|
|
|
Court rejects death penalty for raping children
Breaking Legal News |
2008/06/25 09:11
|
The Supreme Court on Wednesday outlawed executions of people convicted of raping a child. In a 5-4 vote, the court said the Louisiana law allowing the death penalty to be imposed in such cases violates the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. "The death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his majority opinion. His four liberal colleagues joined him, while the four more conservative justices dissented. There has not been an execution in the United States for a crime that did not also involve the death of the victim in 44 years. Patrick Kennedy, 43, was sentenced to death for the rape of his 8-year-old stepdaughter in Louisiana. He is one of two people in the United States, both in Louisiana, who have been condemned to death for a rape that was not also accompanied by a killing. The Supreme Court banned executions for rape in 1977 in a case in which the victim was an adult woman. Forty-five states ban the death penalty for any kind of rape, and the other five states allow it for child rapists. Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas allow executions in such cases if the defendant had previously been convicted of raping a child. The court struggled over how to apply standards laid out in decisions barring executions for the mentally retarded and people younger than 18 when they committed murder. In those cases, the court cited trends in the states away from capital punishment. |
|
|
|
|
|
Court to rule in Tenn. inmate's appeal
Breaking Legal News |
2008/06/24 04:25
|
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Monday to consider whether poor death row inmates seeking mercy from state officials have a right to lawyers paid for by federal taxpayers. The justices will likely hear oral arguments around the end of the year in the case of Edward Jerome Harbison, who was convicted in the 1983 beating death of an elderly woman in Chattanooga. Federal appeals courts have taken different positions on the issue, making the case a good one for the court to resolve, the Bush administration said. The administration wants the justices to decide that federal law for indigent capital defendants does not extend taxpayer support to inmates' efforts to win clemency. Separately, Harbison's execution is on hold after a federal judge ruled in September that Tennessee's three-drug lethal injection method amounted to cruel and unusual punishment because of the "substantial risk of unnecessary pain" to the inmate. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is now considering that case, following the high court's decision in April that upheld the constitutionality of lethal injection in Kentucky. Harbison asked in 2006 to expand the responsibilities of his federal public defenders to also represent him in state clemency proceedings if he lost his court challenges. Justice Department lawyers have argued against Harbison's request. "There is no constitutional right either to clemency itself or to counsel to pursue it," Justice Department lawyers said in the filing. |
|
|
|
|
|
Court will hear appeal by Tenn. death row inmate
Breaking Legal News |
2008/06/23 08:44
|
The Supreme Court is stepping into the case of a convicted murderer who claims authorities concealed evidence that might have spared him a death sentence. The justices have twice before reinstated the death sentence for Gary Bradford Cone, who was convicted of beating an elderly couple to death in Memphis during a robbery. Cone acknowledged that he killed the couple, but said he was temporarily insane because of drugs and the stress of his wartime Vietnam experiences. He argued that state and federal courts never considered his claims that the state withheld evidence of his drug use. A panel of the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that Cone's plea had no merit. The dissenting judge said Cone's claims were never fairly considered by either state or federal courts. The appeals court had twice before issued rulings favorable to Cone, but was overruled each time by the Supreme Court. |
|
|
|
|
|
SF court protects privacy of work communications
Breaking Legal News |
2008/06/20 10:21
|
A federal appeals court has made it more difficult for employers to legally snoop on their workers' e-mails and text messages sent on company accounts. Under a Wednesday ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, employers that contract an outside business to transmit text messages can't read them unless the worker agrees. Users of text messaging services "have a reasonable expectation of privacy" in their messages stored on the service provider's network, Judge Kim Wardlaw wrote in the three-judge panel's unanimous opinion. The ruling also lets employers access employee e-mails only if they are kept on an internal server. The text message part of the ruling will affect more employers. According to analysts, the majority of U.S. companies pay outside parties to transmit their workers' text messages but most keep their workers' e-mail on internal servers. |
|
|
|
|
|
Court sides with employee in benefits case
Breaking Legal News |
2008/06/19 11:24
|
The Supreme Court said Thursday that courts should consider an insurance company's potential conflict of interest when reviewing the denial of an employee's health or disability benefits claim. The court ruled 6-3 in the case of an Ohio woman who sued MetLife Inc. over a disability claim. She contended insurance companies have a financial incentive to deny claims and that conflict of interest should weigh heavily in employees' favor when they challenge benefit claims in court. A federal appeals court ordered Wanda Glenn's benefits reinstated. The Supreme Court upheld that ruling. Writing for the majority, Justice Stephen Breyer said federal law imposes a special standard of care on insurers requiring full and fair review of claim denials. Breyer noted that MetLife had emphasized a medical report that favored denial, de-emphasized other reports suggesting benefits should be granted and failed to provide MetLife's vocational and medical experts with all relevant evidence. Dissenting, Justice Antonin Scalia said the court is using the wrong standard in dealing with potential conflicts of interest. Scalia said there must be evidence that a conflict improperly motivated a denial of benefits. In the MetLife case, there was no such evidence, Scalia said. Justices Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy also dissented. MetLife administered a disability plan for Sears, where Glenn worked for 14 years. The insurance company paid benefits for two years but in 2002 said her condition had improved and refused to continue the benefit payments. MetLife saved $180,000 by denying Glenn disability benefits until retirement, her lawyers said in court filings. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered Glenn's benefits reinstated in September 2006, ruling that MetLife acted under a conflict of interest and made a decision that was not the product of a principled and deliberative reasoning process. MetLife argued that the standard used by the 6th Circuit would encourage participants with dubious claims to file suit, which in turn would raise the costs of benefit plans to both companies and employers. |
|
|
|
|
|
Texas court orders execution warrant reinstated
Breaking Legal News |
2008/06/18 09:05
|
A former topless-club bouncer condemned for a double slaying almost 20 years ago is waiting in a Texas cell not far from the death chamber as his appeals play out in the courts. Charles Dean Hood initially won a reprieve just over an hour before he could have been put to death Tuesday when a state district judge withdrew his execution warrant. But an appeals court reinstated the warrant, saying the judge didn't have permission to spare Hood from lethal injection. The warrant is scheduled to expire at midnight. The U.S. Supreme Court has denied three other appeals, likely clearing the way for Hood's execution. Meanwhile, Oklahoma has executed its first death row inmate since last August. |
|
|
|
|
|
Appeals court refuses to stop gay weddings
Breaking Legal News |
2008/06/18 04:05
|
An appeals court has rejected a conservative group's latest effort to stop gay marriages in California before the November election. The Liberty Council had asked a state appeals court to block same-sex weddings until voters could decide the issue on the November ballot. The three-judge panel of the California Court of Appeal refused the request in a brief ruling issued Tuesday as gay marriages began in full swing around the state. Earlier the appeals court had ruled against allowing gay marriages but the state Supreme Court overturned that decision last month. In its latest ruling the appeals court says the high court has made it clear that same-sex marriage should be allowed. |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|