Today's Date: Add To Favorites
Justices rule against man in terrorism case
Legal Marketing | 2008/05/19 10:16
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled against an Algerian convicted of conspiring to detonate explosives at Los Angeles International Airport during the millenium holiday travel rush. In its 8-1 decision, the court upheld Ahmed Ressam's conviction on an explosives charge, one of nine convictions that resulted in a 22-year prison sentence. At issue was whether Ressam should be convicted of carrying explosives during the commission of another serious crime, in Ressam's case, lying on a U.S. Customs form when he crossed the border in December 1999.

Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said that "the most natural reading" of federal law goes against Ressam. Stevens said it is undisputed that Ressam was carrying explosives when he falsely identified himself on a U.S. customs form as a Canadian citizen named Noris. Ressam is Algerian. In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer said that the court's interpretation is too broad. Breyer said such a holding would permit conviction of anyone on an explosives charge, even if they were carrying explosives legally while engaging in a totally unrelated crime.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had set aside Ressam's conviction on the explosives count. The appeals court said the law required proof that the explosives were carried "in relation to" the underlying crime of filing a false form. Prosecutors established no such relationship, the appeals court said.



Court uphold municipal bond exemption
Breaking Legal News | 2008/05/19 10:15
The Supreme Court on Monday upheld long-standing state tax exemptions for municipal bonds.

In a 7-2 ruling in a case from Kentucky, the justices permitted states to exempt interest on their own bonds from taxation while taxing residents for interest on bonds issued by other states.

In the $2.5 trillion municipal bond market, 42 states exempt some or all interest on their bonds from income taxes, while taxing interest on bonds from other states.

The states have said that throwing out the system of exemptions that began 90 years ago would have a devastating impact on state finances.

Industry groups warned of possible turmoil in the municipal bond market if the existing setup were dismantled.

In the majority opinion, Justice David Souter said that the state tax exemptions go back to 1919 and have not hindered commerce among the states.

In dissent, Justice Samuel Alito said the majority decision "invites other protectionist laws."

Souter responded that that the dissent "rightly praises the virtues of the free market." But Souter said that overturning the tax exemptions now would upset the market in bonds based on the experience of nearly a century.



Court rejects shorter sentence for
Court Watch | 2008/05/19 10:15
The Supreme Court says a man with a long criminal record deserves a lengthy prison term, under a federal law aimed at keeping repeat offenders behind bars longer.

Monday's 6-3 decision, written by Justice Samuel Alito, deals with provisions of the Armed Career Criminal Act. The law makes defendants eligible for longer prison terms if they have three prior criminal convictions for crimes that are either violent felonies or serious drug offenses.

A jury convicted Gino Gonzaga Rodriquez of possessing a gun as a convicted felon. Prosecutors said his five prior convictions — two for burglary in California and three for drug trafficking in Washington — should have led to a 15-year prison sentence.

But a federal judge imposed a sentence of 92 months and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco agreed.

At issue was what makes a crime a serious drug offense. Judges sometimes look at the length of the sentence prescribed by state law.

In this case, the question was whether the additional time that state law imposed because someone is a repeat offender can be used to trigger the still harsher penalties under the federal sentencing law. The Supreme Court concluded it can.

Justice David Souter, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens, dissented. Souter said the court's ruling would make life more complicated for trial courts trying to calculate prison sentences.



Family files lawsuit in metal bat injury case
Court Watch | 2008/05/19 08:16
The family of a boy who suffered brain damage after he was struck by a line drive off an aluminum baseball bat sued the bat's maker and others on Monday, saying they should have known it was dangerous.

The family of Steven Domalewski, who was 12 when he was struck by the ball in 2006, filed the lawsuit in state Superior Court. It names Hillerich & Bradsby Co., maker of the 31-inch, 19-ounce Louisville Slugger TPX Platinum bat used when Steven was hit.

The lawsuit also names Little League Baseball and Sports Authority, which sold the bat. It claims the defendants knew, or should have known, that the bat was dangerous for children to use, according to the family's attorney, Ernest Fronzuto.

"People who have children in youth sports are excited about the lawsuit from a public policy standpoint because they hope it can make the sport safer," Fronzuto said after filing the suit Monday morning. "There are also those who are skeptical of the lawsuit and don't see the connection between Steven's injury and the aluminum bat."

Little League denies any wrongdoing, as does the bat manufacturer. Sports Authority has not responded to several telephone messages seeking comment.

Steven was pitching in a Police Athletic League game when he was hit just above the heart by a line drive. His heart stopped beating and his brain was deprived of oxygen for 15 to 20 minutes, according to his doctors.

Although he was not playing in a Little League game, the organization is being sued because it gave its seal of approval to the bat, certifying it as safe for use by children, Fronzuto said.



Federal judge finds ex-PurchasePro boss guilty
Securities | 2008/05/16 08:50

The former chairman and CEO of PurchasePro.com, a business-to-business software broker that died during the dot-com bust, has been found guilty of securities fraud, witness tampering and other crimes, the U.S. Department of Justice announced.

Charles "Junior" Johnson, who resigned as chairman and CEO in May 2001, was found guilty in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia of conspiring to commit securities fraud, securities fraud, witness tampering and obstructing an official proceeding. Judge Walter Kelley released his verdict Thursday after a bench trial that finished in December.

Johnson founded PurchasePro.com in 1996, and the company was one of the dot-com boom's early success stories. PurchasePro, which had a close relationship with AOL, sold computer software through a B-to-B marketing license, allowing businesses to buy and sell products on the Internet, to participate directly in PurchasePro's own Web-based marketplace and to create their own branded marketplace using PurchasePro's software.

The company went public in September 1999, and shares leapt 117 percent the first day to close at US$26.13. In December 1999, the company's adjusted stock price hit a peak of nearly $396 a share.

In March 2000 and April 2001, the company signed deals with AOL, the latter to jointly develop a B-to-B marketplace called Netscape Netbusiness Marketplace. But in late April 2001, the company announced its earnings would be significantly lower than Wall Street expectations, and that same month, investors filed a class-action lawsuit against the company, accusing its executives of improperly recognizing revenue as a way to pump up stock prices.

In August 2002, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission began investigating AOL's relationship with PurchasePro, and in September 2002, PurchasePro filed for bankruptcy.



Merck says appeals court overturns Vioxx verdict
Class Action | 2008/05/16 08:49
A Texas appeals court on Wednesday overturned a multimillion-dollar verdict against Merck & Co. in one of the few trials it lost over its withdrawn painkiller Vioxx.

A jury in Rio Grande City, Texas, in April 2006 awarded $32 million to the widow of 71-year-old Leonel Garza, a short-term Vioxx user who died of a heart attack in 2001. That award — $7 million for compensatory damages and $25 million for punitive damages — later was cut to about $7.75 million under Texas law limiting damages.

On Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the Texas 4th Court of Appeals overturned the verdict, ruling in favor of Merck. The opinion was signed by Justice Sandee Bryan Marion.

The judges wrote that Garza's family did not prove his brief use of Vioxx caused two blood clots that the family's attorneys argued triggered his heart attack. The judges also concluded the family did not provide sufficient evidence to rule out his long-standing heart disease as the cause of his fatal heart attack.

Garza had a prior heart attack and heart bypass surgery, smoked for nearly 30 years and died of the second heart attack after taking Vioxx for less than a month.

Merck lawyers had argued that heart attack was the end result of his 23 years of heart disease.

"There was simply no reliable evidence Vioxx caused Mr. Garza's heart attack," Travis Sales, one of the attorneys who represented Merck during the trial, said in an interview.

David Hockema, one of the Garza family attorneys, said they had just read the opinion and had not decided on their next move. Possible next steps would be a motion for a rehearing before the same court of appeals or a petition to the Texas Supreme Court, he said.

"I think the decision is clearly wrong and sets an impossible burden for the plaintiff to show the offending instrument (Vioxx) was the sole cause of their injury," Hockema said.

After the trial, a juror admitted previously borrowing more than $12,000 from Garza's widow, Felicia, an issue that Merck also raised in its appeal, Sales noted. However, that was not mentioned in the three-page appellate court decision.

Whitehouse Station, N.J.-based Merck pulled Vioxx from the market in September 2004 after research showed the painkiller doubled risk of heart attacks and strokes. That triggered an avalanche of lawsuits against Merck, which has a $4.85 billion settlement pending to end the bulk of the personal injury suits.

The Garzas and others whose cases went to trial before the settlement agreement in November are not eligible to participate.

Wednesday's ruling gives Merck 10 victories and four losses in the trials that reached verdicts, with retrials pending in a few cases.

Merck shares rose 66 cents, or 1.7 percent, to $39.83 in regular trading Wednesday, and rose another 23 cents in after-hours trading. Shares have traded between $36.80 and $61.62 over the past 52 weeks.



Ex-senator, university chief Brown joins Denver law firm
Legal Careers News | 2008/05/16 03:50

Former U.S. senator and University of Colorado president Hank Brown is joining the Denver law firm of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck as senior counsel.

Brown will work in strategy and development for the firm in banking, water, natural resources and public affairs.

"Joining Brownstein represents my career coming full circle," Brown said. "Norm Brownstein, Steve Farber and I have been friends since our days at the University of Colorado more than 40 years ago.

"While our paths have crossed throughout the years, we have had limited opportunities to work together. I look forward to being a part of the firm that they have built into one of the West's most influential and respected law firms."

Brown served from 2005 until this year as president of CU.

He spent six years as a Republican in the U.S. Senate and five consecutive terms in the U.S. House representing Colorado's 4th Congressional District during the 1980s and '90s.

Brown also was president of the University of Northern Colorado and president of the Daniels Fund.

"Brown possesses an unbeatable combination of vast experience and exceptional ability," said Brownstein, founding partner and chairman of the firm. "We are proud to add such a notable member of the Denver community to the firm."



[PREV] [1] ..[715][716][717][718][719][720][721][722][723].. [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