|
|
|
Kansas court upholds death sentence for sheriff's killing
Breaking Legal News |
2016/07/23 10:03
|
The Kansas Supreme Court on Friday upheld the death sentence imposed against a man who fatally shot a sheriff during a 2005 drug raid.
Kansas hasn't executed anyone in more than 50 years, and Friday's decision in Scott Cheever's case is only the second time the court has upheld a death sentence under the state's 1994 capital punishment law.
An execution by lethal injection isn't likely to be scheduled soon, but state Attorney General Derek Schmidt said in a statement, "today's ruling marks the end of the first line of appeals in this case."
Cheever acknowledged shooting Greenwood County Sheriff Matt Samuels as Samuels tried to serve a warrant at a rural home about 75 miles northeast of Wichita, but Cheever's attorney argued that he was too high on methamphetamine for the crime to be premeditated.
The slain sheriff's son, Heath Samuels, is now serving as interim sheriff in his father's old job in Greenwood County. He said he was "very excited" to see the court system still works. The family supports the death penalty, he said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court rejects Google's appeal in class action lawsuit
Breaking Legal News |
2016/06/07 00:06
|
The Supreme Court won't hear an appeal from Google over a class action lawsuit filed by advertisers who claim the internet company displayed their ads on "low quality" web sites.
The justices on Monday let stand a lower court ruling that said the lawsuit representing hundreds of thousands of advertisers using Google's AdWords program could go forward.
Google argued that a federal appeals court in San Francisco should not have approved the class action because damages must be calculated individually for each company advertiser. The appeals court rejected that argument and approved use of a formula that would calculate harm based on the average advertiser's experience.
Google runs what is by far the world's largest digital ad network. It generated $67 billion in revenue last year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court sides with property owners in wetlands case
Breaking Legal News |
2016/05/31 16:31
|
The Supreme Court is making it easier for landowners to bring a court challenge when federal regulators try to restrict property development due to concerns about water pollution.
The justices ruled unanimously Tuesday that a Minnesota company could file a lawsuit against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers over the agency's determination that its land is off limits to peat mining under the Clean Water Act.
The ruling is a win for property rights and business groups that said it was unfair for government agencies to decide what land is subject to complex environmental laws without a court ever deciding whether the agency is right.
It was the second time in four years that the high court sided with property owners against the government in a dispute over the right to challenge a designation of protected wetlands.
The Obama administration argued that the Hawkes Company could only contest the finding by seeking a permit, an expensive process that could take years to resolve. The company said it should be able to challenge the order immediately in federal court without having to spend more than $100,000 on a permit or risk hefty fines.
Writing for the court, Chief Justice John Roberts said the Corps' decision was the kind of final decision that carries a risk of major criminal and civil penalties if landowners don't go along. He said property owners shouldn't have to wait for the agency to "drop the hammer in order to have their day in court."
The case began when the East Grand Forks, Minnesota, company planned to expand its peat processing operations and asked the Corps for guidance. The agency issued a determination that the property was governed by the Clean Water Act because it affected the Red River of the North about 120 miles away.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Swedish court upholds arrest warrant for Julian Assange
Breaking Legal News |
2016/05/25 23:20
|
A Swedish court on Wednesday rejected a request to overturn the arrest warrant of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange because there were no new circumstances to consider.
The Stockholm District Court said it made the decision because Assange is still wanted for questioning in a case of suspected rape and that "there is still a risk that he will depart or in some other way evade prosecution or penalty."
The court said it saw no reason to hold another detention hearing saying he would remain "detained in absentia."
Thomas Olsson, Assange's lawyer in Sweden, says he would appeal the decision because "the passivity of the prosecutor had delayed the investigation in an unacceptable" way.
"The prosecutor ought to have arranged for an interview with Mr. Assange at a far earlier stage and she hasn't presented any reasons for not arranging an interview," he told The Associated Press.
Assange, who has been holed up in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London since 2012, is wanted for questioning by Swedish police over rape allegations stemming from his visit to the country in 2010. He denies all the accusations against him made by two women.
He has refused to go back to Sweden for fear of being extradited to the United States because of an investigation into WikiLeaks' dissemination of hundreds of thousands of classified U.S. documents. Last year, a U.S. federal court confirmed there are "active and ongoing" attempts to prosecute him and WikiLeaks in an investigation involving espionage, conspiracy, and computer fraud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indiana court to hear woman's appeal of feticide conviction
Breaking Legal News |
2016/05/24 23:21
|
Attorneys for an Indiana woman found guilty of killing the premature infant she delivered after ingesting abortion-inducing drugs will ask an appeals court Monday to throw out the convictions that led to her 20-year prison sentence.
At issue is Indiana's feticide statute, which the defense says was "passed to protect pregnant women from violence" that could harm their developing fetus, not to prosecute women for their own abortions. The state says that law "is not limited to third-party actors" and can apply to pregnant women.
Attorneys for 35-year-old Purvi Patel will urge the Indiana Court of Appeals to reverse her 2015 convictions on charges of feticide and neglect of a dependent resulting in death. The state's attorney general's office will defend the northern Indiana jury's decision.
Patel, of Granger, was arrested in July 2013 after she sought treatment at a local hospital for profuse bleeding after delivering a 1½-pound infant boy and putting his body in a trash bin behind her family's restaurant. Court records show Patel purchased abortion-inducing drugs online through a pharmacy in Hong Kong, took those drugs and delivered a premature baby in her home bathroom. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
US appeals court revisits Texas voter ID law
Breaking Legal News |
2016/05/22 23:20
|
A federal appeals court is set to take a second look at a strict Texas voter ID law that was found to be unconstitutional last year.
Texas' law requires residents to show one of seven forms of approved identification. The state and other supporters say it prevents fraud. Opponents, including the U.S. Justice Department, say it discriminates by requiring forms of ID that are more difficult to obtain for low-income, African-American and Latino voters.
Arguments before the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals are set for Tuesday morning. The full court agreed to rehear the issue after a three-judge panel ruled last year that the law violates the Voting Rights Act.
Lawyers for Texas argue that the state makes free IDs easy to obtain, that any inconveniences or costs involved in getting one do not substantially burden the right to vote, and that the Justice Department and other plaintiffs have failed to prove that the law has resulted in denying anyone the right to vote.
Opponents counter in briefs that trial testimony indicated various bureaucratic and economic burdens associated with the law — for instance, the difficulty in finding and purchasing a proper birth certificate to obtain an ID. A brief filed by the American Civil Liberties Union cites testimony in other voter ID states indicating numerous difficulties faced by people, including burdensome travel and expenses to get required documentation to obtain IDs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court: Slipknot bassist's child born after he died can sue
Breaking Legal News |
2016/05/08 22:53
|
Idaho's state Supreme Court candidates went after each other's political independence Friday evening during their only scheduled major debate.
"When you stand on the courthouse steps with the Legislature, I'm not sure if you're sending the right messages to the people of Idaho that there's a clear division of judiciary and legislative branch," said candidate Robyn Brody, an attorney from Rupert.
Brody was calling out fellow candidates Clive Strong, a longtime deputy attorney general, and Curt McKenzie, a seven-term Republican state senator ? who have both held press conferences at courthouses announcing endorsements from partisan lawmakers.
Idaho Court of Appeals Judge Sergio Gutierrez also echoed Brody's concerns of seeking high-profile endorsements, adding that he's not running to be a politician but a justice.
However, Strong countered that his 33-year career inside the attorney general's office has often required him to stand up to the Idaho Legislature and McKenzie argued that he strayed from his fellow GOP members during the Legislature by voting no on the so-called ag-gag bill, which was later ruled illegal in federal court.
The first round of campaign contribution reports aren't due until May 10, making endorsements that much more open to scrutiny for signs of possible bias.
Furthermore, Supreme Court candidates are banned from talking about their past of current political party affiliations even though political party registrations are public records as well as giving their opinions on how they would vote on previous or pending state supreme court decisions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
