|
|
|
Ore. court rules frozen embryos can be destroyed
Breaking Legal News |
2008/10/09 11:31
|
The Oregon Court of Appeals has ordered six frozen embryos destroyed after ruling they can be treated as personal property in a divorce. The court ruled unanimously on Wednesday that an agreement leaving the final decision up to the ex-wife must be followed. Dr. Laura Dahl, a pediatrician, and her former husband, Dr. Darrell Angle, an orthodontist, had attempted to conceive through in vitro fertilization. After several failed attempts, the couple gave up and left the embryos with Oregon Health & Science University under an agreement that spelled out how they would be stored. Dahl decided to have the embryos destroyed, but Angle had argued they should be donated to other couples trying to conceive. In an opinion by Presiding Judge Rex Armstrong, the court ruled there is a contractual right to determine the fate of the embryos as personal property. But Armstrong noted there is little guidance on who gets to make that decision in a divorce, so the court relied on a 1998 New York state case that held agreements on what to do with embryos after in vitro fertilization are binding. Armstrong — noting the ruling in New York — said that it should be the parents, "not the state and not the courts, who by their prior directive make this deeply personal life choice." Dahl said she opposed her ex-husband's recommendation that the embryos be donated to another woman for implantation because she did not want anybody else to raise her child. Dahl also was concerned that any child born as a result of implantation might later wish to contact the son who she and Angle had previously conceived naturally. The court noted that Angle "does not argue that the agreement itself is ambiguous or invalid for public policy reasons" and affirmed a Clackamas County Circuit Court ruling that he agreed his ex-wife would make the final decision. |
|
|
|
|
|
Court sympathetic to worker's retaliation claims
Labor & Employment |
2008/10/09 10:30
|
Supreme Court justices indicated Wednesday they would side with a longtime government worker who claims she was fired in retaliation after she cooperated with a sexual harassment investigation. The court wrestled with whether the anti-retaliation provisions of a landmark civil rights law apply to people who haven't themselves complained about workplace discrimination. The only doubt at the end of arguments Wednesday was how broadly the court would rule for the employee. Vicky Crawford was fired in 2003 after more than 30 years as an employee of the school system for Nashville, Tenn., and Davidson County. She did not file a complaint about harassment by a school official. But she said she had been subject to unwanted sexual advances when she was interviewed by investigators for the school system who were looking into other employees' allegations against the director of employee relations. |
|
|
|
|
|
Wis. judicial panel: Punish new judge for false ad
Court Watch |
2008/10/08 08:41
|
State regulators say a Willie Horton-style campaign ad that suggested the first black member of the Wisconsin Supreme Court freed a child molester played so loose with the truth that the court's newest member should be disciplined for it. The Wisconsin Judicial Commission filed a complaint against Justice Michael Gableman on Tuesday, claiming he violated a rule that prohibits judicial candidates from knowingly misrepresenting facts about their opponents. Gableman was the first challenger to defeat an incumbent justice in 41 years when he knocked off Louis Butler in the April election with 51 percent of the vote. Gableman, 42, joined the court for a 10-year term in August. During the campaign, Gableman faced intense criticism from independent observers when his campaign ran a television ad that showed a picture of Butler, the state's first black justice, next to a mug shot of convicted rapist Reuben Lee Mitchell, who is black. A narrator said: "Butler found a loophole. Mitchell went on to molest another child." When Butler was a public defender, he represented Mitchell on the appeal of his 1985 conviction for raping an 11-year-old girl. Butler convinced an appeals court that Mitchell deserved a new trial because certain evidence should not have been allowed. The Supreme Court overturned that decision and Mitchell served his full sentence. After his release on parole in 1992, Mitchell was convicted of raping a 14-year-old girl and sentenced to 40 years in prison. |
|
|
|
|
|
Court hears case Wednesday on Navy sonar, whales
Environmental |
2008/10/08 08:40
|
The Supreme Court is weighing whether presidential power in wartime can override environmental concerns in a case that pits the Navy's submarine-hunting training against protection for whales. The Bush administration, in arguments Wednesday, is asking the court to undo lower court rulings that limited the use of sonar in naval training exercises off the coast of Southern California. Sonar, which the Navy relies on to locate enemy submarines, can interfere with whales' ability to navigate and communicate. There is also evidence that the technology has caused whales to strand themselves on shore. The exercises have continued since the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled in February that the Navy must limit sonar use when ships get close to marine mammals. The administration says the president has the power to override federal court rulings on environmental laws during emergencies that include harm to national security. The Navy says it has already taken steps to protect beaked whales, dolphins and other creatures and is balancing war training and environmental protections. The Natural Resources Defense Council, one of five advocacy groups that sued to force the Navy to take steps to protect the whales, argues that the Navy has to comply with environmental laws. |
|
|
|
|
|
Republicans to high court: Stop Palin ethics probe
Political and Legal |
2008/10/08 02:43
|
Alaska Republicans are asking the state's highest court to block an abuse-of-power investigation into vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin's firing of a state commissioner before a potentially embrassing report on the matter is released. Five GOP state lawmakers, in a brief filed Monday, say the inquiry has exceeded its authority and is too political. Palin is the focus of a legislative investigation into allegations she abused her power by firing her public safety commissioner. The commissioner says he was pressured to dismiss a state trooper who was involved in a messy divorce with Palin's sister. Investigators are scheduled to submit a report on the investigation Friday. Oral arguments are scheduled for Wednesday. |
|
|
|
|
|
Attorney Sara Youn Joins Scandaglia & Ryan
Law Firm News |
2008/10/07 09:02
|
Scandaglia & Ryan welcomes Associate Sara Youn to the firm. Ms. Youn, who joined S&R on September 22, 2008, has experience representing clients in complex product liability cases, franchisor-franchisee disputes and class action defense litigation. Prior to joining the firm, Ms. Youn was a staff attorney practicing in the Seattle office of Perkins Coie. She also served as a judicial extern for the Honorable Gary Larson, District Judge for the Fourth Judicial District of Minnesota. Ms. Youn received a J.D. from the University of Minnesota Law School in 2007, where she received a Dean’s Elite Scholarship. During law school, she was the managing editor of the Minnesota Law Review (2006-2007). In 2002, Ms. Youn received a B.A., magna cum laude, from Georgetown University, where she was a George F. Baker Scholar. She also authored an honors thesis, “Out of That Land: American Missionary Influence on Early Korean Immigration to Hawaii.” Scandaglia & Ryan is a litigation firm founded on the principle of providing sophisticated legal services in a cost-effective manner. To achieve this, we have adopted a client-centered process that we call Total Quality Litigation®. In pursuing strategic business and legal solutions for our clients, TQL® minimizes uncertainty and increases accountability. We believe our clients deserve nothing less.
For further information, visit our website at www.scandagliaryan.com.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court denies appeal of judge's sentencing goof
Legal Business |
2008/10/07 08:24
|
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal from an Alabama man who was sentenced to five years in prison when a judge wrongly thought the law required him to serve time. U.S. District Judge William Steele didn't want to order Patrick Lett, a 17-year Army veteran who served two tours in Iraq, to prison after the former soldier pleaded guilty to cocaine possession. But the judge thought the law required prison time. When Steele learned differently, he reduced the punishment to 11 days of time served and three years of supervised release. That didn't satisfy prosecutors, who appealed the lighter sentence on the grounds that Steele didn't have the authority to change the initial five-year sentence. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the judge could not undo his sentence, and the Supreme Court rejected Lett's appeal of that decision without comment. A new sentencing hearing is set for Oct. 24, though one of Lett's attorneys said a delay may be needed to prepare arguments. Attorney Douglas Berman of Ohio State University's Moritz College of Law in Columbus said Monday that defense attorneys are expected to argue Lett initially had ineffective legal representation. A Justice Department spokesman was not immediately available for comment on the high court's ruling. At the initial sentencing, Steele noted that Lett had led "an exemplary life up until the time of the offenses and even after," when Lett re-enlisted and served another 17 months before his indictment. Lett, now 39, pleaded guilty to cocaine possession for his involvement in a cousin's drug operation. Lett works full time doing fiber optics work at a shipyard in Pascagoula, Miss. His two children, who live with Lett's mother, visit him on weekends. He supports his family as a single parent, his attorney said. |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|