Today's Date: Add To Favorites
Supreme Court justices sold stock last year
Securities | 2008/06/06 11:12
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, whose investments forced them to sit out cases before the Supreme Court, have significantly reduced their stock holdings, their latest financial disclosures show.

Roberts sold all his shares in four companies last year — Becton Dickinson & Co., Cisco Systems Inc., Citigroup Inc. and Merck & Co. Inc. — worth $117,000 to $265,000.

Alito sold all his stock in Intel Corp., worth $15,000 to $50,000, and reduced his holdings in three other companies, Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., Exxon Mobil Corp. and McDonald's Corp. The information was contained in the justices' annual report on their finances, released Friday.

It was not clear whether the justices took advantage of a recent change in federal law that allows them to defer paying taxes on capital gains by reinvesting the proceeds in mutual funds, government bonds or other assets.

Justice Stephen Breyer, who also has had to step aside from cases at the court because of his investments, sold some stock as well, but retains shares in dozens of companies and did not appear to alter his investment pattern.

The issue of investments arose most recently last month when the court could not muster enough justices to consider whether to intervene in a case.



Court limits Vioxx monitoring payments by Merck
Court Watch | 2008/06/05 08:53

Drugmaker Merck & Co. doesn't have to cover medical-monitoring expenses for Vioxx users who aren't claiming injury from the recalled painkiller, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled.

Phyllis Sinclair and Joseph Murray sued Merck in 2004, seeking to have the company fund a medical-screening program for U.S. consumers who took Vioxx for at least six weeks. New Jersey law requires plaintiffs to show physical injury, the Supreme Court said in an opinion.

In addition to punitive damages, the suit sought to have the Whitehouse Station, N. J.-based company fund a screening program to provide diagnostic tests for each member of the proposed class and a follow-up with an epidemiologist.



Calif. court refuses to stay gay marriage ruling
Breaking Legal News | 2008/06/05 08:52
California's highest court Wednesday refused to stay its decision legalizing same-sex marriage in the state, clearing the final hurdle for gay couples to start tying the knot this month.

Conservative religious and legal groups had asked the California Supreme Court to stop its May 15 order requiring state and local officials to sanction same-sex unions from becoming effective until voters have the chance to consider the issue in November. The justices' decisions typically become final after 30 days.

An initiative to ban gay marriage has qualified for the Nov. 4 ballot. Its passage would overrule the court's decision by amending the state constitution to limit marriage to a man and a woman.

In arguing for a delay, the amendment's sponsors predicted chaos if couples married in the next few months, only to have the practice halted at the ballot box.

The four justices who denied the stay request were the same judges who joined in the majority opinion that found withholding marriage from same-sex couples constituted discrimination. The three dissenting justices said they thought a hearing on whether the stay should be granted was warranted.

The majority did not elaborate on its reasons for denying the stay, but simply issued a one-page order saying its original ruling on marriage would be final at 5 p.m. on June 16.

Wednesday's denial clears the way for gay couples in the nation's most populous state to get married starting June 17, when state officials have said counties must start issuing new gender-neutral marriage licenses.



Guantanamo court day for alleged 9/11 mastermind
Uncategorized | 2008/06/05 06:52
The military expects a confrontational hearing when the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and four alleged confederates are brought before a Marine colonel presiding over their war-crimes tribunal.

At an arraignment scheduled for Thursday, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was expected to make his first public appearance since being captured in Pakistan in 2003, held in CIA custody at secret sites and transferred to Guantanamo in 2006.

Air Force Brig. Gen. Tom Hartmann, a top tribunal official, told dozens of journalists late Wednesday he expects defense lawyers will robustly argue points with prosecutors and Judge Ralph Kohlmann on behalf of their clients, who face the death penalty.

"Expect to see challenges tomorrow, and the intensity of the process," Hartmann said at a briefing in an abandoned aircraft hangar near the courthouse at this isolated U.S. Navy base.



Attorney General moves to avoid law firm conflict
Legal Business | 2008/06/04 10:24

Newly appointed Ohio Attorney General Nancy Hardin Rogers has shifted job duties for her second-in-command and taken other steps to wipe out any perceived conflicts of interest with two law firms.

Rogers, the former Ohio State University law dean who was appointed attorney general a week ago, informed her staff on Tuesday that Thomas Winters, first assistant attorney general, would be shifted to chief deputy attorney general. Rogers made the shift because both she and Winters have ties to Vorys Sater Seymour and Pease LLP, Central Ohio's largest law firm. Vorys, which handles a number of cases for the attorney general's office, employs Rogers' husband, Douglas, and was where Winters worked before joining former AG Marc Dann's staff last year.

With both top staffers in the office associated with the firm, a change had to be made, spokesman Jim Gravelle said. Before Dann resigned from office May 14, Winters - the only other employee permitted to handle attorney general's duties under state law - could step away from any case involving Vorys.

The office doesn't consider Winters' new post a demotion as he's still the chief lawyer for legal and law-enforcement matters, Gravelle said. Sheryl Creed Maxfield, a 24-year veteran of the office, will take the first assistant's post.

Rogers on Tuesday said Maxfield has the discretion to continue or discontinue cases Vorys handles, but the office will halt any new special-counsel appointments with the firm.

While the attorney general's office has no current association with Pittsburgh-based Buchanan Ingersoll and Rooney PC, which employs Rogers' daughter, Jill Spiker, the office won't contract the firm until Rogers steps down as attorney general or the Ohio Ethics Commission makes a formal ruling regarding a potential conflict of interest.

Rogers' actions Tuesday put any issues or contracts related to Ohio State, Vorys and Buchanan Ingersoll squarely in Maxfield's charge.




Court limits Merck monitoring in Vioxx case
Court Watch | 2008/06/04 10:22
Drugmaker Merck & Co. is not liable for the medical monitoring of Vioxx users not claiming injury, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.

The 5-1 ruling by the state's highest court means a class-action lawsuit by people who used the once-popular painkiller will be dismissed. One justice did not participate.

The lawsuit was filed by Vioxx users who claim they have no immediate symptoms but that use of the drug gives them a greater risk of developing illness. So they want diagnostic testing to uncover any hidden or developing problems.

Because they aren't claiming they have an injury, they aren't eligible for the settlement Merck announced in November. Merck agreed to pay $4.85 billion to settle thousands of U.S. personal injury lawsuits involving a heart attack, stroke or death. Some 45,000 eligible claimants had initiated enrollment as of March 31.

The high court said that since the Vioxx users in the case don't claim injury, they "cannot satisfy the definition of harm" in seeking medical monitoring under the state's Product Liability Act.

In dissent, Justice Virginia A. Long argued that the law encompassed a broad definition of harm, and includes the concept that an "increased risk of injury that creates a need for medical surveillance" is a recognizable harm.



Calif. court refuses to stay gay marriage ruling
Breaking Legal News | 2008/06/04 08:20
California's highest court has refused to stay until after the November election its decision legalizing same-sex marriage in the state.

Conservative religious and legal groups had asked the California Supreme Court to stop its order from becoming effective until voters have the chance to weigh in on the issue.

An initiative that would amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage has qualified for the ballot. Its passage would overrule the court's decision.

The Supreme Court says its ruling will be final at 5 p.m. on June 16.

Wednesday's denial clears the way for gays and lesbians in the nation's most populous state to get married starting June 17, when state officials have said counties must start issuing new gender-neutral marriage licenses.



[PREV] [1] ..[707][708][709][710][711][712][713][714][715].. [1187] [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
Florida Attorney General Ash..
Americans’ trust in nation..
Trump asks the Supreme Court..
Rudy Giuliani is in contempt..
Small businesses brace thems..
Appeals court overturns ex-4..
Amazon workers strike at mul..
TikTok asks Supreme Court to..
Supreme Court rejects Wiscon..
US inflation ticked up last ..
Court seems reluctant to blo..
Court will hear arguments ov..
Romanian court orders a reco..
Court backs Texas over razor..
New Hampshire courts hear 2 ..


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