Today's Date: Add To Favorites
Court refuses to take case on coach's team prayer
Breaking Legal News | 2009/03/03 08:28
The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from a high school football coach who wants to bow his head and kneel during prayers led by his players despite a school district policy prohibiting it.


In an order Monday, the justices ended Marcus Borden's fight against the East Brunswick, N.J., school district's policy that forbids him and other staff members from joining in student-led prayer. The federal appeals court in Philadelphia sided with the district.

The high court declined to weigh in on whether Borden's desire to bow his head silently and "take a knee" with his football players violates the Constitution's prohibition on government endorsement of religion. Borden says such gestures are secular.

The school district says Borden, the East Brunswick coach since 1983, had a long history of leading prayers before he was ordered to stop after complaints from some parents. The district says the issue is whether its policy is constitutional, not Borden's actions.

Messages left for Borden and lawyer Ronald Riccio were not immediately returned Monday.

"Coaches are not supposed to be promoting religion; that's up to students and parents and pastors," said Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which represented the school district.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia agreed that the school district policy is constitutional, but the judges differed on what exactly the coach should do if his team prays.

The Supreme Court ended school-sponsored prayer in 1962 when it said directing that a prayer be said at the beginning of each school day was a violation of the First Amendment. The justices reaffirmed the decision in 2000 by saying a Texas school district was giving the impression of prayer sponsorship by letting students use loudspeakers under the direction of a faculty member for prayers before sports events.



Court turns down Agent Orange cases
Breaking Legal News | 2009/03/02 08:22
The Supreme Court has turned down American and Vietnamese victims of Agent Orange who wanted to pursue lawsuits against companies that made the toxic chemical defoliant used in the Vietnam War.


The justices offer no comment on their action Monday, rejecting appeals in three separate cases, in favor of Dow Chemical, Monsanto and other companies that made Agent Orange and other herbicides used by the military in Vietnam.

Agent Orange has been linked to cancer, diabetes and birth defects among Vietnamese soldiers and civilians and American veterans.

The American plaintiffs blame their cancer on exposure to Agent Orange during the military service in Vietnam. The Vietnamese said the U.S.' sustained program to prevent the enemy from using vegetation for cover and sustenance caused miscarriages, birth defects, breast cancer, ovarian tumors, lung cancer, Hodgkin's disease and prostate tumors.

All three cases had been dismissed by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York.

The appeals court said that lawsuit brought by the Vietnamese plaintiffs could not go forward because Agent Orange was used to protect U.S. troops against ambush and not as a weapon of war against human populations.

The other two suits were filed by U.S. veterans who got sick too late to claim a piece of the $180 million settlement with makers of the chemical in 1984. In 2006, the Supreme Court deadlocked 4-4 on whether those lawsuits could proceed.



Court hears appeal in freelancers case
Breaking Legal News | 2009/03/02 04:22
The Supreme Court will consider reviving the $18 million settlement of a dispute involving payment to freelance writers for use of their work online.


The settlement came in a class-action lawsuit filed by the freelancers against publishers and database companies. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York had thrown the agreement out, but the high court on Monday agreed to hear an appeal of that decision.

The proposed settlement covers both freelancers who registered the copyright to their works and those who didn't. The appeals court said courts generally do not have authority over infringement claims on works that have not been copyrighted.

The lawsuit followed a Supreme Court ruling in 2001 that freelance writers have online rights to their work. The case largely applied to articles, photographs and illustrations that were produced 15 or more years ago, before freelance contracts provided for the material's electronic use.

The case is Reed Elsevier v. Pogebrin, 08-103.



Enemy combatant indicted in Illinois federal court
Breaking Legal News | 2009/03/02 02:23
Federal authorities have unsealed an indictment against alleged al-Qaida sleeper agent Ali al-Marri, as the Obama administration considers a new strategy for handling terror suspects.


Al-Marri has been held in a Navy brig outside Charleston, S.C. for more than 5 years since President George W. Bush declared him an enemy combatant.

He will now be transferred to Illinois to face trial in a civilian court on charges of providing material support to terrorism.

Before the indictment, the Al-Marri case was headed to the Supreme Court.

The court is considering whether the president has the authority to order the arrest of terror suspects in the United States and hold them indefinitely without bringing charges.



Alleged terrorist in Ohio faces 20 years in prison
Breaking Legal News | 2009/02/27 09:35
Nearly six years after the government accused three men of plotting terrorist bombings while sipping refreshments at a suburban Columbus coffee shop, a federal judge was expected to sentence the last of them to a 20-year prison term.


American-born Christopher Paul was to be sentenced Thursday by U.S. District Court Judge Gregory Frost after pleading guilty in June to one count of conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction in terrorist attacks.

Paul, 44, was accused of joining al-Qaida in the early 1990s and helping teach fellow Muslim extremists how to bomb U.S. and European targets. Prosecutors agreed to drop charges of providing material support to terrorists and conspiracy to provide support to terrorists.

The Justice Department accused Paul and two other men of discussing terrorist attacks during an August 2002 meeting at the Caribou Cafe coffee shop in Upper Arlington.

The other two also pleaded guilty: Nuradin Abdi in 2007 in connection with an alleged plot to blow up an Ohio shopping mall, and Iyman Faris in 2003 in connection with an alleged plot to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge.



Court rules for AT&T in dispute with Internet firm
Breaking Legal News | 2009/02/25 11:04
The Supreme Court on Wednesday unanimously ruled for AT&T in the company's antitrust dispute with an Internet service provider over prices for high speed Internet access.


The court reversed a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The San Francisco-based appeals court had ruled the telecom company was setting its wholesale prices so high that an Internet service provider could not compete with the low prices AT&T charged in the retail market.

The plaintiff in the lawsuit, LinkLine Communications Inc., buys access to AT&T's transmission lines. Linkline then competes with AT&T in selling high-speed Internet access.

"Under these circumstances, AT&T was not required to offer this service at the wholesale prices the plaintiff would have preferred," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote.

Roberts was joined in his opinion by Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Anthony M. Kennedy and Samuel A. Alito. Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens and David H. Souter concurred only with the judgment.

The ruling does not end the case. The justices sent the case back to a trial judge, who can decide whether AT&T was charging too little for its product in hopes of running its competitors out of business.

The case is Pacific Bell Telephone Co. d/b/a AT&T California v. LinkLine Communications Inc., 07-512.



Court finds Sierra Leone rebel leaders guilty
Breaking Legal News | 2009/02/25 11:03
An international tribunal found three Sierra Leone rebel leaders guilty of crimes against humanity.


The court found all three guilty of forced marriage, marking the first time the charge has been handed down in an international tribunal.

Issa Sesay and Morris Kallon, two top leaders of the Revolutionary United Front, were found guilty on 16 of 18 counts. They include sexual slavery, forced marriage, amputation, murder and the enlistment of child soldiers.

Augustine Gbao, a battlefield commander, was found guilty on 14 of the 18 counts.

The convictions mark the end of the Special Court that was set up after the country's disastrous civil war. The rebels were infamous for amputating the arms of victims, as dramatized in the film "Blood Diamond."



[PREV] [1] ..[134][135][136][137][138][139][140][141][142].. [260] [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
New Hampshire courts hear 2 ..
PA high court orders countie..
Tight US House races in Cali..
North Carolina Attorney Gene..
Republicans take Senate majo..
What to know about the unpre..
A man who threatened to kill..
Ford cuts 2024 earnings guid..
Kenya’s deputy president pl..
South Korean court acquits f..
Supreme Court grapples with ..
Supreme Court leaves in plac..
Kentucky sheriff accused of ..
New rules regarding election..
North Carolina appeals court..


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