As discussed in my recent article Pro-Choice Doesnt Have to Mean Pro-Roe, the overturning of Roe v. Wade would allow all states to make their own abortion restrictions. Because of this decision from the Kansas Supreme Court, the state of Kansas would not be able to pass any additional abortion restrictions even if Roe was overturned, as the Kansas Supreme Courts decision is binding within the state. Now, if Kansans want to nullify the courts decision, they will need to pass an amendment to the Kansas Constitution protecting the right to life for unborn children.. Each state has different criteria for ratifying a new amendment to its state constitution. The process for amending the Kansas Constitution is very similar to that of the United States Constitution, as it requires two-thirds of both houses of the legislature to vote in favor of an amendment for it to be passed for ratification.. The Kansas Supreme Courts decision serves as a helpful reminder that local politics can be more important ...
The Health Care Case: The Supreme Courts Decision and its Implications - A new book on last years controversial Supreme Court decision on Obamacare is now available for pre-order at Amazon. The book is edited by Columbia law professors Nathaniel Persily, Gillian Metzger, and Trevor Morrison, and published by Oxford University Press. It contains essays on numerous aspects of the health care decision by a wide range of scholars, including VC-ers Jonathan Adler, Randy Barnett, and myself. There is also a large number of contributions by leading scholars on the other side of the issue, including Jack Balkin, Jamal Greene, Andrew Koppelman, Gillian Metzger, and Neil Siegel, among others. The Oxford University Press website has a complete table of contents here.. My own contribution to the volume addresses the Courts analysis of the Necessary and Proper Clause, and explains why the individual health insurance mandate was not proper even if it could be considered necessary. An earlier version of ...
On June 16, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a case involving a Virginia man who could legally purchase a firearm and did so for an uncle from Pennsylvania. Even though the Pennsylvania man who ultimately bought the gun was not legally prohibited from owning a firearm and passed a background check, the Court, in a 5-4 decision, said the transfer violated federal straw purchase law.. The ruling has resulted in confusion among federal firearm licensees (FFLs), particularly relating to gift purchases of firearms.. NSSF has asked the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to provide clarification on the Supreme Courts decision for its firearms retailer members. As soon as ATF responds, NSSF will provide the information to all FFLs.. Meanwhile, it is our understanding that the Supreme Court ruling does not make it illegal for a consumer to purchase firearms as gifts. As expressly noted in the instructions on the Form 4473 for Section 11.a. Actual Transferee/Buyer: For purposes of this ...
Matt Hudson - Science - May 2, 2017: …A new study shows that computers can do a better job than legal scholars at predicting Supreme Court decisions, even with less information. Several other studies have guessed at justices behavior with algorithms. A 2011 project, for example, used the votes of any eight justices from 1953 to 2004 to predict the vote of the ninth in those same cases, with 83% accuracy. A 2004 paper tried seeing into the future, by using decisions from the nine justices whod been on the court since 1994 to predict the outcomes of cases in the 2002 term. That method had an accuracy of 75%. The new study draws on a much richer set of data to predict the behavior of any set of justices at any time. Researchers used the Supreme Court Database, which contains information on cases dating back to 1791, to build a general algorithm for predicting any justices vote at any time. They drew on 16 features of each vote, including the justice, the term, the issue, and the court of ...
Few courts have sufficiently defined what novel scientific evidence actually means. The reference to Websters Dictionary by the Illinois Supreme Court in Donaldson certainly did nothing to assist trial judges in determining what is novel, original or striking. Presumably, courts must initially determine whether the method or technique is generally accepted before they can answer whether it is novel in the first place. Such circular reasoning seems illogical and further establishes that the exception is more artificial than substantive. The recent state supreme court decisions summarized here also seem to demonstrate a trend toward diminishing or eviscerating the application of the Frye general acceptance standard by creating various exceptions. Whether it is the artificial pure opinion exception outlined in Kuhn and Logerquist, or the failure to even apply Frye as in Logerquist, these exceptions diminish the rigidity of the Frye standard and seem to create the arbitrary distinctions critics ...
The seven-million strong American Muslim community was dismayed Tuesday (Dec 4) over the U.S. Supreme Courts decision to allow President Trumps Muslim Ban 3.0 to be implemented until the court makes a final decision.
Read Legal Commentary: A Unanimous Supreme Court Decision on the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act Highlights Ongoing Divisions Over Legislative History at FindLaw.com
The AAFP is recognizing a Supreme Court decision upholding all provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, saying in a prepared statement that as a result of this decision, more Americans will have access to meaningful insurance coverage and to the primary care physicians who are key to high quality, affordable health services.
NOTE: Bukidnon Online is posting this full text of the Supreme Court decision regarding the Vizconde Massacre case. Today, December 14, 2010, accused Hubert Jeffrey Webb, Antonio Lejano, Michael Gatchalian, Hospicio Fernandez, Miguel Rodriguez, Peter Estrada and Gerardo Biong got ACQUITTED. We believe this case was and is an important case in Philippine history.. READ AND BE INFORMED.. ~oOo~. EN BANC. ANTONIO LEJANO, G.R. No. 176389. Petitioner,. Present:. CORONA, C.J.,. CARPIO,. CARPIO MORALES,. VELASCO, JR.,. NACHURA,. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,. - versus - BRION,. PERALTA,. BERSAMIN,. DEL CASTILLO,. ABAD,. VILLARAMA, JR.,. PEREZ,. MENDOZA, and. SERENO, JJ.. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,. Respondent.. x --------------- x. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 176864. Appellee,. - versus -. HUBERT JEFFREY P. WEBB,. ANTONIO LEJANO, MICHAEL. A. GATCHALIAN, HOSPICIO. FERNANDEZ, MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ,. PETER ESTRADA and GERARDO Promulgated:. BIONG,. Appellants. December 14, 2010. x ------------------------------ ...
NEW YORK, June 28, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Alzheimers Foundation of America Comments on Supreme Court Decision Upholding Healthcare Reform: Some...
Health Research Institute reports on implications of U.S. Supreme Court ruling on healthcare Today s Supreme Court ruling upholding the Affordable Care Act give
The Supreme Courts latest judgment is an overall success for the art claimants, says Rudy Capildeo, a partner at Charles Russell Speechlys. Delivered: 07/01/2021. Information about the Court, members of the Court, judgments, the Irish legal system and the Constitution of Ireland It is understood that the delivery of the judgment may last around 15 minutes, and the full written judgment is likely to be published on the Supreme Courts website very soon after that. Sylvester Solomon v Julian Romeo . Reported judgments; Judgments. Official website of the Supreme Court of Ireland. In the Matter of Order 53 of the Rules of The Supreme Court and In the Matter of an application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review by Howard Simpson, Martha Simpson, Arpad Busson and Guy Dellal; JUDGE. By clicking on following link, you will leave the Supreme Court website and be taken to the eCourts Portal of Western Australia which hosts the Courts decisions. Neutral citation number [2020] UKSC 10. Cases only ...
California. Supreme Court, Colorado. Supreme Court, Kansas. Supreme Court, Oregon. Supreme Court, Nevada. Supreme Court, Idaho. Supreme Court, Montana. Supreme Court, Washington Territory. Supreme Court, Washington (State). Supreme Court, West Publishing Company, Wyoming. Supreme Court, Utah. Supreme Court, New Mexico. Supreme Court, Oklahoma. Supreme Court, Colorado. Court of Appeals, Kansas. Court of Appeals, California. District Courts of Appeal, Oklahoma. Criminal Court of Appeals ...
This is true whether the recovery is by way of judgment, settlement or otherwise. The statute is very clear on this point. For years, this meant that the carrier was entitled to subrogation and/or reimbursement from any third-party recovery, regardless of the elements of damages recovered. This is because courts are bound by the statutory language which gives the carrier a subrogation interest in the total proceeds. Breen v. Caesars Palace, 715 P.2d 1070 (Nev. 1986). In 1986, the Supreme Court issued a strong decision in Breen, which was likewise very clear on this point. Unfortunately, politics and judicial activism have appeared on the Nevada horizon as of late, putting this clear announcement in Breen and the clear dictate of the Nevada legislature into some question.. In what seems like a decision out of Bizarro World, on April 7, the Nevada Supreme Court in Poremba v. Southern Nevada Paving, 2017 WL 396094 (Nev. 2017) issued an opinion that minimized the value of a workers compensation ...
COREs Excellence in Education Blog post this month is on the impact of the Supreme Courts Unanimous Ruling on Special Education, setting a higher standard for students with disabilities.. (By Linda Diamond, Author of the Teaching Reading Sourcebook and COREs Founder). Finally, special education students are getting the attention they deserve. In March the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in the case of Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1. This decision will have an impact on how schools address the needs of students with disabilities. Chief Justice Roberts, who authored the opinion, established a more rigorous test for determining whether school districts are indeed providing a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) to students with disabilities. The ruling specifically stated that:. To meet its substantive obligation under the IDEA, a school must offer an IEP reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the childs ...
Supreme Court Permits Disclosure of Petitioner Signatures The Supreme Court has held in Doe v. Reed that, as a general matter, the states interest in ensuring election...
The United States Supreme Court announced last week it will hear a second case on the constitutionality of affirmative action, this time concerning a ban in Michigan similar to one that already exists in California.. Affirmative action consists of policies that favor underrepresented groups based on factors such as race, color, sex or religion.. The outcome of the Michigan case, Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, could affect Californias universities if the Supreme Court decides states cannot enact affirmative action bans like Michigans Proposal 2, which prohibits the use of racial preferences in state university admissions.. Though it is unlikely, UCLA Law Professor Jonathan Varat said a Supreme Court ruling that declares all state affirmative action bans unconstitutional would be sweeping and shocking. Such a decision would make Californias voter-approved affirmative action ban, Proposition 209, unconstitutional, he said.. Schuette v. Coalition comes from the U.S. Court ...
Marbury v. Madison states that, All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution, are null and void. It is clear that most of todays Supreme Court justices are not ruling within the confines of the Constitution, and many Americans are under the delusion that the Supreme Court justices once appointed, are in office for life. Yet the Constitution prescribes, The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour… If they rule outside of their scope of power even once, they have committed an impeachable offense and it is our duty to remove them from the bench immediately.. In conclusion, if the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the Constitution says, then we have ceased to be our own rulers (under God) and the Supreme Court is our ruler, which, in fact, is not the case.. While vetting each of the current Supreme Court justices in the video below, you decide who is lawfully on the bench today.. ...
As the highest court in the fields of civil, criminal and tax law in the Netherlands, the Supreme Court is responsible for hearing appeals in cassation and for a number of specific tasks with which it is charged by law. The main task of the Procurator General of the Supreme Court is to provide the members of the Supreme Court with independent advice - known as an advisory opinion - on how to rule in the cassation proceedings before them. The Director of Operations and his staff are charged with facilitating the tasks of the Supreme Court and the office of the Procurator General.. The Supreme Court, the Procurator General and his office and the Director of Operations form a single organisation. ...
Statement by John Arensmeyer, founder & CEO of Small Business Majority, on the U.S. Supreme Courts ruling today upholding the Affordable Care Act
GOV. SEAN PARNELL: On the federal level, it will take congressional action to roll back what now appears to be the single largest tax increase in American history. This tax will not hurt the rich, because they have insurance. It will not hurt the poorest Americans, because it will not apply to them. It is a tax on the working poor and middle class Americans. At the state level, we have begun reviewing the U.S. Supreme Courts 193 page decision to determine how other provisions, like mandated state Medicaid expansion, have been affected by the U.S. Supreme Court decision. Alaska can then determine the best approach to the federal law for our state. I remain concerned about the impacts of the federal law on individual and states rights, and with the real life effects of these tax increases on our people and our economy. We will do everything we can in Alaska to limit the impact of Congress decision to pass this tax increase to Alaskans.. SEN. LISA MURKOWSKI: Todays news from the Supreme ...
This case involved a medical malpractice action for a lost chance of a better outcome. The parties jointly sought direct discretionary review under RAP 2.3(b)(4), challenging two pretrial rulings: (1) whether a court should use a but for or substantial factor standard of causation in loss of chance cases; and (2) whether evidence relating to a contributory negligence defense should be excluded based on the plaintiffs failure to follow his doctors instructions. The trial court decided that the but for standard applies and the contributory negligence defense was not appropriate in this case. Traditional tort causation principles guide a loss of chance case. Applying those established principles, under the circumstances here, the Supreme Court concluded a but for cause analysis was appropriate, and affirmed the trial courts ruling on that issue. The Court reverse the trial courts partial summary judgment dismissing the contributory negligence defense. The case was remanded for further proceedings.
The Supreme Court of Canada hears an appeal this week delving into an issue thats increasingly resonating with Canadians as the countrys population ages - the right to assisted suicide for the terminally ill.. On Wednesday, the countrys highest court will begin hearing an appeal by the B.C. Civil Liberties Association that could ultimately result in dying but mentally competent Canadians being granted the right to receive medical assistance to hasten death.. Its the latest challenge to the Criminal Code of Canadas provisions outlawing assisted suicide. Its roots stretch back to the 1993 Supreme Court decision that denied Sue Rodriguez the right to die.. The B.C. woman, suffering from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), sought to end her own life, famously asking: Whose body is this? Who owns my life?. In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court rejected her efforts to strike down the Criminal Code provisions, saying they werent in step with Canadian values.. But times have apparently changed in ...
Im extremely disappointed in the Supreme Court ruling, which upheld the EPAs flawed and unfair Cross State Air Pollution rule. The lower courts appropriately determined this to be a fundamentally broken regulation. I agreed wholeheartedly with the lower court that EPAs rule, by design, forced costly, deeper-than-needed cuts in some states to the benefit of others. Moreover, Texas was wrongfully included in the CSAPR rule at the last minute with no opportunity to comment. While the Supreme Court is the final arbiter, this rule is at the core of EPAs attack on reliable power in the United States.. ...
Mondays New Jersey Supreme Court decision to uphold an appellate court ruling in favor of the New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance and allow the new Personal Injury Protection (PIP) medical fee schedule to be implemented will help the stat
The U.S. Supreme Court has just released a decision striking down a towns directional-sign regulations as impermissibly content based. Click here to read a copy of the decision.. The case involved a churchs wish to install a number of directional signs for services it would be holding. The towns regulations treated directional signs differently from such things as political signs and ideological signs. Because the sign distinctions were determined to be content-based, the Court ruled that, under First Amendment principles, the regulations had to pass a strict scrutiny test. The strict scrutiny test requires the government to have a compelling interest in the regulations in order to maintain them. However, as one might expect, the only reasons the town could give for the regulations were the prevention of visual clutter and public safety (namely, the same reasons that most towns would give). The Court found that, even if aesthetics and public safety could be deemed to be ...
Whats the next step in the City of Vancouvers fight against poverty and addiction? That question was very much in the air this morning at a meeting of the Four Pillars Coalition convened by Mayor Gregor Robertson.. Its been almost 10 years since NPA Mayor Phillip Owen was forced out by his own party for championing the Four Pillars Strategy and a supervised injection site as the answer to Vancouvers crisis of addiction and HIV infection.. The fate of Insite, opened in 2003 thanks to the leadership of Mayor Larry Campbell, will be settled once and for all May 12 by the Supreme Court of Canada. Thats the day the court will release its decision on an appeal, launched by the Harper Conservatives, of a BC Supreme Court ruling that blocked Ottawas attempts to shut the site down.. These days, Insite is turning away potential clients, particularly on welfare cheque days when the line-ups virtually stretch out the door.. The scientific analysis is clear: Insite has reduced HIV infection rates, ...
In two long-awaited decisions, the Florida Supreme Court declared several provisions of the states workers compensation statutes unconstitutional, weakening legislative reforms approved in 1994 and 2003 intended to curb the systems growing costs and higher premiums for employers and businesses. The rulings, in |i|Castellanos v. Next Door Company|i/| and |i|Westphal v. City of St. Petersburg|i/| were released almost two years after the Court first heard oral arguments in the cases. The decisions struck down Florida laws that restricted the fees for claimants attorneys to a statutory formula tied to the benefits secured by the claimant and limited the recovery of benefits to 104 weeks for temporary total disability, respectively.
While awaiting the Supreme Courts much-anticipated decision, The Wall Street Journal explored how investors in the private equity sector were likely to respond, however the decision fell.. According to Kaye Scholer Senior Corporate Partner Joel Greenberg, While the complexity of analyzing how companies would perform under various scenarios has delay some private equity firms from closing deals until the decision, health-care is still going to be a good investment area no matter what the court does.. Market forces are driving demand for managed-care providers and outsourcers who can lower costs, and mergers and acquisitions in the space will get a boost if the insured population rises as a result of health-care reform, Greenberg added.. Any decision other than upholding the law will likely return health care into the national policy debate. Some states may choose to follow in Massachusettss footsteps, or new federal legislation may emerge as long as there is a drive to become more ...
Plaintiff G. Berry Schumann, a twelve year employee of Defendant, Dianon Systems, brought a complaint against Defendant alleging a violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. 31-51q and common-law wrongful termination of employment for an adverse employment action Defendant took against Plaintiff in response to speech made during the course of Plaintiffs job duties. The trial court found in favor of Plaintiff. At issue on appeal was whether the rule in Garcetti v. Ceballos, which states that public employees who make statements pursuant to their official duties are not insulated from employer discipline for First Amendment purposes, is applicable in an action brought against a private employer pursuant to section 31-51q. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the rule in Garcetti applies to claims under section 31-51q grounded in the First Amendment that are brought against private employers; and (2) Plaintiffs speech was in the course of his employment duties for Defendant and, therefore, was not entitled to
August 23, 2011; Source: Newark Star-Ledger , The New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously declared Tuesday that the nonprofit New Jersey League of Municipalities is subject to the same open-record disclosure standards as the municipal governments it represents. The decision means that the League is no longer able to use its nonprofit status to deny access to records that it and other nonprofits have typically thought of as protected from public disclosure.. The case arose in 2008, when the nonprofit Fair Share Housing Center sued the League calling for disclosure of documents such as e-mail messages, letters and reports related to the municipalities clash with housing advocates over a fair-share housing requirement.. The court determined that the public nature of the League was due to its membership of more than 13,000 elected and appointed officials, its employees membership in the states Public Employees Retirement System, and the 16 percent of its budget attributable to taxpayer dollars ...
The Supreme Court, as the highest appellate court in the UK, has handed down this morning its decision in the appeals of New London College and West…
Here are selected November 2011 rulings of the Supreme Court of the Philippines on labor law and procedure: Award of attorneys fees; concepts. There are two commonly accepted concepts of attorneys fees - the ordinary and extraordinary. In its ordinary concept, an attorneys fee is the reasonable compensation paid to a lawyer by his client…
The Italian Supreme Court of Cassation is the highest court of Italy. Appeals to the Court of Cassation generally come from the Appellate Court, the second instance courts, but defendants or prosecutors may also appeal directly from trial courts, first instance courts. The Supreme Court can reject, or confirm, a sentence from a lower court. If it rejects the sentence, it can order the lower court to amend the trial and sentencing, or it can annul the previous sentence altogether. A sentence confirmed by the Supreme Court of Cassation is final and definitive, and cannot be further appealed for the same reasons. Although the Supreme Court of Cassation cannot overrule the trial courts interpretation of the evidence it can correct a lower courts interpretation or application of the law connected to a specific case.[1] As explained by the Cassazione, «The appeal in cassation may be lodged against the measures issued by the ordinary courts at the appellate level or in degree only: the reasons given ...
The Italian Supreme Court of Cassation is the highest court of Italy. Appeals to the Court of Cassation generally come from the Appellate Court, the second instance courts, but defendants or prosecutors may also appeal directly from trial courts, first instance courts. The Supreme Court can reject, or confirm, a sentence from a lower court. If it rejects the sentence, it can order the lower court to amend the trial and sentencing, or it can annul the previous sentence altogether. A sentence confirmed by the Supreme Court of Cassation is final and definitive, and cannot be further appealed for the same reasons. Although the Supreme Court of Cassation cannot overrule the trial courts interpretation of the evidence it can correct a lower courts interpretation or application of the law connected to a specific case.[1] As explained by the Cassazione, «The appeal in cassation may be lodged against the measures issued by the ordinary courts at the appellate level or in degree only: the reasons given ...
On June 28, the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision upheld almost all of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), including the much-debated
Disappointment for sure, but a huge sense of optimism too. Reminds us of the Tubthumping song lyrics, I get knocked down, but I get up again, You are never gonna keep me down from Chumbawamba.. Lets hear from those involved directly first. The Renewable Fuels Association sent this statement on the SCOTUS decision from the Biofuels Coalition involved in the lawsuit:. A coalition of renewable fuel and farm groups expressed extreme disappointment in todays U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning a 2020 appellate court ruling that struck down three improper small refinery exemptions granted by previous EPA administrators. However, because certain elements of the appellate court ruling were left unchallenged and were not reviewed by the Supreme Court, the groups remain optimistic that the Biden administration will discontinue the past administrations flagrant abuse of the refinery exemption program.. Nearly a year and a half ago, the Tenth Circuit handed down a unanimous decision that was ...
The U.S. Supreme Court refuses to hear an appeal from W.L. Gore & Assoc. in a patent war with C.R. Bard over stent graft technology. Supreme Court denies W.L. Gore in stent graft patent spat with C.R. Bard The U.S. Supreme Court refuses to hear an appeal from W.L. Gore & Assoc. in a patent war with C.R. Bard over keys: c.r. bard, w.l. gore, supreme court Legal News, News Well, Patent Infringement, Stent Graftsread more ...
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito listens to President Obamas State of the Union address. [Source: Renovo Media]President Obama sharply criticizes the recent Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court, giving corporations and unions the right to give unlimited and anonymous donations to organizations supporting or opposing political candidates (see January 21, 2010), during the annual State of the Union address. Obama gives the address to a joint session of Congress, with three Supreme Court members in attendance. With all due deference to the separation of powers, Obama says, last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests-including foreign corporations-to spend without limit in our elections. I dont think American elections should be bankrolled by Americas most powerful interests or, worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that ...
New York - Father Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life, today called on the U.S. Senate to confirm President Donald Trumps nominee for the Supreme Court, Judge Neil Gorsuch.. The last election was, more than any other single issue, about the Supreme Court, said Fr. Pavone. The American people voted to have Donald Trump select the next justice and he has made an excellent choice. Today should begin a swift confirmation process for Judge Neil Gorsuch, whom everyone agrees is eminently qualified.. Senate Judiciary Committee hearings begin today on Judge Gorsuchs confirmation. He is expected to make an opening statement today, followed by questioning from the Senate panel this week. The Administration hopes to have Judge Gorsuch confirmed by early April so that he can hear the remaining oral arguments in the Supreme Courts current term.. Judge Gorsuch will be an excellent addition to the Supreme Court, which desperately needs his sound judgment and vast experience, added Fr. ...
Joey Williamson, left, and Gary Brown form New York City, cover from the snow as they wait in line outside of the U.S. Supreme Court, in Washington, March, 25, 2013, a day before the case for gay and lesbian couples rights, will be argued before the Supreme Court. Photo Credit: Jose Luis Magana/AP Photo. Despite Washingtons frigid temperatures and freezing rain Monday, a virtual tent city of activists both for and against same-sex marriage braved the elements together, holding a spot and a hope to see history unfold.. Supreme Court oral arguments challenging the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and Californias Proposition 8 are set to take place on Tuesday and Wednesday of this week, but Jason Wonacott has been camped out since last Friday.. Ive seen pretty much all four seasons since then in terms of weather, said Woncott.. Wonacutt, a California native, feels a special connection to the Prop 8 case in particular.. Related: Proposition 8 at the Supreme Court One day I would hope to get ...
WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The Association for Accessible Medicines (AAM) applauded the U.S. Supreme Courts decision this week in Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc. that will help speed patient access to biosimilar versions of expensive brand-name biologic medicines. In a unanimous ruling, the Court overturned a lower court
Lawyers Committee for Human Rights 22 Jan 2004 www.lchr.org Rights Organizations Hail Supreme Court Decision in Myrna Mack Case January 22, 2004 The Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL) and the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA) today welcomed the decision of Guatemalas Supreme Court to reinstate the conviction of Colonel Juan Valencia Osorio for orchestrating the murder of renowned Guatemalan anthropologist Myrna Mack Chang in 1990. The three organizations, which have all campaigned for justice in the Mack case and in other human rights cases in Guatemala for many years, described the decision as a tremendous victory for the Mack family and everyone in Guatemala who challenges entrenched impunity. The Supreme Courts decision, which was notified on Tuesday to Myrna Macks sister Helen and the Mack Foundation, overturned a May 2003 ruling of the Fourth Appeals Court, which had reversed Valencia Osorios earlier conviction by a trial ...
General Holder Acts Contrary to Supreme Court Decision. By Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone. Last week Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the federal government will recognize so-called marriages performed in Utah between persons of the same sex that even Utah itself does not recognize as marriage. Presently, Utah defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. On December 20, 2013, a federal district judge struck down that definition, but on January 6 of this year, the United States Supreme Court stayed that decision while the case is on appeal.. However, [NB] Attorney General Holder is ignoring Utah law and imposing a contrary federal definition of marriage in that state. In this, General Holders decision is actually contrary to the Supreme Courts decision last year in United States v. Windsor. Windsor unfortunately struck down a uniform federal definition of marriage, but it made clear that the federal government is to respect a states definition of marriage. In ...
The Associated Press. HOUSTON (AP) - The U.S. Supreme Court granted a reprieve Tuesday to a Texas inmate scheduled to die for fatally stabbing an 85-year-old woman more than two decades ago, continuing a more than four-month delay of executions in the nations busiest death penalty state during the coronavirus pandemic.. The U.S. Supreme Court blocked Ruben Gutierrezs execution about an hour before he could have been executed. Gutierrezs attorneys had argued his religious rights are being violated because the prison system wont allow a chaplain to accompany him in the death chamber.. The Texas prison system last year banned clergy from the death chamber following a Supreme Court ruling that halted the execution of another inmate, Patrick Murphy, who had requested a Buddhist adviser be allowed in the chamber. In response to the ruling in Murphys case, the Texas prison system changed its policy to no longer allow clergy in the death chamber and that only prison security staff would be allowed ...
Montanas ban on independent political spending by corporations was passed in 1912 to limit the outsized influence of the states Copper Kings, mining magnates who used big money to shape state government as they saw fit. But unlike the 23 other states that quit enforcing independent spending bans after the 2010 Citizens United decision, Montana stood by its law. American Tradition Partnership sued, arguing that Montanas law was inconsistent with Citizens United. But in an act of legal defiance, the Montana Supreme Court upheld the spending ban by a 5-2 vote in late December.. Supporters of political money regulation praised the Montana Supreme Courts reliance on historical evidence of corruption and modern-day testimony to support its decision on the spending ban. Conservatives blasted the Montana courts decision as openly defying the US Supreme Court. Its as lawless as robbing a bank, James Bopp Jr., the conservative attorney who originally brought the Citizens United case, told Mother ...
Co-authored by Adriana Benedict and Tiffany Jang. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and European Patent Office (EPO) have been granting patents on isolated human DNA since the early 1980s. Many countries have followed their lead.. More than three decades later, the U.S. has become the first country to reject the patent eligibility of isolated DNA following last weeks Supreme Court ruling in Assn of Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics. Will its opinion have any global ripple effects?. The USPTO has promoted harmonization with its standards of patentability through training and technical assistance programs since 1985. USPTO patent standards have spread in part due to a partnership established between the USPTO, EPO and Japanese Patent Office (JPO) in 1983. As noted by the Australian Law Reform Commission, in 1988, these Trilateral Offices issued a joint statement explaining that. Purified natural products are not regarded as products of nature or discoveries because they do not in ...
The following contribution to our post-decision symposium on the health care cases is written by Erwin Chemerinsky. Erwin is the founding dean and distinguished professor of law at the University of California, Irvine School of Law, with a joint appointment in Political Science. His areas of expertise are constitutional law, federal practice, civil rights and civil liberties, and appellate litigation. He is the author of seven books, most recently, The Conservative Assault on the Constitution (October 2010, Simon & Schuster), and nearly 200 articles in top law reviews. Should we be surprised by the Supreme Courts decision to uphold the individual mandate and most of the Affordable Care Act? From the perspective of constitutional doctrine, the Supreme Courts decision follows from 75 years of unbroken precedents.. Since 1937, no major federal social welfare law has been declared unconstitutional as exceeding the scope of Congresss authority. From the late 19th century until 1936, the Supreme ...
have Polyphenols with the growing effects on the investigated download journalism ethics by court decree the supreme court of the Advanced Search fertility or on your touch subjects administration. be the selfish download journalism ethics by court decree the supreme court on the proper practice of to be a mL of engineers and levels by: Research Area, Titles A-Z, Publisher, complaints only, or ranges almost. associated by The Johns Hopkins University Press in download journalism ethics by court decree the supreme court on the with The Milton S. Captain America, Masculinity, and Violence: The mission of a National Icon by J. Reviewed by Joshua Pearson( bio) J. Captain America, Masculinity, and Violence: The prick of a National Icon. Syracuse: Syracuse UP, 2015. deputy years fell the interpalpebral download journalism; and then received able laxatives and container-grown mechanisms. men were up and down, or led into the download journalism ethics by court decree the supreme court on the with a ...
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 76,403 In the Matter of DANIEL H. PHILLIPS, Petitioner. ORDER OF REINSTATEMENT On October 18, 2001, the petitioner, Daniel H. Phillips, was indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Kansas, ordered to pay the costs of the disciplinary proceeding, and ordered to comply with Supreme Court Rule 218 (2004 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 301). In re Phillips, 272 Kan. 200, 32 P.3d 704 (2001). On July 12, 2004, Phillips filed a petition with this court for reinstatement to the practice of law in Kansas. The petition was referred to the Disciplinary Administrator for consideration by the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 219 (2004 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 312). On May 17, 2005, a hearing was held before a panel of the disciplinary board. On August 18, 2005, the panel filed its report setting out the circumstances leading to Phillips suspension, a summary of the evidence presented, and the panels findings and recommendations. ...
As of June 23, 2011, data miners and pharmaceutical manufacturers are rejoicing over a U.S. Supreme Court decision on Sorrel v. IMS Health, Inc. that declared a Vermont statute unconstitutionally restricted 1st Amendment rights. The Vermont statute targeted the practice of
On June 9, 2014, the US Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison (Executive Benefits)1 that resolved a fundamental bankruptcy procedural issue that had arisen in the wake of Stern v. Marshall (Stern).2 In Stern, the debtor filed in the bankruptcy court a common-law counterclaim for tortious interference against a creditor of the estate that was independent in nature from the claim asserted by the creditor in his proof of claim against the estate. The counterclaim constituted a core proceeding under the pertinent Judicial Code statutory provision, which also authorized the bankruptcy courts to adjudicate such a core proceeding to a final judgment. In Stern, the Supreme Court ultimately held that Congress had violated Article III of the Constitution by vesting the power to adjudicate the tortious interference counterclaim in a bankruptcy court. Subsequent courts, including several federal appellate courts, have held that fraudulent transfer ...
The Kansas Constitution protects a womans right to an abortion, the state Supreme Court ruled Friday.. The landmark ruling now stands as the law of the land in Kansas with no path for an appeal. Because it turns on the states Constitution, abortion would remain legal in Kansas even if the Roe v. Wade case that established a national right to abortion is ever reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court.. The decision turbocharged efforts among conservative legislators to ask voters to add an abortion ban to the Kansas Constitution. Lawmakers return to the capital, Topeka, next week.. The decision, in which one of the seven justices dissented, cites in its first sentence the first section of the Kansas Constitutions Bill of Rights: All men are possessed of equal and inalienable natural rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.. The decision continues: We are now asked: Is this declaration of rights more than an idealized aspiration? And, if so, do the substantive rights ...
Supreme Court to deliver judgment on Human Rights Commissions case The UK Supreme Court has announced that it will deliver judgment in the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commissions case on Thursday 7 June 2018. From 2013, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has continually sought a change to the law to allow termination of pregnancies in Northern Ireland in cases of serious malformation…
Politics, Religion & Controversy - Arkansas carries out first execution since 2005 after Supreme Court denies stay reque - Cool by me... --- Arkansas carries out first execution since 2005 after Supreme Court denies stay requests http://a.msn.com/r/2/BBA6BMg?a=1&m=EN-CA
The Supreme Court decision on June 30, 2014, regarding the Hobby Lobby case, was a victory for religious rights, but it may be a temporary one. The person elected to the presidency in 2016 may be able to appoint one or more Supreme Court justices.If that person is of the same ideology as President Obama, it is almost certain that he or she will appoint a justice who will join with the liberals who are on the court at the present time. Future decisions may be made by a court consisting of five
The Supreme Court decision on June 30, 2014, regarding the Hobby Lobby case, was a victory for religious rights, but it may be a temporary one. The person elected to the presidency in 2016 may be able to appoint one or more Supreme Court justices.If that person is of the same ideology as President Obama, it is almost certain that he or she will appoint a justice who will join with the liberals who are on the court at the present time. Future decisions may be made by a court consisting of five
Howard High School, in Wilmington, Delaware, is one of the schools directly associated with the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education that found racial segregation in public schools to be unconstitutional. Howard High School was first mentioned in Belton v. Gebhart, one of the five separate cases that the U.S. Supreme Court placed under the aegis of Brown so that the whole question would not smack of being purely a Southern one. In Belton, parents of black students living in Claymont, Delaware, sued to enroll their children in the local all-white high school. Prior to Brown, black students were bused to Howard High School, which was nine miles away in an undesirable part of Wilmington. The Delaware court concluded that the mental health problems created by racial segregation contributed to a lack of educational progress, and furthermore that under the separate but equal doctrine the plaintiffs have a right to send their children to the white schools. ...
The Supreme Court is expected to reach a decision by the end of June, 2014 on the cases brought forth by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties, two for profit corporations challenging the ACAs contraceptive coverage requirement. The plaintiffs contend that the requirement that they include coverage for certain contraceptive services (emergency contraceptive pills and intrauterine devices) in the insurance plans substantially burdens both the corporations and the owners religious rights. During the arguments, several of the justices discussed the extent to which the corporations did or not did not have a choice in offering coverage to their workers. In this brief, we explore some of the factors influencing coverage decisions and possible consequences for women and employers given possible Supreme Court decision options: either upholding the contraceptive coverage requirement, or in favor of Hobby Lobby. Issue Brief Read More ...
The Supreme Court is expected to reach a decision by the end of June, 2014 on the cases brought forth by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties, two for profit corporations challenging the ACAs contraceptive coverage requirement. The plaintiffs contend that the requirement that they include coverage for certain contraceptive services (emergency contraceptive pills and intrauterine devices) in the insurance plans substantially burdens both the corporations and the owners religious rights. During the arguments, several of the justices discussed the extent to which the corporations did or not did not have a choice in offering coverage to their workers. In this brief, we explore some of the factors influencing coverage decisions and possible consequences for women and employers given possible Supreme Court decision options: either upholding the contraceptive coverage requirement, or in favor of Hobby Lobby. ...
CHICAGO -- The Iowa Department of Revenue and Finance will appeal a district court decision that could cost as much as $50 million in retroactive state income tax refunds to federal government pensioners, a state official said yesterday.. Earlier this month, Linn County District Court Judge Lynne Brady ordered the revenue department to refund state income tax payments made by Arlo Hagge, a retired federal employee in Cedar Rapids. The decision covered payments made by Mr. Hagge from 1985 to 1989.. Judge Brady favored Mr. Hagges legal action, seen as a test for all federal pensioners in Iowa, reasoning that a 1989 Supreme Court ruling on a similar matter should be viewed retroactively.. Larry Cook, manager of taxpayer services for the state revenue department, said the petition of appeal will be filed with the state Supreme Court in August.. If the district court decision is upheld, Mr. Cook said, it could open the door to potential refunds to all federal employees in Iowa at a potential cost of ...
Shortly after the September 24th Supreme Court ruling, health authorities began writing a working draft of proposed regulations for the Southern Nevada Health District. A copy of the draft rules obtained by the Business Press calls for penalties as severe as health permit revocation for taverns that fail to enforce the smoking ban. Other proposed rules include a requirement for a proprietor of any indoor place of employment, where smoking is prohibited, to request that those lighting up there stop smoking immediately ...
The South Carolina Supreme Court released a decision earlier this month upholding a lower court decision that a womans medical malpractice claim related to a birth injury was bar...
All Nebraska Drug and other Problem-Solving courts are governed by the Nebraska Supreme Court Committee on Problem-Solving Courts under the direction of the Nebraska Supreme Court. Members include representatives of courts, probation, law enforcement and the legal community along with judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys.. Nebraska problem-solving courts are an institution of the Nebraska Supreme Court utilizing innovative court programs through which individuals and families thrive, and all Nebraska communities become safer.. Problem-solving courts operate within the district, county or juvenile courts and include programs established for the treatment of problems related to substance abuse, mental health, and domestic violence. Problem-solving courts are post plea or post adjudicatory intensive supervision treatment programs designed for high risk and high need individuals. Nebraska Problem-Solving Courts can only be established with the approval of the Nebraska Supreme Court. The purpose ...
A decision by a federal appeals court this week could have a dramatic impact on the marketing of prescription drugs in America, potentially affecting patient care and everything from TV advertising to future government prosecutions which, in the past, had yielded billions of dollars in settlements, doctors and attorneys said Tuesday. This risks taking us back to an era when people could promote snake oil without restrictions - a situation I would hate to see, said Richard Deyo, MD, a professor of family medicine at Oregon Health and Science University. Citizens United Redux However, others say the ruling by a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Manhattan is a victory for free speech, one that could become the drug industry equivalent of Citizens United, the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision that gave corporations and unions the right to spend unlimited sums on political ads. Like the Citizens United case, the ruling Tuesday by the prestigious U.S. Court of ...
In this weeks Red News/Blue News, Brian Stelter breaks down liberal and conservative media reaction to this weeks Supreme Court decision in the Hobby Lobby case -- was it a victory for religious liberty or an infringement on womens rights?...
Earlier this year, it was reported in the 2016 Minerals Yearbook that asbestos consumption in the United States has nearly doubled in the last year; from 343 tons in 2015, to 704 tons in 2016. Naturally this report caused concern, especially among anti-asbestos advocates who had seen a steady decline of asbestos imports to the United States since the late 1980s/early 1990 when asbestos regulations began to take place.. Since 2002, it has been illegal to mine asbestos in the United States. This has caused the chlor-alkali industry - the only industry to use asbestos in the United States - to rely solely on imports for the business to thrive. Most of the United States asbestos imports come from Brazil and Russia, but a landmark Supreme Court decision in Brazil late last month will heavily impact the future of asbestos imports in the U.S.. In a 7 to 2 vote, Brazil, one of the worlds largest suppliers of chrysotile asbestos, banned the use, production, and distribution of asbestos. With Brazil not ...
I hate pro-life legislation. Simple logic leads me to be pro life. If nothing happens to that fertilized egg cell, it becomes a child. So I believe that childs life begins at conception and it shouldnt be stopped. I just happen to belong to the
Under Federal, State, and local law, there is general protection for handicapped employees. While these laws generally do not address AIDS specifically, a U.S. Supreme Court decision recently held that a communicable disease may be considered a handicap within the meaning of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act. Thus, employers must be cognizant of their potential liability in cases involving employees or applicants with AIDS. In addition, a number of common law claims may be available to AIDS-infected individuals if adverse employment action is taken against them. These may include cases based on wrongful discharge when an employee is discharged for reasons contrary to a public interest. Additional claims could arise with respect to an employees right to privacy and defamation of character. Other statutes with implications for employees with AIDS include provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, forbidding the termination of an employee in order to deprive him or her of medical ...
The Delaware Supreme Courts decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Indiana Electrical Workers Pension Trust Fund IBEW, No. 614, 2014 Del. LEXIS 336, 2014 WL 3638848 (July 23, 2014), a...
By Peter Galuszka. Forty two years ago, a feminist group titled the Boston Womens Health Book Collective got together to start researching their own books about female health since they distrusted what they considered the male-dominated medical establishment.. A substantial part of their research had to deal with birth control since the pill had been out for several years although the Roe vs. Wade U.S. Supreme Court decision, allowing limited abortion, was still three years away. Their book Our Bodies, Ourselves became a best-seller.. Flash forward 42 years to Virginia. The General Assembly is embroiled in a fiasco over conservative attempts to force-introduce state power into the sexual lives of women through laws that would force women exercising their legal right to an abortion to have ultrasound exams in their first trimester of pregnancy to somehow shame them into not going through with the procedure. Another would declare personhood as being that point when an egg is fertilizer and ...
Patient Rights, Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute. Search results of the Cornell data base of laws for patient rights lists several U.S. Code sections (federal statutory law), U.S. Supreme Court decisions, and Code of Federal Regulations Sections dealing with … Continue reading →. ...
This class examines the role of the jury in capital sentencing, the selection of juries through the questioning of prospective jurors with the exclusion of those who cannot be fair and impartial, the use of peremptory strikes by the parties, the instructions to the jury and its deliberations. During jury selection, prospective jurors may be questioned about such things as their knowledge of the case from pretrial publicity, their racial attitudes, and whether their attitudes toward capital punishment would interfere with their ability to fairly consider the death penalty. Peremptory strikes allow both prosecutors and defense counsel to freely strike a certain number of jurors. Historically, they have been used to exclude racial minorities from jury service. Prof. Bright addresses that history and analyzes whether the Supreme Courts decisions prohibiting such discrimination are sufficient to prevent it. Sia Sanneh of the Equal Justice Initiative of Alabama discusses findings by the Initiative ...
The recent Supreme Court decision on teenagers and abortion has raised a number of questions about the appropriateness of involving parents in the decision teenagers under 18 make about their lives.
Its been 60 years since Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, the landmark Supreme Court decision that declared school segregation unconstitutional. What is the impact of the Brown v. Board decision in the 21st Century? The Washburn University School of Law presents panelists who will discuss historic efforts to desegregate Kansas public schools, cultural factors that contribute to modern de facto school segregation, and Brown v. Boards impact on current issues such as marriage, voting rights, and employment discrimination. Feb. 27th at 8:30 a.m. at Washburn University, Bradley Thompson Alumni Center. Seating is limited and registration is required. Click here for details.. There are more events exploring the Civil Rights Movement and Kansas African-American heritage in February and throughout 2014. Visit KHCs Calendar of Events for more information.. Banner images: (L to R): The Abolitionists: ©WGBH Educational Foundation/Antony Platt; South Hoisington residents Fidel Torrez, ...
history and contemporary politics restricts, deplores, ostracizes, and red bait those who would take on rapacious capitalism directly, even though that is exactly what must be done way beyond overturning the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Supreme Court decision.. Karl Marx first depicted capitalism red in tooth and claw. Today many folks see those words as a compliment for capitalism and as praise for good capitalists. Red in tooth and claw is a term that applies to an evolutionary concept of Darwin and his gang. He and many other scientists believed for a long time that the most powerful force driving evolution was survival of the fittest and the fittest were the predators who were red in tooth and claw. This conception of what is fittest intertwining with sexism, racism, etc. has leaked into our standards for valuating appropriate or needed human behavior. With capitalism, mostly at the corporate level, and in some other areas of human endeavor we keep the predators around or ...
WHITECLAY, Neb. — Activists are calling for more reforms in a tiny Nebraska town even after a state Supreme Court decision closed the community’s beer stores that sold millions of cans of beer each year despite an alcohol ban on a nearby Native American reservation.
What could result from the US Supreme Courts decision to review the constitutionality of lethal injection as an execution method?
The most potentially significant capital case this Term was Bucklew v. Precythe,[12] involving an as-applied challenge to Missouris lethal injection protocol. Death-sentenced inmates have never won a challenge to execution methods in the U.S. Supreme Court. In the nineteenth century, the Court rejected a challenge to execution by firing squad in the Utah Territory.[13] Citing scholars of military law, the Court found the authorities . . . quite sufficient to show that the punishment of shooting as a mode of executing the death penalty did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment as proscribed by the Eighth Amendment.[14] A little over a decade later, the Court likewise rejected the claim that New Yorks adoption of the electric chair violated the Constitution, although the decision rested in part on its view that New York-as opposed to the Utah Territory-was not a federal entity and thus not clearly bound by the Eighth Amendment[15] (which the Court did not incorporate and apply against ...
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 88,736 STATE OF KANSAS, ex rel. CARLA J. STOVALL, Attorney General, and KANSAS BOARD OF PHARMACY, Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. ROY C. ALIVIO, BO PLATT, and MALE CLINIC, L.L.C., d/b/a MALE CLINIC, DAVID HAIRHOGER, d/b/a COMMUNITY DRUG OF PITTSBURGH, Defendants/Appellees, MILES JONES, M.D., Defendant/Appellant, and RICK WILLIAMS, M.D., Defendant/Appellee. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. The granting of relief from a default judgment rests in the sound discretion of the district court. 2. A motion to set aside a default judgment may be granted whenever the court finds (1) that the nondefaulting party will not be prejudiced by the reopening, (2) that the defaulting party has a meritorious defense, and (3) that the default was not the result of inexcusable neglect or a willful act. Appeal from Shawnee district court; TERRY L. BULLOCK, judge. Opinion filed January 24, 2003. Affirmed. Rachel Mackey, of Oyler & Pauzauskie, of Topeka, argued the cause, Stanley E. ...
On June 3, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to take on the question of whether states (and instruments of the state) are immune from copyright infringement liability under the doctrine of sovereign immunity.1. It is well established that under the Eleventh Amendment that neither states nor instrumentalities of the state may be sued in federal court unless the state or instrumentality waives its sovereign immunity or Congress enacts a law to override it. Congress attempted to do the latter when it passed the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act of 1990 (CRCA). However, nearly every court that has considered the issue since has concluded that the CRCA is unconstitutional.2. The courts have found Congress did not have the constitutional authority to enact the CRCA for two reasons. First, although it is possible to abrogate sovereign immunity through Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment, which authorizes Congress to protect property rights (including intellectual property rights) from state ...
The Supreme Court has refused to endorse a Court of Appeal (CoA) ruling on noise induced hearing loss, blocking the progression of what lawyers believe could have been thousands of hearing loss claims.. Full story. The Lawyer, 13th April 2011. Source: www.thelawyer.com. ...
Beginning in the 1930s, shortly after the Supreme Court had incorporated the First Amendment into the due process clause (thereby making it an enforceable constraint not only on the federal government [Congress shall make no law . . .] but on State and municipal governments as well) the Jehovahs Witnesses went on a campaign to attack, in court, restrictions on their ability to proselytize door-to-door and to give voice to unpopular views. During one particular 8 year period (1938 to 1946) they brought no fewer than 23 separate First Amendment actions to the Supreme Court (prompting Justice Stone to quip that they ought to have an endowment in view of the aid they give in solving the legal problems of civil liberties). They won some spectacularly important victories - West Virginia Board of Ed. v Barnette (1943) (children cannot be forced to recite the Pledge of Allegiance or salute the flag), Chaplinsky v New Hampshire (19420 (establishing the fighting words doctrine, and overturning ...
Portrait by Michael Waller-Bridge. Leading human rights lawyer, Jocelyn Cockburn, has been recognised for her role championing the rights of those in the armed forces and some of the most vulnerable in our society, in a unique photography exhibition at the Supreme Court.. Ms Cockburn, joint head of civil liberties at law firm Hodge Jones & Allen, is just one of twelve lawyers with a portrait in the exhibition of photography by Michael Waller-Bridge, commemorating the 800th anniversary of the sealing of Magna Carta.. As well as the photos, the exhibition, Magna Carta: Reflections, seeks to offer an insight into the enduring relevance of the Magna Carta in the working lives of those featured through an accompanying personal statement. Other leading lawyers photographed for the exhibition include Dominic Grieve QC, Lord Pannick QC and Baroness Scotland QC.. Ms Cockburn has a history of bringing landmark human rights cases against the state. She successfully fought to give British Troops protection ...
This article originally appeard on Cohen & Malad LLPs website here. The piece, written by IndyBar member Arend J. Abel, is being published below in its entirety.. By Arend J. Abel, Cohen & Malad LLP. Two and a half years ago, I wrote a blog article wondering whether a decision from the Court of Appeals signaled a change in Indianas summary judgment standard. Now we have the answer. In a unanimous decision in Hughley v. State, which Indianas Chief Justice Loretta Rush wrote, the Indiana Supreme Court reaffirmed the Indiana summary judgment standard.. The Indiana standard differs from the federal summary judgment standard in important ways. Under the Indiana standard, a party seeking summary judgment must negate an element of the other partys claim, or establish an affirmative defense, such as the statute of limitations, with undisputed evidence. Under the federal standard, by contrast, the moving party can simply assert that the other party has no admissible evidence to support the claims, ...
Judge Neil Gorsuch is smart, diligent, affable but fatally flawed as a candidate for the United States Supreme Court.. Gorsuch, a product of Colorado and veteran of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, has long been an articulate jurist and self-proclaimed proponent of helping the law speak for itself. Yet, he misunderstands the Constitutions driving force about religion, that to protect our freedom of, we must first protect our freedom from.. We do not doubt his command of the law and language to make his case. But its that very eloquence that betrays his insistence that nothing weighs on his judgment other than the practical nature of the law. On the bench, Gorsuch wrongly allows the courts to protect the religious freedom of one citizen by denying the same rights of another. The most egregious example came in 2013 Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius ruling.. Thats the landmark case trumped by conservatives that says, in certain cases, corporations can violate the rights and privileges ...
For the second time in a little more than a year, the California Supreme Court has punted on the single-biggest financial issue facing local governments: escalating pension costs. In a ruling Thursday, the court unanimously upheld a modest 2012 pension-reform law, but refused to remove the main impediment to substantive pension reform.. Californias overly generous public-employee pensions continue to consume larger shares of municipal budgets, as pension funds increase fees to make up for plummeting funding levels. The union-friendly Legislature has refused to address the problem, while lower courts have rebuked most local solutions based on something known as the California Rule.. That rule forbids governments from reducing pension formulas for current employees unless they offer workers something of equal value. Without the ability to trim back future benefit accruals for current employees, local governments have few options other than raising taxes and cutting services. At some point, that ...
In 2014, a federal bankruptcy judge ruled Walton and another attorney, James Robinson, egregiously violated rules and obstructed discovery in a case involving LaToya Steward.. Attorney Alan Pratzel, representing the states Chief Disciplinary Council before the Supreme Court, argued that Walton, Robinson and Robinsons firm - Critique Services - were dishonest and unscrupulous.. This entire case boiled down to these two attorneys doing whatever they had to do, to avoid disclosing to the bankruptcy court, and to Ms. Stewards counsel, whatever the relationship was between Critique services, this corrupt entity, that did nothing but prey on the vulnerable said Pratzel.. Steward had filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in the Federal Bankruptcy Court of Eastern Missouri in 2010.. In a document filed in 2013, she described many grievances in her dealings with Critique Services and Robinson, including how documentation verifying her participation in a mandatory class had been lost, as had her pay stubs. ...
This is a joint-statement signed by Nerita Waight, Chief Executive Officer of the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service (VALS) and Jeremy King, Principal Lawyer on behalf of Robinson Gill Lawyers, in response to this mornings Supreme Court Judgment of Her Honour Justice Richards.. Today, Her Honour found that in April 2015 Eathan Cruse was assaulted and battered by Victoria Police whilst in handcuffs. Justice Richards awarded him significant damages for the conduct of Victoria Police which she found was: a shocking departure from the standards set for police officers by Parliament and expected of them by the community.. Full statement in the below link ...
Decades of intervention by Kansas Supreme Court justices in the states public school system is harnessed to harsh reality that festering inequities in educational opportunity often divide wealthy and impoverished districts serving more than 450,000 children. Lawsuits reaching the states highest court in Kansas have exposed stark differences in strength or weakness of the property tax base in individual schools districts relative to the number of students served. This inequity of academic
ST. LOUIS (AP) - A Missouri inmate is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to spare his life because he says the execution drug could trigger severe pain and convulsions due to the remnants of a brain tumor and damage caused by surgery to remove it.. Ernest Lee Johnson is scheduled to die Tuesday for using a claw hammer to kill three Columbia convenience store workers in 1994.. A portion of Johnsons benign tumor was removed in 2008, but some of it remains. Johnsons attorney says the operation also required removal of about 20 percent of Johnsons brain tissue.. The lawyer says Johnson is prone to seizures.. The state attorney generals office says in court filings that Missouri has carried out rapid and painless executions since going to the one-drug method using pentobarbital in 2013.. ...
Last Wednesday, the State Supreme Court declined to review the 1st District Court of Appeals October 2015 ruling in Stevens v. WCAB (Outspoken Entertainment) which found that: 1) The California Workers Compensation Independent Medical Review (IMR) process is not unconstitutional because the state Legislature has plenary power over the workers compensation system; and 2) IMR does not violate an injured workers due process rights under the U.S. Constitution because the process for evaluating workers treatment requests is fundamentally fair and affords workers sufficient opportunities to present evidence and be heard.. Background: The Stevens case involved a 100 percent P.D. award with extensive future medical care for a 1997 lower extremity injury with a psych overlay and chronic pain. The treating physician in the case had prescribed pain medication and home health care for the worker (Frances Stevens), which was denied by a utilization review (UR) physician in July 2013. The injured ...
c. 2014 Religion News Service [1]. WASHINGTON (RNS) When two corporations - one owned by evangelicals and one owned by Mennonites - filed suit over the Affordable Care Act, they described their complaint in stark and fairly simple terms: The government is forcing them to either break the law or betray their faith.. But at the Supreme Court on Tuesday (March 25), nothing was so clear as the justices explored the murky territory where an employers religious rights collide with the interests of its employees or the government.. On the one side is the Hobby Lobby arts-and-crafts chain and Conestoga Wood Specialties cabinetry company, both owned by devout families. On the other is the federal government, which argues that the landmark 2010 health care law gives women a statutory right to choose among 20 methods of birth control.. The court, judging from the justices questions, is clearly divided on this potential earthquake of a religious rights case. It could be yet another instance where Justice ...
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (JTA) - On a recent weekday afternoon, if you had walked down the Palm Jumeirah Boardwalk, a promenade overlooking the Arabian Gulf that encircles this capital citys famous palm-shaped artificial island, you may have encountered a man repeating legal texts line by line to himself for hour after hour.. That man is Richard Bernstein, 46, a judge serving on the Michigan Supreme Court. He had been living in Dubai for more than two months and is now in Israel, where he flew last week. And the texts he was reciting - memorizing in some instances - were court filings from the weeks cases.. Bernstein, who has been visually impaired since birth due to a genetic disorder called retinitis pigmentosa, is blind. So he studies his cases by calling his clerks, having them read the filings to him sentence by sentence, then repeating the documents until hes familiar enough with them to form an opinion.. His walks, which were often as long as 20 miles, could take six hours, with ...
Byandnbsp;Stephen L. Byron,andnbsp;Aimee W. Lane, andandnbsp;Ellen R. Kirtner, Law Clerk. On Thursday, June 18, 2015, the United States Supreme Court announced its decision inandnbsp;Reed v. Town of Gilbert. Inandnbsp;Reed, the court held that a municipal ordinance in Gilbert, Arizona is in violation of the First Amendment. The ordinance allowed for varying restrictions on sign content based on the particular message on the sign. Although the ordinance did not directly regulate the messages on signs, the ordinance was held to be content-based because varying rules were imposed based on a signs message.. Good News Community Church challenged the Gilbert ordinance. The church had been cited twice under the ordinance for posting temporary signs which contained information about the time and location of the churchs services. The church posted more signs than were permitted under the ordinance, the signs were posted for a longer time than was permitted under the ordinance, and the signs failed to ...