Today's Date: Add To Favorites
Lawsuit claims sexual abuse at Guilford church
Breaking Legal News | 2007/08/02 06:41
A man in his 40s has filed a lawsuit against the Archdiocese of Hartford and his former parish priest claiming he was sexually abused in 1974 by the priest in Guilford. The man, identified in court papers only as Michael Doe, a former altar boy at St. George Catholic Church, claims the Rev. Daniel McSheffery sexually abused him when he was an 11-year-old boy. The lawsuit, filed in Superior Court July 18, is the most recent in a series of sex-abuse claims against McSheffery, a priest who served in several churches in Connecticut since the 1960s.

Doe's attorney, Thomas M. McNamara, said his client is seeking "the value of what McSheffrey and the diocese took from him that he'll never be able to regain. We'll let a jury decide what that is."

In 2005, the Hartford Archdiocese reached a $22 million settlement with 43 alleged clergy sex abuse victims. That settlement stemmed from abuse claims against 14 priests, including McSheffery.

McSheffery, now in his mid-70s, has been on administrative leave since 2002, when the first abuse allegations against him arose.

Doe, now in his 40s, can legally file the civil suit because of a state law passed in 2002 that extended the statute of limitations so that victims of child sexual abuse can file suits until they are 48.

New Haven attorney Hugh Keefe, who is representing McSheffery, had no comment on the most recent lawsuit, but emphasized that his client has not been convicted of any crime.

"Father McSheffery has not been found guilty either civilly or criminally in any court anywhere," Keefe said Wednesday.

The Rev. John Gatzak, director of communication for the Archdiocese of Hartford, said he had no comment specifically about the most recent lawsuit, but said such allegations "cause us to think of the pain on the part of the victims and to redouble the church's efforts to make sure such abuse never occurs again."



House reverses high court ruling on workers' lawsuits
Breaking Legal News | 2007/08/01 08:17

The House voted Tuesday to reverse the Supreme Court's decision limiting the time that workers have to sue their employers for pay discrimination. The Bush administration has threatened to veto the legislation, pushed almost entirely by Democrats. The House voted 225-199 to restart the statute of limitations for pay discrimination lawsuits each time an employee gets a paycheck affected by sexism or racism, repudiating a decision by the high court's five most conservative justices.

"Discrimination has no place in our law, no place in our hearts and no place because of technicalities," said Rep. Robert Andrews, D-N.J.

The Supreme Court voted 5-4 on May 29 to throw out a Goodyear employee's complaint that she earned thousands of dollars less than her male counterparts because of discrimination.

Lilly Ledbetter, a supervisor at Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.'s plant in Gadsden, Ala., sued right before she retired. She ended a 19-year career making $6,500 less than the lowest-paid male supervisor, and claimed earlier decisions by her supervisors kept her from making more.

The court said she had waited too long to sue. Under the justices' decision, which they said was based on congressional legislation, an employee must sue within a 180-day deadline of a decision involving pay if the employee thinks it involved race, sex, religion or national origin.

That opens the door for corporations to discriminate, Democrats said. "If you can get away with it for 180 days, you're home free," said Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., chair of the House Education and Labor Committee.

The Democrats' legislation would allow employees to sue within 180 days of their last affected paychecks. Senate Democrats are working on a similar bill.

Ledbetter, who will not be helped by the legislation, said she hopes it helps other people. "I just want to open the doors for women in the future so they can be treated fairly," she said in an interview.

The White House has threatened to veto the bill, and has enough votes in the House to make it stick.

The legislation "would allow employees to bring a claim of pay or other employment-related discrimination years or even decades after the alleged discrimination occurred," the White House said.

"Employers would be forced to defend against an avalanche of decades-old, frivolous claims. The anticipated increase in legal and record- keeping costs could be staggering," said Jay Timmons, the National Association of Manufacturers' senior vice president for policy and government relations.

House Republicans also said the measure was designed to benefit trial lawyers _ a Democratic constituency _ by giving them a new forum for thousands of lawsuits.

"Trial lawyers, you can be sure, are salivating at this prospect," said Rep. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon of California, the ranking Republican on the Education and Labor Committee.

"The majority on the Supreme Court bent over backwards, ignoring both precedent and simple common sense, to rob (Ledbetter) of her right to equal treatment in the workplace," AFL-CIO President John Sweeney said. "The legislation passed today remedies that inequity and once again makes it possible for victims of discrimination to take their cases to court and receive fair hearings and just compensation."




R.I. judge seeks teen drinking, drug cases
Breaking Legal News | 2007/08/01 04:29
The state's chief Family Court judge is urging police chiefs to refer teenage drinking and drug cases to his court instead of to local juvenile hearing boards. Judge Jeremiah S. Jeremiah Jr. said Family Court provided better services to deal with substance abuse cases. He said moving teenagers out of the hearing boards and into the Family Court system would recognize drug and alcohol use as a "serious and dangerous offense."

"The Family Court has both staff and specialized programs in place to effectively and efficiently handle this serious problem facing our youth throughout the state," Jeremiah wrote in a letter to police chiefs.

The letter follows the death two weeks ago of a 17-year-old Barrington teenager who disappeared in a river while riding a kneeboard pulled by a motorboat. The boat operator, a classmate, faces charges including underage possession of alcohol and refusing to take a breath test.

The hearing boards handle juvenile cases in all but six of Rhode Island's 39 cities and towns, and police departments can decide whether to refer a teenager there or to Family Court.

Typically, Family Court handles more serious charges, and teenagers facing a second offense are also more likely to be sent there.

But Jeremiah is seeking to expand the reach of Family Court by asking police chiefs to refer all cases to Family Court that involve the juvenile equivalent of an adult misdemeanor offense, such as using fake identification to buy alcohol or underage possession of alcohol.

Among the Family Court services Jeremiah cited are organized trips to an emergency room to see the consequences of drunken driving and alcohol-related incidents.



Dentist's Practical Joke Leads Him to Court
Breaking Legal News | 2007/07/30 10:18
For the purposes of a practical joke, an oral surgeon exploited the vulnerability of a patient under general anesthesia and had to pay her $250,000 as settlement. Then, he sued the insurance company that refused to defend his egregious behavior. As a result of the high court's ruling Thursday, he now gets back the $250,000, plus another $750,000 for damages and attorney fees. The jokester wins.

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Robert Woo, who had sued Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. The company refused to defend Woo under his policy because it said the not-very-funny practical joke Woo played on his patient did not qualify as "dental services."

Woo's surgical assistant had asked him to replace two of her teeth with implants. Woo, who often teased the assistant about her pot-bellied pig, had the implants made — as well as two extras in the shape of boar tusks. While the assistant was sedated, Woo removed her oxygen mask, put the tusks in her mouth and took pictures, some with her eyes pried open.

The employee was so unnerved when she saw the photos, she did not return to work and sued.

The most stunning aspect of the decision was the majority's opinion: "We conclude that Fireman's had a duty to defend under Woo's professional liability provision because the insertion of boar tusk flippers in [the patient's] mouth conceivably fell within the policy's broad definition of the practice of dentistry."

The general practice of dentistry includes humiliating vulnerable patients?

Thank Justices Mary Fairhurst, Richard Sanders, Bobbe Bridge, Tom Chambers and Susan Owens for that wisdom. They overturned a state Appeals Court ruling that sided with Fireman's.


Embattled Gonzales talks crime-fighting in Indy
Breaking Legal News | 2007/07/27 10:11

Embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is in Indianapolis Friday addressing law enforcement assigned to sex crimes. Gonzales' appearance comes one day after Senate Democrats called for a special prosecutor to investigate whether he committed perjury. Gonzales faces new questions about his credibility because of apparent contradictions between his sworn Senate testimony and an intelligence official's statements. As a result, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., has threatened to request a perjury investigation of Gonzales.

Gonzales didn't mention this latest controversy, instead, sticking to his speech to law enforcement.

"My promise to this group and to the parents of America is that I'm committed. I will not rest, even after I'm no longer attorney general, until this nation is better able to shield our children from crimes," he said.

Gonzales has resisted calls from members of Congress to step down as attorney general. The White House defended Gonzales on Thursday against accusations he gave misleading testimony to Congress. A key Republican senator critical of Gonzales said there was no sign that President Bush's support for the attorney general was weakening.

Sen. Arlen Specter, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, accompanied Bush on an Air Force One on a trip to Philadelphia. At a hearing on Tuesday, the Pennsylvania Republican had told Gonzales, "I do not find your testimony credible, candidly."

The senator Thursday that Bush was sticking by Gonzales out of personal loyalty, despite the attorney general's deteriorating support on Capitol Hill. "The hearing two days ago was devastating (for Gonzales). But so was the hearing before that and so was the hearing before that," Specter said.



Minister tells court marijuana is a sacrament
Breaking Legal News | 2007/07/26 06:29

The mail-order minister of a Hollywood church that burns marijuana during services and allegedly sells it to members says that’s protected under federal law because the drug is a religious sacrament. But Judge Mary Strobel has ruled that the Reverend Craig X. Rubin can’t use federal law as a defense because he faces only state charges.

Rubin, who’s representing himself at his drug trial, says members of his Temple 420 believe that marijuana is the tree of life mentioned in the Bible.

Though ordained in 1990 by the Universal Life Church, police and prosecutors describe Rubin as a drug dealer. He faces up to seven years in prison if convicted of possessing marijuana for sale.

The 41-year-old Rubin has no legal experience, and says he spent last weekend praying and smoking marijuana with Indians in a sweat lodge at the bottom of the Grand Canyon.



CA Man Charged With Obscenity Violations
Breaking Legal News | 2007/07/25 11:31

A California man has been charged by a federal grand jury in Los Angeles with operating an Internet-based obscenity distribution business and related offenses, Assistant Attorney General Alice S. Fisher of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and U.S. Attorney George Cardona of the Central District of California announced today.

The indictment returned yesterday charges Ira Isaacs, doing business as Stolen Car Films and LA Media, with four counts of using an interactive computer service to sell and distribute obscene films on DVD, two counts of using a common carrier to distribute obscene DVDs, and two counts of failing to label sexually explicit DVDs with the name and location of the custodian of records containing age and identification information for performers in sexually explicit films. The maximum penalty is five years in prison on each count.

The court will issue a summons directing Isaacs, who is believed to reside in the Hollywood Hills, to appear in United States District Court in Los Angeles for arraignment in August. The indictment also seeks the forfeiture of all obscene materials produced and transported by Isaacs and any proceeds derived from the sale of such materials.

The charges contained in the indictment are merely accusations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Kenneth Whitted of the Justice Department’s Obscenity Prosecution Task Force and Assistant U.S. Attorney Craig Missakian of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California. The Task Force was formed to focus on the prosecution of adult obscenity nationwide. The investigation was conducted by the FBI’s Adult Obscenity Squad, a national initiative of the FBI based in the Washington, D.C. Field Office, and agents from the FBI’s Los Angeles Field Office.



[PREV] [1] ..[203][204][205][206][207][208][209][210][211].. [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