|
|
|
UK court brings Brexit plans screeching to halt
Court Watch |
2016/11/04 15:51
|
Britain's High Court brought government plans for leaving the European Union screeching to a halt Thursday, ruling that the prime minister can't trigger the U.K.'s exit from the bloc without parliamentary approval.
The government said it would go to the Supreme Court to challenge the ruling, which if upheld could prevent it starting exit talks by March 31 as planned.
The pound, which has lost about a fifth of its value since the June 23 decision to leave the EU, shot back up on the verdict, rising 1.1 percent to $1.2430.
Britons voted by a margin of 52 to 48 percent to exit the EU, a process known as "Brexit." Prime Minister Theresa May has said she will invoke Article 50 of the EU treaty, launching two years of exit negotiations, by the end of March.
Several claimants, including a hairdresser and a financial entrepreneur, challenged May's right to trigger Brexit, in a case with major constitutional implications that hinges on the balance of power between Parliament and the government. They argued that leaving the EU will remove rights, including free movement within the bloc, and that can't be done without Parliament's approval.
Three senior judges agreed, ruling that "the government does not have the power under the Crown's prerogative to give notice pursuant to Article 50 for the U.K. to withdraw from the European Union."
The judges backed the claimants' argument that "the Crown could not change domestic law and nullify rights under the law unless Parliament had conferred upon the Crown authority to do so."
The British government immediately said it would appeal the judgment. It said in a statement that Britons voted to leave the bloc in a referendum approved by an Act of Parliament, "and the government is determined to respect the result of the referendum."
The Supreme Court has set aside time to hear the appeal before the end of the year. The case is considered the most important constitutional matter in a generation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court stays execution of Alabama inmate
Breaking Legal News |
2016/11/04 15:51
|
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday night stayed the execution of an Alabama man convicted of the 1982 shooting death of a woman's husband in a murder-for-hire arrangement.
Five justices voted to stay the execution of Tommy Arthur as the high court considers whether to take up his challenge to Alabama's death penalty procedure. Arthur, 74, was scheduled to be executed Thursday by lethal injection at a south Alabama prison.
"We are greatly relieved by the Supreme Court's decision granting a stay and now hope for the opportunity to present the merits of Mr. Arthur's claims to the Court," Arthur's attorney Suhana Han said in a statement.
This is the seventh time that Arthur, who has waged a lengthy legal battle over his conviction and the constitutionality of the death penalty, has received a reprieve from an execution date, a track record that has frustrated the state attorney general's office and victims' advocacy groups.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote Thursday that he did not think the case merited a stay, but voted to grant it as a courtesy to the four justices who wanted to "more fully consider the suitability of this case for review." The execution stay will expire if the court does not take up Arthur's case.
The attorney general's office had unsuccessfully urged the court to let the execution go forward and expressed disappointment at the decision.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court won't hear challenge to FBI fitness test
Court Watch |
2016/11/03 15:51
|
The Supreme Court won't hear a dispute over whether a physical fitness test for FBI special agents is biased against men.
The justices on Monday turned down an appeal from an Illinois man who failed the test after completing 29 out of 30 untimed pushups.
Jay Bauer said it's unfair that female trainees have to do only 14 pushups as part of the fitness test that includes situps, a 300-meter sprint and 1.5-mile run.
A federal judge ruled that the test discriminates on the basis of sex. But a federal appeals court sided with the FBI, saying it used "gender-normed" standards that require the same level of fitness for all trainees.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kansas high court justices defend handling of capital cases
Court Watch |
2016/11/02 15:52
|
Four Kansas Supreme Court justices facing a campaign to oust them in the Nov. 8 election say the court has decided capital murder cases on legal and constitutional issues while avoiding politics and emotion.
Past high court rulings overturning death sentences are at the center of the effort to remove Chief Justice Lawton Nuss and Justices Carol Beier, Dan Biles and Marla Luckert. They face statewide yes-or-no votes on whether they stay on the court for another six years.
The court's critics are particularly upset about July 2014 rulings overturning death sentences for Jonathan and Reginald Carr. The two brothers had faced lethal injection for shooting four people in December 2000 after forcing them to perform sex acts and robbing them. Among other things, the court concluded that fairness required the brothers to be sentenced separately.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Solar Advocates Ask Florida High Court to Invalidate Measure
Court Watch |
2016/11/02 15:51
|
Solar advocates are asking Florida's high court to invalidate Amendment 1, a ballot measure they argue is misleading, and throw out votes cast for it.
The legal challenge was filed Wednesday with the Florida Supreme Court.
It comes after a leading proponent of Amendment 1 was recorded saying that the measure was written to appear pro-solar, even though it could end up restricting solar growth in Florida by raising costs.
Solar advocates are asking the court to revisit a previous ruling which found that Amendment 1's language was not misleading.
Sarah Bascom, spokeswoman for a utility-funded group that supports the amendment, called the legal challenge "political grandstanding" and said the amendment will protect consumers.
Amendment 1 seeks to change the state constitution to say consumers shouldn't "subsidize" solar growth. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court gives new chance to 5 Arizona inmates
Court Watch |
2016/11/01 15:52
|
The Supreme Court is ordering Arizona judges to reconsider life sentences with no chance of parole for five inmates who were convicted of murder for crimes they committed before they turned 18.
The court on Monday said the state judges did not pay sufficient attention to high court rulings that held that life sentences for young killers should be imposed only rarely.
The state courts ruled in all five Arizona cases before the Supreme Court's most recent ruling on juvenile sentences in January.
Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented from Monday's order. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Israel court says lawmaker Hazan did drugs as casino manager
Business |
2016/11/01 15:52
|
An Israeli court has ruled that a lawmaker from the ruling Likud party had used hard drugs when he ran a casino in Bulgaria, before entering politics.
Tuesday's ruling marks another blow to the already dubious reputation of Oren Hazan, who was elected last year and within months faced accusations of physically assaulting a public official, sexually harassing women and soliciting prostitutes.
Hazan sued Amit Segal, reporter for Israel's Channel 2 TV, for defamation over an investigative piece that included testimony on Hazan having allegedly consumed crystal meth while managing the Bulgarian casino.
In the ruling, the court found the reporter had acted in good faith and reported his story honestly. Nevertheless, it awarded Hazan $10,000 in damages for another, unsubstantiated Channel 2 report that Hazan had also sold drugs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Class action or a representative action is a form of lawsuit in which a large group of people collectively bring a claim to court and/or in which a class of defendants is being sued. This form of collective lawsuit originated in the United States and is still predominantly a U.S. phenomenon, at least the U.S. variant of it. In the United States federal courts, class actions are governed by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule. Since 1938, many states have adopted rules similar to the FRCP. However, some states like California have civil procedure systems which deviate significantly from the federal rules; the California Codes provide for four separate types of class actions. As a result, there are two separate treatises devoted solely to the complex topic of California class actions. Some states, such as Virginia, do not provide for any class actions, while others, such as New York, limit the types of claims that may be brought as class actions. They can construct your law firm a brand new website, lawyer website templates and help you redesign your existing law firm site to secure your place in the internet. |
Law Firm Directory
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
