|
|
|
Man asks court to change his name to 'In God We Trust'
Breaking Legal News |
2008/05/05 03:19
|
Steve Kreuscher wants a judge to allow him to legally change his name. He wants to be known as "In God We Trust." Kreuscher (CROY'-shir) says the new name would symbolize the help God gave him through tough times. The 57-year-old man also told the (Arlington Heights) Daily Herald he's worried that atheists may succeed in removing the phrase "In God We Trust" from U.S. currency. He recalls that the phrase "God Reigns" was removed from the Zion city seal in 1992 after courts deemed it unconstitutional. Zion was founded as a theocracy — by a sect that believed the Earth was flat. The school bus driver and amateur artist in the northern Chicago suburb says he has filed a petition to change his name in Lake County Circuit Court. |
|
|
|
|
|
AP sues Supreme Court administrator over FOIA
Breaking Legal News |
2008/05/01 10:25
|
The Associated Press has filed a lawsuit over a Freedom of Information Act request against the administrative director of the West Virginia Supreme Court, seeking the phone records and visitor logs of one of the justices.
AP filed the suit April 30 in Kanawha Circuit Court against Steve Canterbury. The AP is seeking all communications from Jan. 1, 2006, to the present between Justice Spike Maynard to any employee of Massey Energy Co., including Don Blankenship and Brenda Magann.
The suit was filed against Canterbury as he has possession and control over the records requested by the AP, which include all e-mails and phone records, including cell phone calls.
The AP also requested visitor logs pertaining to Maynard.
Canterbury has refused requests from AP reporter Lawrence Messina, who first asked for the records Jan. 16, 2008, and two times after.
In a letter to Canterbury, state Supreme Court general counsel J. Kirk Brandfass said in reference to the FOIA, West Virginia Code uses the term "public body" to include "judicial departments," but claims the term refers to the administrative functions of the Supreme Court, not the Justices themselves.
In a statement released by Canterbury, he says releasing the information will set a bad precedent and have long-term ramifications.
"While is it abundantly clear what is at the heart of this particular request, any demand for the disclosure of communications or information of West Virginia Supreme Court Justices has effects well beyond any singular request," Canterbury said. "The disclosure of the requested information sets a bad precedent, is likely unconstitutional, and has long-range ramifications."
Canterbury said the results of this case could affect not only Supreme Court Justices, but also Circuit Judges, Family Court Judges, Juvenile Court Judges, Magistrates and Mental Hygiene Commissioners.
Also in the statement, Canterbury said the judiciary is an independent branch of state government, entitled to conduct its business under rules put in order by the Supreme Court. He said the legislative branch, through the FOIA statue, cannot require the judicial branch of government to disclose the communications of its members.
"The idea that all judicial records are subject to a FOIA request by any person or entity for any reason is clearly contrary to the sound administration of our system of justice," Canterbury said.
However, the AP claims the refusal to disclose the records is unlawful. It seeks injunctive relief seeking the records.
Attorneys Rudolph DiTrapano and Sean P. McGinley are representing the AP. Robert P. Fitzsimmons and Robert J. Fitzsimmons, Daniel J. Guida, Bill Wilmouth and Ancil Ramey are representing Canterbury. |
|
|
|
|
|
Court tosses out NYC lawsuit against gun industry
Breaking Legal News |
2008/04/30 08:37
|
A federal appeals court has thrown out New York City's lawsuit claiming the gun industry sells firearms with the knowledge that they can be diverted into illegal markets. It is one of several suits that cities have filed against gun makers. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday that federal law provides the gun industry with broad immunity from lawsuits brought by crime victims and violence-plagued cities. The lawsuit said the industry violated public nuisance law by allowing widespread access to illegal firearms. |
|
|
|
|
|
Voter-ID ruling worries Democrats
Breaking Legal News |
2008/04/29 08:56
|
The Supreme Court's decision Monday to uphold Indiana's photo-ID law in elections will permit Republican-dominated legislatures in other states to pass legislation that liberal political advocates say will disenfranchise poorer, Democratic-leaning voters. Project Vote, a liberal-leaning voter-registration group, said 59 voter-ID bills have been introduced in 24 states, nearly all of them by Republicans, during the 2008 legislative session. Republican legislators in 11 states also are pushing bills to require proof of citizenship to register to vote. More than 20 states, including Arizona, require some type of identification at the polls. The Supreme Court, on a 6-3 vote, ruled that Indiana has a "valid interest in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process,' " Justice John Paul Stevens said in an opinion that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy. Stevens said Indiana's desire to prevent fraud and to inspire voter confidence in the election system are important even though there have been no reports of the kind of fraud the law was designed to combat. The law does not apply to absentee balloting, where election experts agree the threat of fraud is higher. The use of photo IDs as a way to curb voter fraud has become a touchstone for Democrats, who accuse the GOP of engaging in a vast conspiracy to restrict voting of the poor, the elderly and minorities. Congress investigated the Bush administration's Justice Department last year over allegations that its Civil Rights Division had twisted enforcement of the nation's voting-rights laws to aid Republicans and had authorized restrictive voter-ID laws in various states.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court upholds photo ID law for voters
Breaking Legal News |
2008/04/28 11:06
|
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights, validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws. In a splintered 6-3 ruling, the court upheld Indiana's strict photo ID requirement, which Democrats and civil rights groups said would deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots. Its backers said it was needed to prevent fraud. It was the most important voting rights case since the Bush v. Gore dispute that sealed the 2000 election for George W. Bush. But the voter ID ruling lacked the conservative-liberal split that marked the 2000 case. The law "is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting 'the integrity and reliability of the electoral process,'" Justice John Paul Stevens said in an opinion that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy. Stevens was a dissenter in Bush v. Gore in 2000. Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also agreed with the outcome, but wrote separately.
Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter dissented, just as they did in 2000.More than 20 states require some form of identification at the polls. Courts have upheld voter ID laws in Arizona, Georgia and Michigan, but struck down Missouri's. Monday's decision comes a week before Indiana's presidential primary. |
|
|
|
|
|
After Court Ruling, States to Proceed With Executions
Breaking Legal News |
2008/04/23 08:38
|
States began moving forward with plans for executions this week after the Supreme Court declined last Wednesday to review the appeals of death row inmates who had challenged lethal-injection methods in nearly a dozen states. The court had issued orders staying several executions last year and earlier this year while it weighed whether Kentucky's lethal-injection procedure constituted cruel and unusual punishment. States had postponed at least 14 scheduled executions pending the high court's decision, creating a de facto moratorium on capital punishment, according to the Death Penalty Information Center, which opposes capital punishment. In a 7 to 2 vote last week, the justices said the three-drug cocktail used by Kentucky, which is similar to the one employed by the federal government and 34 other states, does not carry so great a risk of pain that it violates the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. With three executions already scheduled for this summer, Virginia could be the first state to carry out the punishment after the resolution of the Kentucky case. The state has scheduled a May 27 execution date for Kevin Green, who killed a couple in Brunswick County; June 10 for Percy L. Walton, who killed three neighbors in Danville; and July 24 for Edward Nathaniel Bell, who shot a police officer in Winchester. "I actually expect to see a spate of scheduled executions," said Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center. Dieter said that despite its approval of Kentucky's lethal-injection procedure, the Supreme Court left room for lawyers to contest other states' procedures. "That sets the stage for a state-by-state resolution of this conflict," he said. Attorneys contesting lethal injections have focused on training and procedures as ways to challenge them. In numerous cases before federal and state courts, attorneys have argued that people who deliver anesthesia do not know how to insert a needle properly into a vein. They have contended that lighting has been poor during some executions, limiting the ability to see mistakes. And they have argued that some technicians hired to conduct medical procedures are not qualified. |
|
|
|
|
|
Court lifts stays of execution for 3 death row inmates
Breaking Legal News |
2008/04/21 12:52
|
Prosecutors moved quickly Monday to set new execution dates for three death-row inmates, hours after the Supreme Court lifted a reprieve it granted last fall so it could consider the constitutionality of lethal injection. The court blocked the executions of Thomas Arthur of Alabama, Earl Wesley Berry of Mississippi and Carlton Turner of Texas last fall while it considered a challenge to Kentucky's lethal injection procedures. The high court ruled 7-2 last week that the procedures are not cruel, and the justices' last-minute orders temporarily sparing the three inmates automatically expired when the justices denied their appeals Monday. Lisa Smith, a Dallas County assistant district attorney who handles capital cases, said Monday that the execution of Turner, who was convicted of killing his parents, likely will be set for summer. |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|