|
|
|
Hazardous Waste Case Before Supreme Court
Breaking Legal News |
2007/04/24 07:05
|
The Supreme Court is scheduled to consider an environmental case Monday that could make it easier for many industrial companies to recover some of the millions of dollars they've spent cleaning up hazardous waste sites. The case involves the 1980 federal environmental law, known as "Superfund," that set up a process for rehabilitating polluted industrial areas. Under the law, if the Environmental Protection Agency sues a company to force it to clean up a site, that company can then sue other parties that contributed to the pollution for a share of the cleanup costs. But lower federal courts have disagreed about what happens if a company voluntarily chooses to clean up a site: can it sue other companies, or the U.S. government, to recover costs? Or does the Superfund law require a company to be sued by the EPA first, before it can take action against other parties? The U.S. government has taken the latter position. The Bush administration argued in court filings that requiring companies to be sued by the EPA before they can recover costs from other entities encourages companies to settle with the government. There "is little evidence that...Congress," when it enacted the Superfund law, "intended to promote unsupervised cleanups at the expense of government-supervised cleanups pursuant to a settlement or suit," the Solicitor General, the government's lawyer, wrote. Environmentalists and several U.S. business groups respond that such an interpretation would discourage companies from initiating their own cleanups. The EPA is stretched too thin to oversee the rehabilitation of every site, a coalition of business groups wrote in a court brief. The case before the court Monday stems from a lawsuit filed by Atlantic Research Corp. in 2002. Atlantic Research retrofitted rocket motors under contract with the U.S. government in the 1980s at an industrial park in Camden, Ark., according to court filings. Rocket propellant contaminated the industrial park as a result of the work, and the company voluntarily cleaned up the pollution. It then sued the federal government in 2002 to recover some of the costs. A district court sided with the government, but the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Atlantic could proceed with its suit. The government then appealed to the Supreme Court. Several business groups, including the Superfund Settlements Project and trade associations representing the chemical, oil, and utilities industries, signed onto a brief supporting Atlantic Research. The Superfund Settlements Project represents 10 corporations, including General Electric Co. and United Technologies Corp., that have spent $6 billion on hazardous waste cleanups, the group's lawyer said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court looking at passenger rights
Breaking Legal News |
2007/04/24 00:06
|
The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments Monday in Brendlin v. California, 06-8120, in which the Court must determine whether an automobile passenger, convicted on drug charges resulting from an illegal traffic stop, may contest the legality of the stop under the Fourth Amendment. In 2001, Bruce Edward Brendlin was convicted in California of manufacturing methamphetamine based on evidence found in a car during a stop which the state later conceded was baseless. Brendlin moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures should be extended to protect passengers as well as drivers. California is one of only three states that does not allow passengers to assert such a defense. Justices Kennedy, Breyer and Scalia expressed concern regarding the implications of the state's argument that passengers are not seized during a stop. Justice Kennedy said, "I think indications from the bench are we just don't think passengers, a, are or, b, should feel free to leave when there's a traffic stop." The Court is expected to rule by the end of June. The Supreme Court of California ruled against Brendlin in 2006, holding that passengers are not automatically seized during a traffic stop, and allowed the evidence to be used in the trial. Brendlin is now backed by the American Civil Liberties Union and NAACP, which fear that a judgment for the state would give police broad power to stop vehicles to search passengers. Brendlin's conviction may stand regardless of the Court's ruling, as at the time of arrest he was wanted for an unrelated parole violation, which itself may have justified the state's search. AP has more. The Supreme Court also heard oral arguments in two other cases Monday. In United States v. Atlantic Research Corp, 06-562, the Court must decide whether owners of areas contaminated by hazardous materials that must be cleaned up under Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) can recover contribution from other responsible parties before they are subject to a government enforcement action. In Hinck v. United States, 06-376, the Court will decide whether tax courts have exclusive jurisdiction to review an IRS decision to deny a taxpayer’s request for interest abatement or whether district courts and Federal Claims Court also have such jurisdiction. |
|
|
|
|
|
Hinson Not Guilty In Dungeon Rape Case
Breaking Legal News |
2007/04/23 08:21
|
A South Carolina jury has found a convicted sex offender not guilty of raping two teenage girls in an underground room he built behind his house. Kenneth Hinson had been charged with kidnapping, sex crimes and assault with intent to kill. Hinson appeared to cry after the verdict was read. Jurors had deliberated for about four hours over two days. Prosecutors alleged he took two girls to an underground room, bound them with duct tape, raped them and left them to die because the room had no air supply. The girls said they managed to free themselves and escape. Hinson said the sex was consensual and that he hid in the bunker because he thought police wanted him on drug charges. He testified that he built the room to package marijuana. Had he been found guilty, Hinson would have faced a mandatory life sentence without parole because he was convicted of raping a 12-year-old girl in 1991. |
|
|
|
|
|
OCA outraged by racist talk on CBS radio
Breaking Legal News |
2007/04/23 07:17
|
The Organization of Chinese Americans (OCA) on Sunday expressed outrage over a recent CBS radio segment, which it described as "racist, vulgar and sexist." WFNY 92.3 Free FM, which is part of CBS Radio, aired twice a segment of a talk show involving a prank call to a Chinese restaurant. In a press release, the OCA called for an immediate apology from the hosts of the segment, JV & Elvis, their producer and the station. The leading Chinese American group also demanded the immediate firing of JV & Elvis and their show's producer. In the segment, the caller began by telling the first restaurant employee, "I would like some Asian food, son of a bitch" as well as to the second employee, "I would love to have lots of Asian food, son of a bitch." The caller then told the restaurant's female employee, "Should I come to your restaurant so I can see you naked? " and continued, "That way, I can see your hot Asian spicy ass." As the caller went on, he told another employee that he would like some "flied lice," but not "some old dung" and indicated that "I am training in Kung Fu, bitch" before ending with "Tell that hot Asian girl answering the telephone, I'd like to tap her ass." OCA-New York President Vicki Shu Smolin said that what is especially disturbing to the Asian American community is that even after CBS fired Don Imus for referring to the Scarlet Knights, the Rutgers University women's basketball team, as "nappy-headed hos" on April 4, one day before the segment was first aired, JV & Elvis aired it again on April 19. It is apparent that not only did JV & Elvis not learn anything from the Don Imus scandal, but CBS and CBS Radio decided that Asian Americans are easy prey for racist radio broadcast, he said. John Tandana, executive vice president of OCA-Long Island, said:" Once again, radio has tried to gain ratings to the detriment of Asian Americans. The segment lasted over six minutes, the entire time, casting Asian Americans and women in a demeaning manner. We will not allow talk radio to spread stereotypes that hurt our community." The Dog House with JV & Elvis is a radio talk show airing in New York City. The Dog House stars JV (Jeff Vandergrift) and Elvis (Dan Lay), and the two met in 1993 and have been radio co-hosts for some 15 years. Prank phone calls are considered one of the most controversial parts in their program. This segment involves JV or Elvis calling random people from the phone book and the calls are usually humiliating. |
|
|
|
|
|
Judges’ ruling requires ID to register to vote
Breaking Legal News |
2007/04/21 01:00
|
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held late this week that Arizona may enforce its voter identification law while a non-profit organization challenges the law in federal court. The law, which Arizonans approved in 2004 as Proposition 200, requires voters to show a government-issued ID at the polls. The Ninth Circuit ruling was filed Thursday. Opponents of the law have called it a "21st century poll tax," since it requires people to purchase photo ID cards, and have argued that the law places an unconstitutional burden on minority, immigrant and elderly voters. Proponents say it prevents illegal immigrants from casting ballots. Last year, the US Supreme Court ruled that Arizona could enforce the law at the polls for the November elections, reversing a Ninth Circuit decision rendered earlier that month. |
|
|
|
|
|
DOJ seeks dismissal of Guantanamo habeas cases
Breaking Legal News |
2007/04/20 05:32
|
The US Department of Justice (DOJ) on Thursday sought the dismissal of all pending Guantanamo Bay detainee habeas corpus cases in the US District Court for the District of Columbia. The motion to dismiss was filed in response to the US Supreme Court denying petitions for certiorari earlier this month on two cases challenging the Military Commissions Act (MCA). The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit had upheld the habeas-stripping provisions of the act in February. In Thursday's motion, the DOJ argued that February's motion, and this month's denial of cert, means that all litigation should be in the DC Circuit. The DOJ stressed that lawyers will continue to be allowed to meet with their clients during a "reasonable transition period," but in the future, client-visit priority will be given to lawyers who are pursuing litigation in the DC Circuit court. The MCA, signed into law last October, denies federal courts the right to hear habeas corpus petitions. Shortly after the bill was enacted, the DOJ notified the DC Circuit that it no longer had authority to hear such cases. The court had stayed the almost 200 cases affected by the act, pending the legal challenges to the MCA. |
|
|
|
|
|
Woman pleads not guilty in fatal fire
Breaking Legal News |
2007/04/20 01:11
|
A woman who told police a deadly apartment building fire began when she tried to light a dollar bill to warm her feet pleaded not guilty to murder and arson charges on Thursday. A grand jury indicted Mary Smith two weeks ago in the March 10 fire that killed four people. Defense attorney Jacqueline Ross said at Smith's arraignment that his client is taking psychiatric medication and being treated for mental health problems. She is being held without bail. Prosecutors say Smith gave a videotaped statement in which she admitted to starting the blaze by trying to warm her feet by lighting a dollar bill that an apartment visitor had given her. Smith was wearing plastic bags on her feet when she was arrested at a nearby coffee house. Prosecutors have not decided whether to pursue the death penalty.
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|