|
|
|
Sperm Donor Fights For Rights In Court
Breaking Legal News |
2008/07/07 08:47
|
Both the Alliance Defense Fund & Keys for Networking, Inc. filed Amicus Briefs in the United States Supreme Court in support of attorney Jeffery M. Leving’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari. Leving filed the Petition for Writ of Certiorari on behalf of Daryl Hendrix, a Topeka sperm donor, to protect Daryl’s constitutional rights to parent his twin children.
Mr. Hendrix donated his genetic material to attorney Samantha Harrington, who conceived their twins who are now three years-old. The case explores vast uncharted territory in the law where there have been inconsistent rulings on the rights and obligations of sperm donors from one court to another in this nation. “This case will have significant ramifications on the future of fathers’ rights and reproductive technology. When we reach a point in society when a father has been reduced to nothing more than a genetic vending machine, then we have reached a point of hopelessness for our children. We should be encouraging fathers to be constant figures in their children’s lives instead of legally baring their fundamental human right to parent,” states Leving, “we must not forget that any man’s loss of his children diminishes mankind,” he added.
Mr. Hendrix initially petitioned the Shawnee County District Court in Kansas to afford him parental rights and provide for his son and daughter financially. Ms. Harrington countered by filing a paternity action. Mr. Hendrix maintains that he and the mother, Ms. Harrington, had an oral agreement to co-parent their children together. Both of those cases were dismissed by a district court judge, prompting Hendrix to appeal the decision in the Kansas Supreme Court. The Kansas Supreme Court decided, 4-2, that a sperm donor must have a written agreement with the mother in order to exercise any parental rights. That decision annihilated Daryl’s inherent rights as a father and treads dangerously on redefining fatherhood.
On Monday, March 17, 2008, attorneys for Hendrix appealed to the United States Supreme Court, asking for the ruling of the Kansas Supreme Court to be overturned. This appeal will clearly be a landmark case that will determine the future of reproductive technology, alternative child conception, and advancement of fathers’ rights. “Mr. Hendrix’s case deserves to be heard in our nation’s highest court and their decision can guide the future of reproductive technology. We want to make sure that Mr. Hendrix’s children know that they have a father who loves them, who will support them emotionally and financially. We want the children to know that they have a father who will spend time with them and help to raise them and that they did not just spring out of a test tube,” states Andrey Filipowicz, co-counsel with Jeffery M. Leving.
In a similar case in Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the verbal agreement between the sperm donor and the mother was “valid on its face” and that ‘Biological parents cannot waive the interests of a child — a third party — who has an independent "right" to support from each one of them.’ The Court ordered the sperm donor to pay over $1500 a month in child support, even though he was not named as the father on the birth certificate of the children. A British Court had a similar finding in the case of a man who donated his sperm to a lesbian couple.
Attorney Jeffery M. Leving states, “The legal system has not kept current with science and reproduction technology and its effects on the changing American family. The U.S. Supreme court now has the opportunity to correct this flaw in our judicial system and protect an important relationship between a loving father and his children”. Leving is a nationally renowned litigator, advocate of fathers’ rights and founder of dadsrights.com.
For more information on the case and all media inquiries, please contact Carrie Klepzig at 312-807-3990, ext. 255 or 312-730-5864 (mobile). |
|
|
|
|
|
Court orders YouTube to give Viacom video logs
Breaking Legal News |
2008/07/05 08:50
|
Dismissing privacy concerns, a federal judge overseeing a $1 billion copyright-infringement lawsuit against YouTube has ordered the popular online video-sharing service to disclose who watches which video clips and when. U.S. District Judge Louis L. Stanton authorized full access to the YouTube logs after Viacom Inc. and other copyright holders argued that they needed the data to show whether their copyright-protected videos are more heavily watched than amateur clips. The data would not be publicly released but disclosed only to the plaintiffs, and it would include less specific identifiers than a user's real name or e-mail address. Lawyers for Google Inc., which owns YouTube, said producing 12 terabytes of data — equivalent to the text of roughly 12 million books — would be expensive, time-consuming and a threat to users' privacy. The database includes information on when each video gets played, which can be used to determine how often a clip is viewed. Attached to each entry is each viewer's unique login ID and the Internet Protocol, or IP, address for that viewer's computer. Stanton ruled this week that the plaintiffs had a legitimate need for the information and that the privacy concerns are speculative. Stanton rejected a request from the plaintiffs for Google to disclose the source code — the technical secret sauce — powering its market-leading search engine, saying there's no evidence Google manipulated its search algorithms to treat copyright-infringing videos differently. |
|
|
|
|
|
Florida Supreme Court nixes Indian casino pact
Breaking Legal News |
2008/07/03 07:22
|
The Florida Supreme Court is overturning the agreement Gov. Charlie Crist signed with the Seminole Tribe to expand gambling at its casinos. The court ruled Thursday that Crist doesn't have the constitutional authority to enter into the agreement that allows Las Vegas-style slot machines, black jack and other card games at facilities such as the Hard Rock Casinos in Tampa and Hollywood. House Speaker Marco Rubio challenged the agreement after Crist signed it in November. The tribe has already given the state $50 million as part of the deal that was expected to generate at least $100 million a year for the state. |
|
|
|
|
|
Judges rip Texas courts in death penalty case
Breaking Legal News |
2008/07/02 08:51
|
A federal appeals court blasted Texas courts for refusing to hold a hearing to consider evidence that a convicted killer may be mentally disabled, therefore ineligible for the death penalty. A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ordered a federal evidentiary hearing for Michael Wayne Hall, who was sentenced to die for the 1998 slaying of a 19-year-old woman abducted as she rode her bicycle to work. The panel criticized both the trial court and the state's highest criminal appeals court for relying on written arguments rather than holding an open evidentiary hearing in Hall's case. "The facts before us are a core manifestation of a case where the state failed to provide a full and fair hearing and where such a hearing would bring out facts which, if proven true, support ... relief," the judges said. The ruling late Monday reversed the findings of a federal district judge who upheld the state courts' rejection of defense attorneys' claims that Hall is mentally disabled. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that mentally disabled people may not be executed. |
|
|
|
|
|
N.D. Supreme Court revives workers' comp charges
Breaking Legal News |
2008/07/01 07:52
|
North Dakota's Supreme Court revived two felony charges Monday against a former state workers' compensation director, saying prosecutors may put him on trial for allegedly misspending more than $18,000 in agency funds. Sandy Blunt was forced out as Workforce Safety and Insurance's director last December. He had been the agency's top executive since April 2004. Blunt is accused of illegally spending $7,200 on bonuses for Jodi Bjornson, the top lawyer at Workforce Safety and Insurance; John Halvorson, the agency's chief of employer services; and Mark Armstrong, its communications director. He also is charged with making $11,384 in unauthorized expenditures over a number of months for food, gifts, trinkets and other items for employee meetings and functions, and on meals for state legislators. The money paid for grill rentals, trolley rides to a meeting at Fort Lincoln State Park, four cases of peppermint patties, Fourth of July holiday items, and candy and balloons for "Bring Your Kids to Work Day," among other items. Prosecutors say the misspending on employee gifts is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. Awarding the bonuses, they say, is a lesser felony, punishable by five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. |
|
|
|
|
|
Ga. court upholds partial banishment for offenders
Breaking Legal News |
2008/07/01 06:52
|
Faced with the question of whether banishment for criminals in Georgia should be banned, the state's top court answered Monday with its own caveat: It depends on how far the ban extends. The Georgia Supreme Court acknowledged with its 6-1 decision that banishing convicted criminals from the state is illegal, but it upheld a tactic by judges who ban them from living in all but one of Georgia's 159 counties. That's what happened to Gregory Mac Terry, who was restricted from living everywhere in Georgia except rural Toombs County after he pleaded guilty in 1995 to charges he assaulted and stalked his estranged wife. Defense attorneys call the strategy "de facto" banishment. Prosecutors say the orders are a way to rid criminals from populated areas and protect victims from repeat offenses. In Terry's case, they said, the restrictions are needed to protect his wife. Writing for the majority, Justice Harris Hines said judges can legally skirt the ban on banishment when they restrict convicts like Terry from all but one county. |
|
|
|
|
|
Florida prepares for 1st execution since foul up
Breaking Legal News |
2008/06/30 05:41
|
Florida's new procedure for lethal injections could be tested Tuesday when executioners strap down a condemned inmate for the first time since a botched execution. Mark Dean Schwab, 39, is scheduled to die exactly 16 years after he was sentenced in the 1991 kidnapping, rape and murder of 11-year-old Junny Rios-Martinez. Florida officials say they have resolved problems with the December 2006 execution of Angel Diaz when needles were accidentally pushed through his veins, causing the lethal chemicals to go into his muscles instead, delaying his death for 34 minutes — twice as long as normal. Some experts said that would cause intense pain. Then-Gov. Jeb Bush stopped all executions after Diaz was killed, but Florida and other states were also held up as they waited for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule the three-drug method of lethal injection used by Kentucky was constitutional. Thirty-four other states, including Florida, use a similar method. Florida's new procedure requires the warden to make sure the inmate is unconscious following the injection of the first chemical, sodium pentothal. Then the executioner will inject pancuronium bromide to paralyze his muscles and potassium chloride to stop his heart. It also requires people with medical training to be involved in the process. Schwab and his attorneys aren't so sure the problems are fixed. An analysis done for Schwab's lawyers showed that nine of the 30 mock executions performed by Florida's Department of Corrections between September 2007 and May were failures, said one of his state-paid attorneys, Mark Gruber. The corrections department said its mock exercises have included preparation for potential problems such as a combative inmate, the incapacity of an execution team member, power failure and finding a vein. |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|