|
|
|
SF court protects privacy of work communications
Breaking Legal News |
2008/06/20 10:21
|
A federal appeals court has made it more difficult for employers to legally snoop on their workers' e-mails and text messages sent on company accounts. Under a Wednesday ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, employers that contract an outside business to transmit text messages can't read them unless the worker agrees. Users of text messaging services "have a reasonable expectation of privacy" in their messages stored on the service provider's network, Judge Kim Wardlaw wrote in the three-judge panel's unanimous opinion. The ruling also lets employers access employee e-mails only if they are kept on an internal server. The text message part of the ruling will affect more employers. According to analysts, the majority of U.S. companies pay outside parties to transmit their workers' text messages but most keep their workers' e-mail on internal servers. |
|
|
|
|
|
Court sides with employee in benefits case
Breaking Legal News |
2008/06/19 11:24
|
The Supreme Court said Thursday that courts should consider an insurance company's potential conflict of interest when reviewing the denial of an employee's health or disability benefits claim. The court ruled 6-3 in the case of an Ohio woman who sued MetLife Inc. over a disability claim. She contended insurance companies have a financial incentive to deny claims and that conflict of interest should weigh heavily in employees' favor when they challenge benefit claims in court. A federal appeals court ordered Wanda Glenn's benefits reinstated. The Supreme Court upheld that ruling. Writing for the majority, Justice Stephen Breyer said federal law imposes a special standard of care on insurers requiring full and fair review of claim denials. Breyer noted that MetLife had emphasized a medical report that favored denial, de-emphasized other reports suggesting benefits should be granted and failed to provide MetLife's vocational and medical experts with all relevant evidence. Dissenting, Justice Antonin Scalia said the court is using the wrong standard in dealing with potential conflicts of interest. Scalia said there must be evidence that a conflict improperly motivated a denial of benefits. In the MetLife case, there was no such evidence, Scalia said. Justices Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy also dissented. MetLife administered a disability plan for Sears, where Glenn worked for 14 years. The insurance company paid benefits for two years but in 2002 said her condition had improved and refused to continue the benefit payments. MetLife saved $180,000 by denying Glenn disability benefits until retirement, her lawyers said in court filings. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered Glenn's benefits reinstated in September 2006, ruling that MetLife acted under a conflict of interest and made a decision that was not the product of a principled and deliberative reasoning process. MetLife argued that the standard used by the 6th Circuit would encourage participants with dubious claims to file suit, which in turn would raise the costs of benefit plans to both companies and employers. |
|
|
|
|
|
Texas court orders execution warrant reinstated
Breaking Legal News |
2008/06/18 09:05
|
A former topless-club bouncer condemned for a double slaying almost 20 years ago is waiting in a Texas cell not far from the death chamber as his appeals play out in the courts. Charles Dean Hood initially won a reprieve just over an hour before he could have been put to death Tuesday when a state district judge withdrew his execution warrant. But an appeals court reinstated the warrant, saying the judge didn't have permission to spare Hood from lethal injection. The warrant is scheduled to expire at midnight. The U.S. Supreme Court has denied three other appeals, likely clearing the way for Hood's execution. Meanwhile, Oklahoma has executed its first death row inmate since last August. |
|
|
|
|
|
Appeals court refuses to stop gay weddings
Breaking Legal News |
2008/06/18 04:05
|
An appeals court has rejected a conservative group's latest effort to stop gay marriages in California before the November election. The Liberty Council had asked a state appeals court to block same-sex weddings until voters could decide the issue on the November ballot. The three-judge panel of the California Court of Appeal refused the request in a brief ruling issued Tuesday as gay marriages began in full swing around the state. Earlier the appeals court had ruled against allowing gay marriages but the state Supreme Court overturned that decision last month. In its latest ruling the appeals court says the high court has made it clear that same-sex marriage should be allowed. |
|
|
|
|
|
Woman pleads not guilty in Internet suicide case
Breaking Legal News |
2008/06/17 09:18
|
A Missouri woman pleaded not guilty in Los Angeles federal court Monday to charges in an Internet hoax blamed for a 13-year-old girl's suicide. Lori Drew, 49, stood quietly beside her attorney Monday. She pleaded not guilty to charges of conspiracy and accessing protected computers without authorization to get information used to inflict emotional distress. She is free on $20,000 bond. The proceeding lasted only a few minutes. Drew and her lawyer declined to comment to reporters waiting outside the courtroom. Drew, of suburban St. Louis, Mo., is accused of helping to create a MySpace account that appeared to belong to a 16-year-old boy named Josh Evans. The boy did not exist. Drew's daughter had been a friend of 13-year-old neighbor Megan Meier and the fake account was used to send cruel messages to the girl, including one stating the world would be better off without her. Megan hanged herself in 2006. Drew has denied creating the account or sending messages to Meier. The charges were filed in California where MySpace is based. MySpace is a subsidiary of Beverly Hills-based Fox Interactive Media Inc., which is owned by News Corp. Drew's case was assigned to U.S. District Court Judge George Wu and her trial scheduled for July 29. A status conference was scheduled for June 26. U.S. attorney's spokesman Thom Mrozek said Drew would be allowed to return home pending trial. Each of the four counts against Drew carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison. |
|
|
|
|
|
Court to rule in lawsuit vs. FBI head, ex-AG
Breaking Legal News |
2008/06/16 09:04
|
The Supreme Court says it will decide whether former Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller (Mul'-er) must face a lawsuit that claims prisoners detained after Sept. 11 were subject to ethnic and religious discrimination. The lawsuit was filed by Javaid Iqbal, a Pakistani Muslim who spent nearly six months in solitary confinement in 2002. Iqbal, since deported from the United States, says Ashcroft, Mueller and others implemented a policy of confining detainees in highly restrictive conditions because of their religious beliefs and race. A federal appeals said the lawsuit could proceed, but the Bush administration says the high-ranking officials should not have to answer for the allegedly discriminatory acts of subordinates. |
|
|
|
|
|
Top court eases rules for foreigners to try to stay in US
Breaking Legal News |
2008/06/16 09:04
|
The Supreme Court has made it easier for some foreigners who overstay their visas to seek to remain in the United States legally. The court ruled 5-4 Monday that someone who is here illegally may withdraw his voluntarily agreement to depart and continue to try to adjust his status while in the United States. The case involved two seemingly contradictory provisions of immigration law. One allows people to avoid being deported by agreeing to leave the country voluntarily. The advantage to that course is that the wait to get back to the United States is shorter. The other provision allows immigrants who are here illegally but whose circumstances have changed to make their case to immigration officials. To do that, however, they must remain in the country. |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|