|
|
|
Lustick Law Firm opens Mount Vernon office
Law Firm News |
2010/01/12 09:28
|
The Lustick Law Firm of Bellingham has opened a new branch office in Mount Vernon. The new branch office is at 413 West Gates Street, in the office suites once used by the Skagit Argus newspaper. The firm's local phone number is (360) 873-8882. Fax is (360) 873-8881. The standard hours of operation will be Monday through Friday 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. The Mount Vernon branch attorneys will handle criminal cases (felonies and misdemeanors) and legal matters involving real estate, aviation law, military law, and family law. The office will be accepting cases in federal court and in Washington state Superior or District Court and in the various city municipal courts within Skagit, Snohomish, King, and Island counties. Attorney Sharon Fields will serve as the acting branch manager in the Mount Vernon office, and will focus her practice on criminal and family law. Fields studied at the University of Utah where she received a bachelor's degree with honors in 1993 and a law degree in 1996.
More information about the Lustick Law Firm can be found at Lustick.com |
|
|
|
|
|
Why NFL’s Supreme Court case is overhyped
Breaking Legal News |
2010/01/12 09:11
|
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case later this week that some are touting as pivotal in the business of sports. American Needle Inc. v. the NFL, a supposed David vs. Goliath-type case that could help define the NFL's antitrust status, is on the docket for Jan. 13. It dates back to 2004, when American Needle, an Illinois-based hat maker, brought an antitrust case against NFL, claiming the league was using its monopoly power to muscle it out of its fair share of revenue for caps it made bearing NFL logos. The NFL won the case at the trial and appellate levels, but American Needle appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. |
|
|
|
|
|
High court pulls plug on YouTube trial coverage
Court Watch |
2010/01/12 09:10
|
For now, the only way Californians can watch the trial over the constitutionality of the state's ban on same-sex marriage is to take a trip to the federal courthouse on Golden Gate Avenue in San Francisco. Just an hour before the trial got under way Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court halted for at least two days the judge's plans to allow video of the proceedings to be uploaded on a delayed basis on YouTube. The 8-1 decision also prevented live simulcasts from being broadcast at the federal appeals court building at Seventh and Mission streets and at courthouses in Seattle, Pasadena, Portland, Ore., and Brooklyn, N.Y. The court said it wanted until at least Wednesday to consider arguments by backers of Proposition 8, the November 2008 ballot measure outlawing same-sex marriage, that camera coverage could result in threats or even violence against witnesses favoring the measure. |
|
|
|
|
|
Court Nixes $20M Award in Jacko Taping Suit
Breaking Legal News |
2010/01/12 04:11
|
An appellate court tossed a $20 million award against a former jet company that secretly videotaped Michael Jackson and his attorneys during a 2003 flight. The 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled Monday that the award was excessive and that Jeffrey Borer, former owner of the now-defunct XtraJet\, shouldn't have to pay it to attorneys Mark Geragos and Pat Harris, The Associated Press reported. The three-judge panel sent the case back to the trial judge who ruled in favor of the attorneys in March.
Geragos, Harris and Jackson sued for invasion of privacy after being secretly videotaped when Jackson surrendered on charges of molestation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Neutrality Faces Appeals Court
Court Watch |
2010/01/11 09:35
|
The FCC and Comcast got their day in court Friday afternoon on the net neutrality issue. A three-judge federal appeals court followed a line of questioning that seemed to favor Comcast, but a decision may not come for months. The issue is whether Comcast violated FCC rules in blocking Bit Torrent traffic and, also, the broader issue of whether the FCC has the authority to restrict Comcast and other carriers supplying broadband. A back story in the complex issue is highlighted by carriers' complaints that consumers' growing usage of broadband is clogging networks. "This case underscores the importance of the FCC's ongoing rulemaking to preserve the free and open Internet," said FCC chairman Julius Genachowski in a statement. "I remain confident the commission possesses the legal authority it needs and look forward to reviewing the court's decision when it issues."
Comcast attorney Helgi Walker said the FCC's effort to challenge the cable firm was "a policy statement" and, as such, was not enough for the FCC to reprimand Comcast for seeking to control the flow of Internet traffic over its network. She told the judges: "You can free us of this black mark on our record." If the decision goes against the FCC, it will still have the option of going to Congress to seek new legislation to deal with the net neutrality issue. |
|
|
|
|
|
Court blocks broadcast of trial on Calif. ban of gay marriage
Breaking Legal News |
2010/01/11 09:34
|
The Supreme Court on Monday morning temporarily blocked a federal judge in San Francisco from showing on YouTube proceedings from a trial that will determine whether a ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. The court's decision is not the final word; the stay sought by same-sex marriage opponents expires Wednesday. The court said that will permit justices "further consideration." The trial is scheduled to start Monday. Justice Stephen G. Breyer was the only justice to object. "I agree with the court that further consideration is warranted, and I am pleased that the stay is time-limited," Breyer wrote. But he said the court's standards for issuing a stay were not met because there is not a likelihood of "irreparable harm" if the proceedings were available on the Internet. Two bay area couples are asking Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker to rule that same-sex marriage is a right embedded in the Constitution and that it was violated last year when California voters passed Proposition 8, a ballot measure confining matrimony to members of the opposite sex. |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|