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
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 ...
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.
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
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 ...
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 ...
The district court erred in concluding that because of arbitration and venue provisions in an employment contract between the parties, it lacked jurisdiction.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments about LDS, Catholic and other religious leaders react to DOMA, Prop 8 Supreme Court rulings
What is Next for the States? A few states have said they will not participate in this expanded Medicaid program and it is not clear how many of the 26 others (Michigan was one) that signed onto the lawsuit challenging the Medicaid expansion will join them. But what about states who reject participation in the expanded Medicaid coverage and/or state-run health care exchanges, but later decide to do so, or states that choose to participate and later decide to cease doing so? Will states be allowed to change their minds?. Health care providers in states that reject the Medicaid expansion will likely see a greater number of uninsured patients for which they may receive no compensation, thus forcing them to seek increased reimbursement from other payment sources. It is precisely this kind of cost shifting that the ACA was designed to eliminate, and it is not clear how this particular increased cost pressure will be mitigated. Health care providers will likely put political pressure on states to ...
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) is being challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court, after multiple lawsuits from 26 different states took on various provisions of it, with detractors arguing for the laws unconstitutionality during the oral arguments taking place this week. The nations highest court is examining the healthcare reform law, which was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama in March 2010. Of the four federal appellate court rulings preceding the Supreme Courts consideration of the law, two upheld the ACA in its entirety; one ruled the plaintiffs to be without legal standing to bring a case; and a fourth struck down the individual mandate for health insurance purchase as unconstitutional.. The Supreme Courts nine justices will reportedly make a final decision in June. If the courts majority rules the law unconstitutional, it would deal a policy and political setback to President Obama and Democrats in Congress, who have championed healthcare reform as a ...
The 5-4 ruling Wednesday that the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional extends benefits to couples in states where same-sex marriage is legal.
The 5-4 ruling Wednesday that the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional extends benefits to couples in states where same-sex marriage is legal.
We have hitherto considered the central sphere of [judges] concern to be facts necessary to the increase of the defendant s sentence beyond what the jury verdict alone justifies. If the jury s verdict alone does not authorize the sentence, if, instead, the judge must find an additional fact to impose the longer term, the Sixth Amendment requirement is not satisfied. If the doubling or tripling of a defendant s jail time through fact-dependent consecutive sentencing does not meet this description,nothing does." -Justice Scalia writing in dissent ...
Assuming that the Affordable Health Care Act survives, suspect that those of us in the shrinking middle class will pay more for what health care we are able to obtain. If anyone has a chronic condition and has used a health care savings account (HSA) with a conventional insurance, the amount you are able to set aside pretax decreases from $5,000 to $2,500. This is also a significant impact if you have dependents that have chronic conditions or have special needs. As of 2011, you are also no longer allowed to pay for over the counter, non-prescription medications with your pretax HSA. With the decrease in the savings from a HSA, there is also an increase from 7.5% of adjusted gross income (AGI) to 10% of AGI before your medical expenses are deductible to reduce your federal income tax bill. There are also many new taxes and fees on medical device manufactures, and other companies. Another important point is that the regulations to implement the 363,086 words are not written as of yet. As we all ...
Center for Progressive Reform Member Scholar and Professor of Law and Emory University School of Law William Buzbee will be testifying today at a House Committee on Small Business Administration Hearing entitled, "Will the EPAs Waters of the United States Rule Drown Small Businesses?". According to Buzbees testimony:. The purpose and logic of the new "waters" proposed regulations, in brief: These proposed regulations and a massive accompanying science report referenced and summarized in the Federal Register notice are an attempt to reduce uncertainties created by three Supreme Court decisions bearing on what sorts of waters can be federally protected under the Clean Water Act. The two most important recent cases are the Supreme Courts decisions in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 (2001) (SWANCC) and United States v. Rapanos, 547 U.S.715 (2006) (Rapanos). Judicial and regulatory treatments of these cases and the earlier related ...
President Donald Trump took a swing at Sen. Lindsey Graham on Thursday in the aftermath of two Supreme Court decisions involving his closely held financial records, lamenting that the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman and close Trump ally was not doing enough to target the presidents political foes. Trumps tweets came after a Supreme Court decision upheld a Manhattan grand jury subpoena seeking his tax returns and other financial documents as part of a criminal investigation into the practices of the Trump Organization. In response, Trump complained that former President Barack Obama was not receiving enough scrutiny over his administrations decision to open up a counterintelligence investigation into alleged ties between the Trump campaign and the Russian government in 2016. ...
DPN opposes the death penalty in all cases, unconditionally, regardless of the method chosen to kill the condemned prisoner. The death penalty is inherently cruel and degrading, an archaic punishment that is incompatible with human dignity. To end the death penalty is to abandon a destructive diversionary and divisive public policy that is not consistent with widely held values. The death penalty not only runs the risk of irrevocable error, it is also costly to the public purse as well as in social and psychological terms.The death penalty has not been proved to have a special deterrent effect. It tends to be applied in a discriminatory way on grounds of race and class. It denies the possibility of reconciliation and rehabilitation. It prolongs the suffering of the murder victims family and extends that suffering to the loved ones of the condemned prisoner. It diverts resources that could be better used to work against violent crime and assist those affected by it ...
An article from the Tuesday, May 14, 1996 issue of The Tech - MITs oldest and largest newspaper and the first newspaper published on the Internet.
Equities.com is an advanced financial information center and next-generation communication platform that connects self-directed investors with startup and small cap companies, market experts, and professional service providers and vendors.
I almost didnt respond to the reporter from the Boston Herald, because the paper has a reputation for molding facts to fit its ideology. But I decided to take
In 1985, John Thompson was convicted of murder in Louisiana. Having already been convicted in a separate armed robbery case, he opted not to testify on ...
Have you ever heard of the 1972 U.S. Supreme Court decision in a case called Baker v. Nelson? If so, you are probably a lawyer, or (like me) a person who regularly reads briefs and court decisions on the issue of redefining marriage to include homosexual couples. If you have never heard of this case, you can be forgiven -- even if you regularly read news stories about the movement for the same-sex redefinition of marriage. However, Baker v. Nelson is an important precedent on this issue. It was the very first case in which anyone ever asserted that the ...
Virginias plans to ask the Court to immediately review the constitutionality of the federal health-care overhaul legislation, as well as Justice Ginsburgs recent statements suggesting that such a request is unlikely to succeed, are bringing attention to an obscure Supreme Court procedure called "certiorari before judgment." For those wanting to handicap Virginias chances at skipping over the court of appeals, we thought it might be helpful to examine the rules governing such requests and the Courts past exercise of that power.. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2101(e), the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to accept a petition for certiorari at any time before judgment," once a case has been docketed in the court of appeals. Supreme Court Rule 11, however, warns that such petitions will be granted only upon a showing that the case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this Court.". The Court has been true to ...
Prime Minister Stephen Harpers latest choice for the Supreme Court of Canada has been quarantined from the rest of the bench while it hears a legal challenge to his appointment.. The Supreme Court has filed a letter with Canadas attorneys general stating that Marc Nadon is not permitted to have contact with the other eight justices on Canadas top court.. He cannot work on cases, and is not allowed to visit his new office or even the court house.. Nadon, a semi-retired Federal Court judge, was appointed by Harper last month to fill one of the three Quebec seats on the nine-member Supreme Court.. However a Toronto lawyer has taken the highly unusual step of mounting a legal challenge, arguing the Ottawa-based Nadon does not meet the bench and residency requirements for a Quebec representative on the high court.. The Quebec government has also contested the appointment, and the Harper government responded with its own reference to the court seeking guidance.. The Canadian Press reported last ...
On November 13, 2012, American Atheists National Legal Director Edwin Kagin submitted a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS). American Atheists is asking SCOTUS to review the Kentucky Homeland Security law. American Atheists won at the Circuit Court level a ruling that the law violated the First Amendment, but the decision was reversed by the Kentucky state Court of Appeals. The Kentucky state Supreme Court declined to review the Court of Appeals decision. Filing the petition does not guarantee SCOTUS will hear the case; only one in 1,000 cases are heard. Four of the nine justices must vote to hear the case.. On August 17, 2012, the Kentucky Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge, brought by American Atheists and local plaintiffs, to a state law that makes it mandatory that the Commonwealth and its citizens give credit to Almighty God for its safety and security. The law states, "The safety and security of the Commonwealth cannot be achieved apart from ...
The Virginia Supreme Court has ruled that a major legal challenge by three plaintiffs to the Citys approved Waterfront Small Area Plan is moot. The challenge stems from an attempt by the group to appeal the Waterfront Text Amendment to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)-an attempt that was rejected by Planning and Zoning Director Faroll Hamer. The plaintiffs appealed to the Alexandria Circuit Court. The Circuit Court dismissed the case on the Citys motion, and the group then appealed the matter to the Virginia Supreme Court. On March 5, 2013, the Alexandria City Council voted again on the Waterfront Text Amendment, doing so with a supermajority (6-1). The Supreme Court found that the plaintiffs had already received all the relief that could be granted when the Council passed the Text Amendment by a supermajority.. The group has made a similar challenge to the Councils second vote on the Waterfront Text Amendment. That case was recently heard by the Alexandria Circuit Court and dismissed on the ...
The right to contract is fundamental, and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) applauds the strong defense of that right by Florida Supreme Court Justice Charles Canady. He is on the list of candidates being considered by President-elect Donald Trump for nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court.. Justice Canady properly dissented from a decision by the Florida Supreme Court on December 22, which invalidated a contractual agreement for dispute resolution that had been entered into by an adult patient with a medical group. See Hernandez v. Crespo, No. SC15-67. While the court majority paid lip service in respect of the right to enter into private contracts, the court then invalidated the contract as void and unenforceable based on issues like the parties agreeing to share arbitration costs equally.. The court majority declared it to be somehow against public policy for a physician and a patient to agree to bear equally the costs of arbitration for dispute resolution. Instead, the ...
Chief Justice John Roberts today denied an attempt to block, or "stay," a contentious air pollution rule for power plants.. Robertss order represents a big win for the Obama administrations climate agenda. Last year the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the EPAs Mercury and Air Toxics Standards is illegal, sending it back to the DC Circuit Court and instructing the agency to consider the costs the regulation would impose on utilities.. Roberts decision also follows the Supreme Courts 5-4 ruling last month to grant a highly unusual emergency stay of the Clean Power Plan, which limits carbon emissions from power plants.. Last week a group of 20 attorney generals let by Michigan asked the Supreme Court to stay the mercury pollution rules. The Environmental Defense Fund and other environmental groups, along with 15 states and health advocacy organizations such as the American Lung Association, opposed the stay application.. The DC Circuit Court unanimously rejected requests for a stay in December. ...
SAN ANGELO, Texas - The Salt Lake Tribune - "The Texas Supreme Court has asked attorneys representing nearly three dozen mothers from a polygamous sect to answer the states bid to overturn an order returning their children. The supreme court was already considering the narrow issue of whether to stay the ruling, which was issued a week ago by the Third Court of Appeals. It found a trial judge improperly kept some 450 FLDS children in state custody.. Now, the supreme court is giving attorneys for Texas RioGrande Legal Aid (TRLA) a deadline of Thursday at 9 a.m. to respond to the states broad appeal of that ruling." ...
By prophylactic vaccination of adults and especially children against measles, the pharmaceutical industry has earned Billions over a 40-year period. The judges at the German Federal Supreme Court (BGH) confirmed in a recent ruling that measles virus do not exist though. Furthermore: There is not a single scientific study in the world which could prove the existence of such virus so far. This raises the question of what was actually injected into millions of German citizens over the past decades. According to the judgement by the Supreme Court, it may not have been a vaccine against measles.. The Federal Supreme Court (BGH) has ruled in the measles virus trial. The First Civil Senate of the BGH has confirmed the judgement by the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart (OLG) of the 16 February 2016. The sum of €100,000 which Stefan Lanka, PhD microbiologist had offered as a reward for scientific proof of the existence of the alleged measles virus does not have to be paid to the plaintiff. The ...
Report of the Supreme Court of Ohio, Joint Task Force on Judicial Liability & Immunity to the Supreme Court of Ohio and Ohio Judicial Conference ...
FILE - In this Aug. 19, 2016, file photo U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, is introduced during the keynote address for the State Bar of New Mexicos Annual Meeting in Pojoaque. The Supreme Court announced Aug. 23, 2019, that Ginsburg has been treated for a malignant tumor. (AP Photo/Craig Fritz, File). WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court says Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has completed radiation therapy for a tumor on her pancreas and there is no evidence of the disease remaining ...
Finden Sie alle Bücher von United States. Supreme Court - Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Supreme Court of the United States, Volume 4; Volume 8. Bei der Büchersuchmaschine eurobuch.com können Sie antiquarische und Neubücher VERGLEICHEN UND SOFORT zum Bestpreis bestellen. 9781142125127
Indian Supreme Court - By the Numbers - Free download as PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or read online for free. Working Paper on the Supreme Court dockets.
In the 2003 Grutter v. Bollinger Supreme Court case, Justice Sandra Day OConnor stated that while institutions of higher education have a compelling interest in promoting diversity, affirmative action should ideally be unnecessary within 25 years. During that time, it adopted a socioeconomic-based affirmative action program and implemented the 10 percent rule, which did improve the universitys racial and ethnic diversity. [...] we should not forget what Justice Harry Blackmun wrote in the seminal 1978 Bakke case concerning affirmative action in higher education: In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. The Supreme Court should not remove overnight the tools that universities use to create the diverse campuses that not only benefit their students, but aim to improve the nation as a whole.
On 30 June 1980, in a five to four decision, the US Supreme Court ruled in the Case Harris v. McRae that the Hyde Amendment of 1976 did not violate the US Constitution. The Hyde Amendment banned the use of federal funding to pay for any abortion services. The US Supreme Courts decision in Harris v. McRae overturned the decision of McRae v. Califano (1980), in which the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York had ruled that the funding restrictions established by the Hyde Amendment violated the US Constitution. After the US Supreme Courts ruling in Harris v.. Format: Articles Subject: Legal ...
On 30 June 1980, in a five to four decision, the US Supreme Court ruled in the Case Harris v. McRae that the Hyde Amendment of 1976 did not violate the US Constitution. The Hyde Amendment banned the use of federal funding to pay for any abortion services. The US Supreme Courts decision in Harris v. McRae overturned the decision of McRae v. Califano (1980), in which the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York had ruled that the funding restrictions established by the Hyde Amendment violated the US Constitution. After the US Supreme Courts ruling in Harris v.. Format: Articles Subject: Legal ...
2) Does the Superior Courts holding that a plaintiff need not produce evidence that a defendants asbestos-containing product produced dust conflict with the Supreme Courts holding inGregg v. V-J Auto Parts, 596 Pa. 274, 943 A. 2d 216 (2007)?. Our brief argues that this case exemplifies the intermediate Pennsylvania appellate courts obdurate resistance to the Supreme Courts tightening of the standards of proof in asbestos product liability cases, such asGreggandBetz. InGregg, the Supreme Court held that, at the summary judgment stage, courts should make a reasoned assessment concerning whether, in light of the evidence concerning the regularity, frequency and proximity of plaintiffs/decedents asserted exposure, a jury would be entitled to make the necessary inference of a sufficient causal connection between the defendants product and the asserted injury. The Superior Court seems to have ignored entirely the recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision inBetz v. Pneumo Abex, decided ...
A Supreme Court decision today confirmed the Environmental Protection Agencys vital role in protecting against dangerous carbon pollution. David Doniger, policy director of the Climate Center at the Natural Resources Defense Council, made the following statement: Todays ruling reaffirms the Environmental Protection Agencys duty under the nations 40-year-old Clean Air Act to safeguard public health and welfare from dangerous carbon pollution. Now the EPA must act without delay.
This weeks Supreme Court decisions have been the main topics streaming into my Facebook and Twitter feeds (along with a few heartfelt thoughts for Nelson Mandela). Escaping a thumbs up or down on the ruling of DOMA is impossible; the Voting Rights Act, while a little less prevalent, is also there ...
Columbias Wendy Chung, the original plaintiff in the case against Myriad Genetics, says the Supreme Court decision banning gene patents will open a new era of genomic medicine.
Comments? ACOG Statement on the US Supreme Court Decision Upholding the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 Washington, DC -- Despite the...
G.R. No. 75723 June 2, 1995 - SIMEON FLORO v. ORLANDO A. LLENADO : CHAN ROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY : PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS - ON-LINE
G.R. No. 140618 December 10, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERNARDO SARA : CHAN ROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY : PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS - ON-LINE
In 1927, the Supreme Court handed down a ruling so disturbing, ignorant, and cruel that it stands as one of the great injustices in American history. In Imbeciles, bestselling author Adam Cohen exposes the courts decision to allow the sterilization of a young woman it wrongly thought to be -feebleminded- and to champion the mass eugenic sterilization of undesirable citizens for the greater good of the country. The 8-1 ruling was signed by some of the most revered figures in American law--including Chief Justice William Howard Taft, a former U.S. president; and Louis Brandeis, a progressive icon. Oliver Wendell Holmes, considered by many the greatest Supreme Court justice in history, wrote the majority opinion, including the courts famous declaration -Three generations of imbeciles are enough ...
Because the Supreme Court refused to consider the case, the appeals court ruling stands and the law remains in effect. This could limit the conscience rights of pharmacists throughout the state of Washington (49 other states already allow pharmacists to refer patients to other stores when they dont keep a drug in stock).". What just happened?. The Supreme Court refused to hear a case, Stormans v. Wiesman, that challenges a Washington law requiring pharmacists to dispense abortifacient drugs even when doing so would violate their religious beliefs.. What was the case about?. According to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, in 2007 the Washington State Board of Pharmacy passed new regulations-drafted by Planned Parenthood-making it illegal to refer patients to neighboring pharmacies for reasons of conscience, despite allowing them to refer patients elsewhere for a wide variety of business, economic, or convenience reasons.. Two individual pharmacists and the owners of a family owned pharmacy ...
Politicians in California keep trying to push through a ban on the sale of violent video games to minors -- despite the fact that every state thats passed a ban has seen it get tossed out by the courts. The latest setback for California came in February, when an appeals court upheld a lower courts ruling that the ban was unconstitutional, but the states not finished. Its attorney general, Jerry Brown, now says hes asked the Supreme Court to hear another appeal of the original ruling. Its fairly annoying that Brown sees fit to waste even more taxpayer money (especially given the states budget woes), but perhaps the only saving grace is that the Supreme Court might take the case and reaffirm what other courts have said all along, and finally put a stop to some of this political grandstanding ...
President Clinton,. All the Supreme Court members were either nominated by Council on Foreign Relations Presidents, or by Presidents whose decisions were influenced by 100 or more Council members working together as The Special Group and The Secret Team. Supreme court decisions favor the particular climate of opinion Council on Foreign Relations members are seeking to achieve in the world. President Clinton, The Supreme Court should be renamed The SupReam Court. It is not acting in the best interest of the American people. The Roe Vs. Wade decision is part of a Council on Foreign Relations psycho-political operation. The abortion psyop retards the equal rights movement. Feminism is concerned with the principle that woman should have political, economic, and social rights equal to those of men. Denying woman equal rights to enter the profession of their choice and receive equal pay and recognition for their accomplishments cheats society of half its thinking power. This hurts all the members ...
Understandably a great deal of the commentary on Robinson will focus on its implications for the Hill immunity principle. The polices persistent failure to protect women from violent offenders is striking - 30 years on from Peter Sutcliffes arrest and trial, the furore over John Worboys Parole Board decision has reminded us all of the Metropolitan Polices serious investigative failures. Whatever the outcome of the judicial review of that decision, the understandable and profound distress of his victims is a stark and harrowing reminder of the consequences that police failures can have on those that they are meant to be protect. The Supreme Courts decision in DSD & NBV is eagerly anticipated.. Focusing on Hill, however, is, in our view, a mistake. The judgment of the Supreme Court repeatedly cites and affirms Lord Toulsons judgment in Michael - the last attempt to challenge and overturn Hill. The Supreme Court is very careful to make clear that it has no intention of undermining Hill and ...
Removing those who drive from the road if they are under the influence of drugs or alcohol just got more complicated for law enforcement officers. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled June 23 that obtaining biologic specimens using a breathalyzer is allowed, but obtaining blood specimens will require a warrant.. In Birchfield v. North Dakota, the court stated: "The Fourth Amendment permits warrantless breath tests incident to arrests for drunk driving but not warrantless blood tests. Taking a blood sample or administering a breath test is a search governed by the Fourth Amendment.". The ruling further discussed the differences between the two tests: "Breath tests do not implicate significant privacy concerns" and "the physical intrusion is almost negligible.". However, blood tests are a different story: "They require piercing the skin and extract a part of the subjects body … thus are significantly more intrusive than blowing into a tube. A blood test also gives law enforcement a sample that can ...
On Wednesday, Oct. 10, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on whether universities may favor racial minorities in admissions.Corporations do not want the Supreme Court to condemn preferences in broad terms
1. Canada: Supreme Court ends the governments monopoly on the growing of cannabis for medicinal purposes. Canadians who are legally permitted to use cannabis for medicinal purposes will be allowed in the future to choose cannabis from other suppliers than the government after the Supreme Court on 23 April refused to hear an appeal of a ruling that put an end to the federal government monopoly. A three-judge panel, without giving reasons, rejected the Justice Departments application to challenge a Federal Court of Appeal decision that gave licensed producers the right to grow cannabis for more than one patient.. The Supreme Courts decision to stay out of the matter effectively upholds the 2008 ruling, which dismissed the governments argument that the industry would be thrust into deregulation if the court loosened federal restrictions. A group of patients had challenged the federal regulations, arguing that the government- issued cannabis is too weak and that they should have the option to ...
SAN RAMON, Calif., July 31, 2020 /3BL Media/ - Argentinas highest court unanimously rejected the plaintiffs final bid to enforce a fraudulent $9.5 billion Ecuadorian judgment against Chevron Corporation. This is the latest in a string of legal victories in Chevrons global defense against the Ecuadorian judgment-found by U.S. courts to be the product of fraud, bribery, and corruption, and held unenforceable as a matter of international law by an international arbitral tribunal in The Hague. On July 30, in a unanimous 5-0 decision, the Supreme Court of Argentina dismissed the plaintiffs appeal from the decision by the Court of Appeals in Buenos Aires of July 3, 2018, which affirmed the trial courts opinion and dismissed the Ecuadorian plaintiffs action for lack of jurisdiction. Argentinas courts have now uniformly and definitively rejected the plaintiffs attempt to recognize and enforce the Ecuadorian judgment in that nation.. With the decision of the Supreme Court of Argentina, the last ...
By prophylactic vaccination of adults and especially children against measles, the pharmaceutical industry has earned Billions over a 40-year period. The judges at the German Federal Supreme Court (BGH) confirmed in a recent ruling that measles virus do not exist though. Furthermore: There is not a single scientific study in the world which could prove… via…
Lawrence Tribe is an American constitutional scholar and the Carl M. Loeb University Professor at the Harvard Law School. A longstanding proponent of liberal jurisprudence, in 2001 Tribe helped found the |a href=http://www.acslaw.org/|American Constitution Society|/a| a supposed liberal counterweight to the conservative |a href=http://www.fed-soc.org/|Federalist Society|/a| and was long considered a possible Supreme Court nominee by a Democratic administration. Tribe received his A.B. in math from Harvard in 1962, and graduated from Harvard Law School in 1966. He clerked for Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart from 1967-1968 and became an Assistant Professor of Law at Harvard in 1968, where has taught ever since. A fierce critic of many recent Supreme Court decisions, Tribe has argued over thirty cases before the Court, including the infamous Bush v. Gore in 2000, and is the author of |a href=http://www.amazon.com/Abortion-Absolutes-Laurence-H-Tribe/dp/0393309568/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-5593144
The Oregonian, July 2, 2012. Is the Supreme Court decision upholding the Affordable Care Act good news or bad? It depends on who you are.. If you are President Obama, the news is good. The highest court in the land just validated the showpiece legislation of your first years in office. Election prospects just go brighter.. If you are Gov. John Kitzhaber or one of the 600,000 Oregonians in the Oregon Health Plan, the news is also good. This decision preserves critically important support from the ACA to the health care transformation process, a dramatic method of health care delivery with potential to provide better care at lower cost for 15 percent of Oregons population.. And if you are a health insurance executive, the news is spectacular. The Supreme Court just confirmed a law requiring every American to purchase your product regardless of price, or face a penalty. Protests on the Supreme Court steps were drowned out by the clinking of whiskey glasses in health insurance boardrooms around the ...
Today the Supreme Court ruled in favor of gay marriage, and those basic rights belong to everyone, as the arc of history bends towards justice. Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority:. "No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilizations oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.". My own marriage has brought me more comfort and satisfaction than any other thing ...
Same-sex marriages now are being recognized under federal tax law for the first time. In June 2013, the Supreme Court released its decision in United States v. Windsor, 530 U.S. 12...
The trial for Kalamazoo shooting spree suspect Jason Dalton will be delayed as he asks the Michigan Supreme Court to keep a jury from hearing some of his statements to police after his arrest.
AMY GOODMAN: On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal of the well-known Georgia death row prisoner Troy Anthony Davis, likely setting the stage for Georgia to schedule his execution. Troy Davis was convicted in 1989 of killing an off-duty white police officer, Mark MacPhail. Since then, seven of the nine non-police witnesses who fingered Davis have recanted their testimony. Theres no physical evidence that ties Davis to the crime scene.. His case has garnered widespread national and international support from figures like Pope Benedict, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, all calling for clemency in his case. John Lewis, the congressman from Georgia, has also weighed in. With his legal appeals exhausted, the fate of Troy Davis rests largely in the hands of Georgias Board of Pardons and Parole, which could commute his death sentence and spare his life.. Earlier this month, federal regulators seized Georgias entire stockpile of sodium thiopental, a ...
Image from visualaids.blogspot.comLast Friday, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a HIV+ person cannot be prosecuted under criminal laws for choosing ...
2003-In Summerlin v. Stewart, the Ninth Circuit addresses whether the Supreme Courts decision in Ring v. Arizona, which held that aggravating factors under Arizonas death-penalty law need to be proved to a jury rather than to a judge, applies retroactively to cases already final on direct review. The limited en banc panel of eleven judges (a creature unique to the Ninth Circuit), consisting in this case of ten Carter/Clinton appointees and one Reagan appointee, divides 8 to 3 in favor of a ruling that Ring applies retroactively. In her dissent, Judge Rawlinson observes that the majority "wanders afield"-and contradicts a very recent Supreme Court precedent as well as rulings from other circuits-in holding that Ring announced a substantive rule. She also disputes the majoritys alternative holding that Ring announced a watershed rule of criminal procedure.. On review, the Supreme Court (in Schriro v. Summerlin) reverses the Ninth Circuit. Not a single justice expresses agreement with the Ninth ...
By Cheryl Sullenger. Washington, D.C. - Operation Rescues research and data related to abortion abuses has been heavily cited in at least two amici curiae briefs that were filed with the U.S. Supreme Court on February 3, 2016, in a case that will consider the Constitutionality of a Texas abortion safety law known as HB2.. An amici curiae brief has been filed on behalf of Operation Rescue by the Liberty Counsel in Whole Womens Health v. Hellerstedt, Case 15-274. The brief emphasizes that the Supreme Court should protect women, not abortion. "We are gratified that at least two amicus briefs have drawn upon our data in support of their arguments that abortion poses serious risks to women and that the Abortion Cartel has whitewashed those dangers," said Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue. "The Texas law at issue is a correct and measured response to many of the abuses our own investigations have uncovered. We are thankful to the Liberty Counsel for preparing a brief on our behalf and to ...
Over the last few years, the Supreme Court has taken a renewed interest in patent law. After years of ignoring the issue, and leaving it in the hands of the appeals court for the federal circuit (CAFC -- which was established, in part, to hear all patent appeals), the Supreme Court has taken to regularly smacking down the CAFC, and telling it that it doesnt understand basic patent law. Its now happened again. The court has reversed yet another CAFC decision, this time concerning who has the burden of proving infringement. This was as case involved Medtronic filing for a declaratory judgment that it did not infringe on someone elses patent (Medtronic, it should be noted, has a history of being quite a patent bully itself at times). A district court had noted that the patent holder, in this case the Mirowski Family Ventures, has the burden of proof on showing infringement. CAFC said that since Medtronic brought the declaratory judgment suit that it was actually Medtronics burden to prove that ...
In Varney v. Indus. Comm., 2014-Ohio-5510, the Supreme Court addressed the standard for determining loss of use of a finger under R.C. 4123.57. Below, the court of appeals found the Commission abused its discretion in denying the claimant a loss of use award because there was evidence the claimant lost the use of two-thirds of his finger. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals because the statute does not provide for loss of the finger based on a numerical measure of the loss of use. Under the statute, awards for loss of use can be made based on the loss of specific phalanges of the finger. The Court held that in the absence of a statutory numerical measure for the loss of a finger, the proper standard for measuring loss is a physicians opinion on impairment or extent of loss. Click here to review the Courts full opinion.. ...
Metropolitan News-Enterprise. Friday, October 4, 2013. Page 1. State Supreme Court Takes Strict View of One Judgment Rule. Court Says Order Is Not Appealable Where Unresolved Claims Dismissed to Be Litigated Later. By KENNETH OFGANG, Staff Writer. Parties to a suit in which only some of the causes of action have been adjudicated may not create appellate jurisdiction by agreeing that the remaining claims will be dismissed without prejudice and with a waiver of the statute of limitations, the state Supreme Court unanimously ruled yesterday.. Overturning a contrary ruling by Div. Five of this district s Court of Appeal, the justices ordered dismissal of an ophthalmologist s appeal from a judgment entered in favor of his former partner. The high court said the judgment was not appealable, under Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 904.1 s one final judgment rule, because there was no final adjudication of claims by each party that he was defamed by the other. The plaintiff, Dr. Badrudin Kurwa of Arcadia, ...
As for the States appellate courts -- the middle-tier Appellate Division, which has several panels of justices distributed around the state, and the Court of Appeals at the highest level, New Yorks equivalent to Wisconsins Supreme Court -- all justices are appointed by the Governor from the ranks of elected Supreme Court judges. If you are appointed to the Appellate Division, you must run for your seat again when the 14-year term runs out (though, if re-elected, you will return to the Appellate Division without having to be re-appointed by the Governor.) If you are appointed to the Court of Appeals, the seat belongs to you until you resign or reach the mandatory retirement age. Thus, unlike Wisconsins warlike judiciary, judges in New York are insulated as completely as possible from political concerns that might affect their legal decision making. It seems to work. The result may or may not be collegiality or good law, but we certainly are more successful than Wisconsin at depoliticizing the ...
As for the States appellate courts -- the middle-tier Appellate Division, which has several panels of justices distributed around the state, and the Court of Appeals at the highest level, New Yorks equivalent to Wisconsins Supreme Court -- all justices are appointed by the Governor from the ranks of elected Supreme Court judges. If you are appointed to the Appellate Division, you must run for your seat again when the 14-year term runs out (though, if re-elected, you will return to the Appellate Division without having to be re-appointed by the Governor.) If you are appointed to the Court of Appeals, the seat belongs to you until you resign or reach the mandatory retirement age. Thus, unlike Wisconsins warlike judiciary, judges in New York are insulated as completely as possible from political concerns that might affect their legal decision making. It seems to work. The result may or may not be collegiality or good law, but we certainly are more successful than Wisconsin at depoliticizing the ...