Today's Date: Add To Favorites
DOJ moves to dismiss first fed gay marriage case
Political and Legal | 2009/06/12 09:36
The U.S. Justice Department has moved to dismiss the first gay marriage case filed in federal court, saying it is not the right venue to tackle legal questions raised by a couple already married in California.


The motion, filed late Thursday, argued that the case of Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer does not address the right of gay couples to marry but rather questions whether their marriage must be recognized nationwide by states that have not approved gay marriage.

"This case does not call upon the Court to pass judgment ... on the legal or moral right of same-sex couples, such as plaintiffs here, to be married," the motion states. "Plaintiffs are married, and their challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") poses a different set of questions."

It's a different case from a recent federal lawsuit by two unmarried gay couples in California who claim a civil right to marry under the U.S. Constitution.

The government said Smelt and Hammer seek a ruling on "whether by virtue of their marital status they are constitutionally entitled to acknowledgment of their union by states that do not recognize same-sex marriage, and whether they are similarly entitled to certain federal benefits.



Appeals court blocks release of detainee pictures
Law Center | 2009/06/12 09:35
The U.S. government can keep pictures of detainee abuse secret while it asks the Supreme Court to permanently block release of the photographs on the grounds they could incite violence in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan, a federal appeals court said Thursday.


The one-paragraph ruling by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan came after the Obama administration asked the court to keep the pictures secret so it could appeal to the nation's highest court.

The administration last month said the disturbing photographs pose "a clear and grave risk of inciting violence and riots against American and coalition forces, as well as civilian personnel, serving in Iraq and Afghanistan."

The appeals court stayed its order supporting a lower court judge's decision to order release of the photographs until the Supreme Court had a chance to consider the case.

The administration had indicated it was going to release the pictures until President Barack Obama reversed the decision.

To support its arguments, the government filed partially secret statements from two top U.S. generals, David Petraeus and Ray Odierno.

In the filings, Odierno, who commands the troops in Iraq, said the 2004 release of photos of detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib prison "likely contributed to a spike in violence in Iraq" that year. Petraeus, who oversees U.S. military operations in the Middle East and Central Asia, said the images could also lead to more violence in Pakistan because it deals with Taliban attacks.

The American Civil Liberties Union had sought release of 21 pictures, saying the action would make the government more accountable and help bring an end to the abuse of prisoners.



AIG and Starr Have Monday Court Date
Court Watch | 2009/06/12 09:34

A long-running legal battle between American International Group Inc. and an investment firm led by its former chief executive, Maurice R. "Hank" Greenberg, is due in federal court Monday. Control of more than $4.3 billion is at stake.

At issue are tens of millions of shares Starr International Co. holds in the giant insurer, as well as tens of millions of shares Starr sold in recent years.

Were the insurance giant to prevail, AIG said Thursday that it intends to use any cash it wins to help pay back the debt it owes the federal government, which rescued it from the brink of bankruptcy in September. Any winnings that it gets in stock, currently worth a far smaller amount than the cash Starr has generated from selling other stock, will be used toward employee long-term compensation.

Mr. Greenberg is expected to testify in the trial, before a jury in federal district court in lower Manhattan. Both sides have retained name-brand counsel, David Boies for Starr, and Theodore Wells for AIG. The case could still settle.

For decades when Mr. Greenberg was at AIG's helm, the shares were used to fund a long-term compensation plan for AIG employees. But after he left in 2005, amid an investigation of AIG's accounting, the program ended and Starr, which is privately held, has been using the funds for other purposes, including investments. AIG says it should control the shares.



Supreme Court turns down Conrad Black bail request
Breaking Legal News | 2009/06/12 09:31
The Supreme Court on Thursday turned down former media executive Conrad Black's request to be released from a Florida prison while he appeals his fraud conviction.


Black has served nearly 15 months of a 6 1/2-year prison term following his conviction in July 2007.

In early May, the high court agreed to hear an appeal from Black and two other former executives of the Hollinger International media company who were convicted in connection with payments of $5.5 million they received from a Hollinger subsidiary.

In an order released by the court, Justice John Paul Stevens denied Black's request for bail pending his appeal.

The Supreme Court probably won't hear arguments in the case until late this year and a decision is unlikely before late winter.

Black can still ask a federal trial judge for bail. The judge who presided over the trial has already said one of the men, John Boultbee, can be released on bond.

Hollinger once owned the Chicago Sun-Times, the Daily Telegraph of London, the Jerusalem Post and hundreds of community papers across the United States and Canada. All of Hollinger's big papers except the Sun-Times have now been sold and the company that emerged changed its name to Sun-Times Media Group.



Judge finds violation in Calif. forest planning
Breaking Legal News | 2009/06/12 03:36
Federal agencies violated the Endangered Species Act by developing plans for four national forests in California without adequately addressing the impact on endangered animals, a judge ruled.


The judge's order will require estimates of how forest projects may harm endangered or threatened plants and animals such as the California condor and the gnatcatcher.

"This ruling is a great victory for the rare and endangered species that call the Southern California forests home," said Ileene Anderson, a biologist with the Center for Biological Diversity, one of the groups that sued the federal agencies.

The U.S. Forest Service revised its plans for the Cleveland, Los Padres and San Bernardino forests in 2005, laying out how the land and resources would be overseen for the next decade, including the management of roads, trails and recreation.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service provided estimates on the potential impact of these plans on wildlife, but critics said they didn't include required measures to minimize harm to endangered species.

Judge Marilyn Hall Patel ruled Monday in San Francisco that the agencies did not follow the species protection law by omitting statements detailing how the forest plans may harm endangered species. The agencies said they planned to do so when specific projects were undertaken.



PA lawyer to plead guilty in $2.5M corruption case
Court Watch | 2009/06/11 07:38
Federal prosecutors say a Pennsylvania lawyer who allegedly tried to cover up payments he made to a pair of judges in a $2.5 million corruption case will plead guilty.


Prosecutors said Tuesday that 49-year-old Robert Powell of Hazleton falsified records to hide the true income of former Luzerne County judges Mark Ciavarella and Michael Conahan. They said Powell also transferred tens of thousands of dollars in cash to Conahan to avoid federal income taxes.

The former judges have pleaded guilty to accepting payoffs in exchange for placing juveniles in detention facilities operated by companies that Powell co-owned. Their sentencings are pending.

Powell's lawyer said Powell realized he made a mistake. He faces a maximum sentence of more than five years.



Mass. woman pleads not guilty to stabbing toddler
Court Watch | 2009/06/11 07:38
A Massachusetts woman charged with stabbing her 2-year-old daughter over 100 times with scissors has pleaded not guilty.


The Telegram & Gazette reports that Susan Johnson made the plea at her arraignment Wednesday in Worcester (WUH'-ster) Superior Court. She faces a variety of charges including armed assault with intent to murder and attempted murder. She was ordered held on $100,000 bail.

Prosecutors say the 39-year-old attacked the child in an apartment complex's laundry room in Gardner, about 70 miles northwest of Boston.

Authorities says she also tried to strangle the girl with a dryer's electrical cord.

Her lawyer says Johnson has a history of mental illness. She is scheduled back in court July 21.



[PREV] [1] ..[567][568][569][570][571][572][573][574][575].. [1190] [NEXT]
All
Class Action
Bankruptcy
Biotech
Breaking Legal News
Business
Corporate Governance
Court Watch
Criminal Law
Health Care
Human Rights
Insurance
Intellectual Property
Labor & Employment
Law Center
Law Promo News
Legal Business
Legal Marketing
Litigation
Medical Malpractice
Mergers & Acquisitions
Political and Legal
Politics
Practice Focuses
Securities
Elite Lawyers
Tax
Featured Law Firms
Tort Reform
Venture Business News
World Business News
Law Firm News
Attorneys in the News
Events and Seminars
Environmental
Legal Careers News
Patent Law
Consumer Rights
International
Legal Spotlight
Current Cases
State Class Actions
Federal Class Actions
Supreme Court sides with the..
Ex-UK lawmaker charged with ..
Hungary welcomes Netanyahu a..
US immigration officials loo..
Turkish court orders key Erd..
Under threat from Trump, Col..
Military veterans are becomi..
Austria’s new government is..
Supreme Court makes it harde..
Trump signs order designatin..
US strikes a deal with Ukrai..
Musk gives all federal worke..
Troubled electric vehicle ma..
Trump signs order imposing s..
Elon Musk dodges DOGE scruti..


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.
St. Louis Missouri Criminal Defense Lawyer
St. Charles DUI Attorney
www.lynchlawonline.com
Lorain Elyria Divorce Lawyer
www.loraindivorceattorney.com
Legal Document Services in Los Angeles, CA
Best Legal Document Preparation
www.tllsg.com
Car Accident Lawyers
Sunnyvale, CA Personal Injury Attorney
www.esrajunglaw.com
East Greenwich Family Law Attorney
Divorce Lawyer - Erica S. Janton
www.jantonfamilylaw.com/about
St. Louis Missouri Criminal Defense Lawyer
St. Charles DUI Attorney
www.lynchlawonline.com
Connecticut Special Education Lawyer
www.fortelawgroup.com
  Law Firm Directory
 
 
 
© ClassActionTimes.com. All rights reserved.

The content contained on the web site has been prepared by Class Action Times as a service to the internet community and is not intended to constitute legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case or circumstance. Affordable Law Firm Web Design