be shielded from a lawsuit over their arrest of a Colorado man who confronted Vice President Dick Cheney.
The justices will review a federal appeals court decision to allow Steven Howards of Golden, Colo., to pursue his claim that the arrest violated his free speech rights. Howards was detained by Cheney's security detail in 2006 after he told Cheney of his opposition to the war in Iraq.
Howards also touched Cheney on the shoulder, then denied doing so under questioning. Appellate judges in Denver said the inconsistency gave the agents reason to arrest Howards.
Even so, the appeals court said Howards could sue the agents for violating his rights — an unusual twist that the agents and the Obama administration said conflicts with other appeals court decisions and previous high court rulings in similar cases.
Justice Elena Kagan is not taking part in the case, probably because she worked on it while serving in the Justice Department. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Class action or a representative action is a form of lawsuit in which a large group of people collectively bring a claim to court and/or in which a class of defendants is being sued. This form of collective lawsuit originated in the United States and is still predominantly a U.S. phenomenon, at least the U.S. variant of it. In the United States federal courts, class actions are governed by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule. Since 1938, many states have adopted rules similar to the FRCP. However, some states like California have civil procedure systems which deviate significantly from the federal rules; the California Codes provide for four separate types of class actions. As a result, there are two separate treatises devoted solely to the complex topic of California class actions. Some states, such as Virginia, do not provide for any class actions, while others, such as New York, limit the types of claims that may be brought as class actions. They can construct your law firm a brand new website, lawyer website templates and help you redesign your existing law firm site to secure your place in the internet. |
Law Firm Directory
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
