|
|
|
Supreme Court OKs early release plan for Calif. inmates
Breaking Legal News |
2013/08/05 23:57
|
Despite warnings from California officials, the nation's highest court is refusing to delay the early release of nearly 10,000 California inmates by year's end to ease overcrowding at 33 adult prisons.
In its decision Friday, the Supreme Court dismissed an emergency request by the Gov. Jerry Brown to halt a lower court's directive for the early release.
Law enforcement officials expressed concern about the ruling.
The justices ignored efforts already under way to reduce prison populations and "chose instead to allow for the release of more felons into already overburdened communities," said Covina Police Chief Kim Raney, president of the California Police Chiefs Association.
Brown's office referred a request for comment to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, where Secretary Jeff Beard vowed that the state would press on with a still-pending appeal in hope of preventing the releases.
A panel of three federal judges had previously ordered the state to cut its prison population by nearly 8 percent to roughly 110,000 inmates by Dec. 31 to avoid conditions amounting to cruel and unusual punishment. That panel, responding to decades of lawsuits filed by inmates, repeatedly ordered early releases after finding inmates were needlessly dying and suffering because of inadequate medical and mental health care caused by overcrowding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Judge denies class action for Wal-Mart bias suit
Class Action |
2013/08/03 00:00
|
A judge rejected on Friday an attempt to file a class action discrimination lawsuit on behalf of 150,000 Wal-Mart women employees in California who claimed their male colleagues were paid more and promoted faster than them.
The lawsuit filed in San Francisco federal court was a scaled-down version of an initial complaint filed in 2001 that sought to represent 1.6 million women nationwide. But the U.S. Supreme Court tossed out that class action lawsuit in 2011, ruling it found no convincing proof of companywide discrimination on pay and promotion policy. The court also said there were too many women in too many jobs at Wal-Mart to wrap into one lawsuit.
After that setback, the women's lawyers filed smaller class action lawsuits, alleging discrimination occurred in different states and Wal-Mart "regions."
On Friday, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled the smaller suit on behalf of California women employees was still too disparate and wide ranging to qualify as a class action lawsuit. He also found that the lawyers failed to show statistical and anecdotal evidence of gender bias.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court: No workers' comp in drunk dockworker case
Business |
2013/08/02 00:01
|
A federal appeals court says an Oregon longshoreman who got drunk on the job, urinated while standing on a dock and then fell 6 feet onto concrete should not get workers' compensation benefits for his injuries.
Gary Schwirse drank at least nine beers and half-pint of whiskey on Jan. 8, 2006. While standing on a dock, he urinated and fell over a railing. At the hospital, he registered a blood-alcohol level of 0.25 percent.
Schwirse sued for workers' compensation benefits and at first was victorious, when an administrative law judge ruled that workplace hazards had been a factor in his fall. But the judge later reversed his ruling when Schwirse backed off a claim that he tripped over an orange cone.
The worker appealed it to U.S. District Court, where he lost, and the case landed in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which denied a petition for a review of claims this week. The court said his injuries were due solely to intoxication and his employers could not be held responsible.
Schwirse later tried to argue that the very concrete onto which he fell, and not his intoxication, was responsible for his injuries. That argument also lost.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals judge N. Randy Smith wrote in the opinion that if intoxication was the reason for the fall, then intoxication was also the reason for the injury.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court orders Calif. to set standard for chemical
Court Watch |
2013/08/01 00:01
|
A California court has ordered the state's Department of Public Health to establish a safe drinking water standard for the cancer-causing chemical made famous in the film "Erin Brockovich."
An Alameda County Superior Court judge directed the agency to propose a drinking water standard for hexavalent chromium by the end of August.
The ruling on July 18 came nearly a year after environmental groups filed a lawsuit against the state, claiming it was eight years late in setting the standard.
Results of state water quality testing conducted between 2000 and 2011 throughout California showed that about a third of the 7,000 drinking water sources tested had hexavalent chromium levels at or above a preliminary benchmark set by the California EPA. The chemical comes chiefly from industrial pollution, but also occurs naturally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mass. convict in terror case argues court appeal
Criminal Law |
2013/08/01 00:01
|
A deluge of terror-related images used by prosecutors scared jurors and influenced them to convict a Massachusetts man of trying to help al-Qaida, the man's lawyer argued to a federal appeals court Tuesday.
Tarek Mehanna of Sudbury was sentenced to 17 1/2 years in prison after being convicted in 2011 of four terror-related charges and three charges of lying to authorities.
During Mehanna's trial, prosecutors said he traveled to Yemen for training in a terrorist camp and intended to go on to Iraq to fight U.S. soldiers. When that plan failed, Mehanna returned to the United States and disseminated materials online promoting violent jihad, prosecutors said.
In arguments before the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Mehanna's lawyer, Sabin Willett, said prosecutors showed 28 images of the World Trade Center in flames on Sept. 11, 2001, and numerous terror-related videos and repeatedly made references to Osama bin Laden in an attempt to prejudice the jury against Mehanna. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ohio kidnap suspect in court, plea talks ongoing
Legal Spotlight |
2013/07/26 10:00
|
Prosecutors and lawyers for a Cleveland man accused of holding three women captive in his home for more than a decade signaled Wednesday that they are talking about a possible plea deal.
With a trial less than two weeks away, there was no mention of whether the prosecutor will seek the death penalty. Attorneys for Ariel Castro, 53, say a deal is dependent on taking it off the table.
"My understanding is that the parties have discussed possible pleas and that you're working to see if that would be an effective resolution, is that correct?" Judge Michael Russo asked.
Both sides responded "yes" without elaboration and left the courtroom without commenting. Last month, the judge had mentioned the possibility of a plea deal raised by the defense.
Castro mostly kept his head down during the brief hearing and quietly answered "yes" to routine questions from the judge.
The hearing focused on the trial date, Aug. 5, and whether the prosecution had provided its evidence to the defense in a timely fashion, as required. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arizona high court to hear school funding case
Breaking Legal News |
2013/07/23 10:33
|
The Arizona Supreme Court on Tuesday hears arguments in an appeal of a lower court's ruling that requires the state Legislature to give schools an annual funding increase even in lean years to account for inflation.
The high court is reviewing a Court of Appeals decision. It said a voter-approved law requires the Legislature to provide an annual inflation adjustment for state funding to public schools.
School districts and education groups sued after the Legislature in 2010 instead only increased schools' transportation funding, eliminating a $61 million increase in general school spending.
The Supreme Court says it is considering is whether the Voter Protection Act allows voters to require the legislature to increase funding for schools.
The Voter Protection Act severely restricts the Legislature's to change voter-approved laws.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
