Today's Date: Add To Favorites
Court allows search and seizure in Virginia case
Court Watch | 2008/04/23 05:38
The Supreme Court affirmed Wednesday that police have the power to conduct searches and seize evidence, even when done during an arrest that turns out to have violated state law.

The unanimous decision comes in a case from Portsmouth, Va., where city detectives seized crack cocaine from a motorist after arresting him for a traffic ticket offense.

David Lee Moore was pulled over for driving on a suspended license. The violation is a minor crime in Virginia and calls for police to issue a court summons and let the driver go.

Instead, city detectives arrested Moore and prosecutors say that drugs taken from him in a subsequent search can be used against him as evidence.

"We reaffirm against a novel challenge what we have signaled for half a century," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote.

Scalia said that when officers have probable cause to believe a person has committed a crime in their presence, the Fourth Amendment permits them to make an arrest and to search the suspect in order to safeguard evidence and ensure their own safety.

Moore was convicted on a drug charge and sentenced to 3 1/2 years in prison.

The Virginia Supreme Court ruled that police should have released Moore and could not lawfully conduct a search.

State law, said the Virginia Supreme Court, restricted officers to issuing a ticket in exchange for a promise to appear later in court. Virginia courts dismissed the indictment against Moore.

Moore argued that the Fourth Amendment permits a search only following a lawful state arrest.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she finds more support for Moore's position in previous court cases than the rest of the court does. But she said she agrees that the arrest and search of Moore was constitutional, even though it violated Virginia law.

The Bush administration and attorneys general from 18 states lined up in support of Virginia prosecutors.

The federal government said Moore's case had the potential to greatly increase the class of unconstitutional arrests, resulting in evidence seized during searches being excluded with increasing frequency.

Looking to state laws to provide the basis for searches would introduce uncertainty into the legal system, the 18 states said in court papers.



Court requires subpoena for Internet subscriber records
Court Watch | 2008/04/22 09:51
Internet service providers must not release personal information about users in New Jersey without a valid subpoena, even to police, the state's highest court ruled Monday.

New Jersey's Supreme Court found that the state's constitution gives greater protection against unreasonable searches and seizures than the U.S. Constitution.

The court ruled that Internet providers should not disclose private information to anyone without a subpoena.

A Washington lawyer who handles Internet litigation, Megan E. Gray, said the ruling "seems to be consistent with a trend nationwide, but not a strong trend."

"It's contrary to what is happening with rights of privacy at the federal level," Gray said. "But it's all over the board for the states, with a mild trend toward protecting this information."

The 7-0 ruling upheld lower court decisions that restricted police from obtaining the identity of a Cape May County woman accused of retaliating in 2004 against her boss after an argument by changing her employer's access codes to a supplier's Web site.

Police obtained the woman's identity through her Internet provider, Comcast Corp. (CMCSA), by tracing an Internet fingerprint left by her computer. The fingerprint consisted of an Internet protocol address, often called an IP address, that could be identified only by Comcast.

Police obtained a subpoena for the data from a municipal court, but higher courts said a grand jury subpoena was necessary because an indictable offense was at issue.

Police must seek a criminal grand jury subpoena to get such information, the court found. And it said the woman's 2005 indictment on a charge of theft by computer cannot stand unless prosecutors have enough proof without the evidence, now suppressed, that they got from Comcast without having the right subpoena.

It was not immediately known how the Cape May County Prosecutor's Office will proceed. Prosecutor Robert L. Taylor did not return a message seeking comment.


Court requires subpoena for Internet subscriber records
Court Watch | 2008/04/21 12:53
Internet service providers must not release personal information about users in New Jersey without a valid subpoena, even to police, the state's highest court ruled Monday.

New Jersey's Supreme Court found that the state's constitution gives greater protection against unreasonable searches and seizures than the U.S. Constitution.

The court ruled that Internet providers should not disclose private information to anyone without a subpoena.

A Washington lawyer who handles Internet litigation, Megan E. Gray, said the ruling "seems to be consistent with a trend nationwide, but not a strong trend."

"It's contrary to what is happening with rights of privacy at the federal level," Gray said. "But it's all over the board for the states, with a mild trend toward protecting this information."

Grayson Barber, a lawyer representing the American Civil Liberties Union, Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Electronic Privacy Information Center, among other groups that filed friend-of-the-court briefs in the case, said it was the first ruling in the nation to recognize a reasonable expectation of privacy for Internet users.



Supreme Court hears re-appeal of lesbian custody case
Court Watch | 2008/03/14 05:04
The Vermont Supreme Court will decide again whether a Virginia woman should be able to prevent her former lesbian partner from having contact with her 5-year-old child.

On Thursday, attorneys for Lisa Miller-Jenkins asked the court to revisit the issue, which was decided in favor of Janet Miller-Jenkins in 2006.

The two Virginia residents were joined in a Vermont civil union in 2000, but later split up. Lisa had a child in 2002 and a Vermont family court awarded Janet visitation rights.

Lisa argues that since Virginia law doesn’t recognize civil unions her former partner shouldn’t have parental rights.

Janet says the case has already been decided in her favor by a family court.



Corinthian Colleges Faces Purported Class Action
Court Watch | 2008/03/13 04:35
Corinthian Colleges Inc. (COCO) and its Corinthian Schools Inc. unit face a purported class action lawsuit alleging the schools made and continue to make misleading statements regarding their graduates' employment prospects and starting salaries.

The suit against the Santa Ana, Calif., for-profit education provider also charges that Corinthian's statements claiming their programs are approved by the California Department of Education are untrue.

Carnegie Student Loans and SLM Corp.'s (SLM) Sallie Mae Inc. were also named as defendants in the suit.

The lawsuit was filed in Santa Clara Superior Court on behalf of graduates of the Medical Assistant vocational programs offered at Bryman College, now named Everest College.

According to attorney John L. Fallat, who filed the suit, Corinthian settled a class action suit in July over allegations regarding statewide California approval of certain of its programs.

Representatives from Corinthian and Sallie Mae weren't immediately available for comment.



Judge Says Fairplay Must Amend Lawsuit
Court Watch | 2008/03/12 07:49
Reality TV figure Jonny Fairplay will have to provide a court with more details about his tooth-busting dust-up with Danny Bonaduce before his lawsuit against producers of an awards show can go forward. "I think more facts should be set forth," Superior Court Judge Michael C. Solner ruled Tuesday.

Solner gave Fairplay, whose real name is Jon Dalton, 20 days to amend his complaint to explain why the producers of Fox Reality Channel's "Really Awards" were negligent and involved in the alleged battery.

The lawsuit stems from an October 2007 altercation in which Fairplay, a competitor on "Survivor: Pearl Islands," jumped into Bonaduce's arms on stage during the awards show to give him a hug.

Bonaduce, 48, responded by tossing Fairplay over his shoulders. Fairplay landed face first, losing one tooth, breaking another and loosening two more.

Fairplay, 34, sued Bonaduce, Fox Reality Channel and the show producers for battery, negligence and emotional distress. He claims the producers encouraged Bonaduce to go on stage uninvited, did not provide security and failed to provide prompt medical care afterward.

Vicki Greco, a lawyer for Fox and the producers Natural 9 Entertainment, said Bonaduce's actions were unplanned and the companies were not responsible for the incident.

Fairplay's lawyer, Daniel C. Lapidus, claimed Bonaduce told the producers "what he wanted to do and they told him to do it."

Bonaduce, a child actor on "The Partridge Family," starred in the 2005 reality show "Breaking Bonaduce." The next hearing in the case is scheduled for May 12.



Man Pleads Guilty to Sex With Girls
Court Watch | 2008/03/12 05:51
A man who filmed himself sexually assaulting young Asian girls pleaded guilty Tuesday to child pornography charges.

William Constable, 54, a self-employed contractor, was arrested in October when he tried to retrieve a camera he left in a Cape Cod hotel room. A hotel employee who found the camera called police after seeing images of a man having sex with young girls.

Prosecutors said the camera and dozens of cassettes and compact discs later seized from Constable's Nantucket home showed him sexually assaulting girls as young as 5, sometimes two at a time.

During a hearing in U.S. District Court, Constable pleaded guilty to seven counts of sexual exploitation of children and one count of possession of child pornography. According to a plea agreement filed with the court, the recommended sentence will be 25 years in prison and a $50,000 fine, with restitution to be determined when Constable is sentenced on June 10. He also faces lifetime supervision after his release.



[PREV] [1] ..[139][140][141][142][143][144][145][146][147].. [206] [NEXT]
All
Class Action
Bankruptcy
Biotech
Breaking Legal News
Business
Corporate Governance
Court Watch
Criminal Law
Health Care
Human Rights
Insurance
Intellectual Property
Labor & Employment
Law Center
Law Promo News
Legal Business
Legal Marketing
Litigation
Medical Malpractice
Mergers & Acquisitions
Political and Legal
Politics
Practice Focuses
Securities
Elite Lawyers
Tax
Featured Law Firms
Tort Reform
Venture Business News
World Business News
Law Firm News
Attorneys in the News
Events and Seminars
Environmental
Legal Careers News
Patent Law
Consumer Rights
International
Legal Spotlight
Current Cases
State Class Actions
Federal Class Actions
Trump is at the Court as it ..
Wisconsin man who ordered ba..
Federal judge blocks Pentago..
Supreme Court sounds skeptic..
Judge rules US government ov..
Immigration lawyers accuse V..
No new trial for man convict..
College president pleads gui..
House will vote on an Iran w..
Supreme Court Blocks Califor..
US and Israeli attacks on Ir..
Trump administration's 'thir..
Court agrees to hear from oi..
Former South Korean presiden..
Suspect in mass shooting at ..


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 and help you redesign your existing law firm site to secure your place in the internet.
Lorain Elyria Divorce Lawyer
www.loraindivorceattorney.com
Car Accident Lawyers
Sunnyvale, CA Personal Injury Attorney
www.esrajunglaw.com
East Greenwich Family Law Attorney
Divorce Lawyer - Erica S. Janton
www.jantonfamilylaw.com/about
Los Angeles Police Misconduct
Civil Rights Lawyers
www.mcmurrayhenriks.com
Rosemead, CA
Real Estate Litigation Lawyer
www.kigrosslaw.com
  Law Firm Directory
 
 
 
© ClassActionTimes.com. All rights reserved.

The content contained on the web site has been prepared by Class Action Times as a service to the internet community and is not intended to constitute legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case or circumstance. Affordable Law Firm Web Design