Today's Date: Add To Favorites
Gasoline price gouging bill introduced in US House
Breaking Legal News | 2007/03/01 17:56

US Rep. Bart Stupak and 78 other House of Representatives members introduced a bill Wednesday that would crack down on gasoline price gouging by instituting harsh criminal and civil penalties on oil and gas corporations and on individuals. The bill would permit the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to investigate alleged price gouging in the crude oil, home heating oil, propane and natural gas sectors. Currently, the FTC is limited to investigating antitrust violations in connection with the industries, but lacks authority to probe price gouging. Although twenty-nine states have price-gouging laws, FTC Commissioner Deborah Platt Majoras cautioned against federal legislation last year due to the difficulty in distinguishing reasonable price fluctuations from price gouging and the deleterious effect the penalties would have on consumers.

Last May, the House passed a similar bill, the Federal Energy Price Protection Act, that would have required the FTC to define price gouging within six months of the bill's final passage. In addition, fuel refiners, wholesalers and retailers who engage in price gouging would have faced fines from $2 million to $150 million, the possibility of imprisonment, and increased civil penalties up to three times the amount of profits earned. The bill did not gain passage in the Senate.




Ok House to vote on strict illegal immigration bill
Breaking Legal News | 2007/03/01 14:55

An Oklahoma State House of Representatives committee approved a strict immigration bill on Wednesday for a full vote in the Oklahoma House. The Oklahoma Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act of 2007 seeks to prevent illegal immigrants from obtaining state identification, and would require all state and local agencies to verify citizenship status of applicants before authorizing benefits. The bill would also require public employers to enter job applicants into an electronic immigration database to verify legal status, and would repeal a 2003 law that permits illegal immigrants to attend state colleges at in-state tuition levels. The proposed bill states in part:

The State of Oklahoma finds that illegal immigration is causing economic hardship and lawlessness in this state and that illegal immigration is encouraged by public agencies within this state that provide public benefits without verifying immigration status. The State of Oklahoma further finds that illegal immigrants have been harbored and sheltered in this state and encouraged to reside in this state through the issuance of identification cards that are issued without verifying immigration status, and that these practices impede and obstruct the enforcement of federal immigration law, undermine the security of our borders, and impermissibly restrict the privileges and immunities of the citizens of Oklahoma. Therefore, the people of the State of Oklahoma declare that it is a compelling public interest of this state to discourage illegal immigration by requiring all agencies within this state to fully cooperate with federal immigration authorities in the enforcement of federal immigration laws.

The bill, considered one of the toughest illegal immigration measures in the country, is expected to pass easily in the state House of Representatives. The proposal would also have to be passed in the state Senate before going to the governor for approval.

The Oklahoma legislature is also now considering the Oklahoma English Language Act, which would require all official business of the state to be conducted in English, with exceptions.



Supreme court to rule on aid for religious charities
Breaking Legal News | 2007/02/28 21:12
The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, 06-157, where the court must decide whether taxpayers have standing under Article III of the Constitution to challenge federal support for "faith-based" religious initiatives. The Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFR) sued US Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao, complaining that government funds should not be used to promote President Bush’s Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. After the district court held that FFR did not have standing to sue and dismissed the case, the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled in January 2006 that taxpayers have standing to challenge a program created by a Presidential executive order, alleged to promote religion, and which is financed by a congressional appropriation.

On Wednesday, Justice Breyer questioned a White House lawyer on whether a taxpayer would be able to challenge a law in which Congress sets up a church at Plymouth Rock. Justice Scalia took the opposite stance and asked a lawyer for FFR whether taxpayers would be able to sue over the use of security money for a presidential trip in which religion was discussed.

The outcome of the case may depend on a 1968 Supreme Court decision which created an exception to the general prohibition on taxpayer challenges to the government spending of tax revenue. In that case, Board of Education v. Allen, the Court allowed taxpayers to challenge congressional spending for private religious schools.



Disney sues city over development
Breaking Legal News | 2007/02/28 08:50

The Walt Disney World Co. filed today what is believed to be its first ever lawsuit against the city of Anaheim, claiming legal action is needed to protect the tourist area from inappropriate development.

The Orange County Superior Court suit came less than two weeks after Disney officials led business leaders in fighting a City Council proposal to allow homes on a plot in the Anaheim Resort. The plan was rejected in a 2-2 vote.

Still, Disney officials said the lawsuit is necessary to ensure that this development and others go through required environmental studies, which they claim were skipped in this proposal. City staffers have said previous reviews were sufficient.

"Our concern is, this could quickly unravel the Anaheim Resort area and the golden egg that it is for Anaheim," said Rob Doughty, a Disneyland Resort spokesman.

Mayor Curt Pringle, who was against the residential plan, said he would leave it to the lawyers to consider the merits of the case.

But he said the lawsuit was a dramatic step on the part of Disney, the city's largest employer that is the center of the resort where much of the local taxes are generated.

"This is a very significant action. This is something that we should not take lightly," Pringle said.

Some council members said they were taken aback by the lawsuit, while others saw it coming.

"It's absolutely a surprise,'' said Councilman Harry Sidhu, who voted against the zoning change. "At the same time, they have a right to defend their position and we'll see what their demands are. I do not like to see any kind of lawsuit. I'm the type of person that wants a settlement, and I would like to give them a chance to present their case."

The lawsuit stems from unusual actions taken by both the council and the Planning Commission.

In August, four of five council members asked the staff for the zoning change to pave the way for SunCal to propose a 1,500-home development, including 200 affordable units.

Affordable-housing advocates praised the plan as a way to build low-cost homes near resort jobs. But business leaders said the proposal went against the long-term vision to put hotels and tourist venues on the 26.7-acre plot.

Last month, the commission went against the council's direction and rejected the residential zoning, agreeing with Disney that homes are incompatible with the resort area.

At the same time, the commission backed the city's recommendation to approve environmental documents, which outline how much development the surrounding roads, sewers and other infrastructure can handle. City staff relied on previous studies, instead of conducting new ones.

Because the council deadlocked on the plan, the commission's vote stands as the final decision.

Disney disagrees with the commission's endorsement of the environmental studies and now is suing to force the city to conduct them.

Frank Elfend, a consultant for SunCal, said he believes the lawsuit is unfounded. SunCal is requesting a council re-hearing on the zoning change.

"We think that this is another intimidation action on Disney's part," Elfend said.



Law firm bills $55,000 to agency facing probe
Breaking Legal News | 2007/02/28 08:47

The private law firm hired to represent the state Office of Legislative Services amid a federal grand jury investigation has submitted a $55,000 bill for its first few weeks on the job.

The law firm, Greenberg, Dauber, Epstein & Tucker, submitted an invoice Feb. 5 that totaled $55,032.25 for three lawyers' 189.7 billable hours, according to a redacted bill released by the OLS to Gannett New Jersey.

Though the firm did not send the OLS a written contract until Jan. 18, billing began on Dec. 30. By the time it sent a letter to OLS stipulating its rate -- $275 per hour, or $300 per hour in court -- the firm's lawyers had racked up $17,600 in fees.

Because the matter involves a federal grand jury looking at whether lawmakers personally profited from state budget decisions, little of the proceeding has been public.

Senate President Richard J. Codey, D-West Orange, has said the legal fight for which the outside counsel was hired only involves former Senate budget committee chairman Wayne Bryant, D-Lawnside, invoking an attorney-client privilege with the OLS, but subsequent subpoenas issued to partisan legislative offices and key lawmakers have indicated a broader scope.

OLS Executive Director Albert Porroni would neither confirm nor deny that the inquiry involves only Bryant.

The legal invoice renewed Republican calls for a meeting of the Legislative Services Commission, a bipartisan panel of lawmakers that oversees the OLS. Republicans have been calling for a commission meeting since it was revealed the OLS hired Edward J. Dauber without briefing lawmakers.



San Diego diocese files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
Breaking Legal News | 2007/02/28 08:37

The Catholic Diocese of San Diego filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on Tuesday putting a stop to an upcoming sex abuse trial and becoming the largest US diocese to file for bankruptcy thus far. The diocese had been engaged in settlement talks with plaintiffs' attorneys in the lawsuits over clergy abuse, however, after those talks failed to come to any resolution, the diocese filed for Chapter 11 reorganization. As Bishop Robert Brom explained, the diocese "decided against litigating our cases because of the length of time the process could take and, more importantly, because early trial judgments in favor of some victims could so deplete diocesan and insurance resources that there would be nothing left for other victims." David Clohessy, director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, said that the filing is not due to concerns for the victims, but rather "its for their own self-preservation."

The diocese told parishioners last week that it was considering declaring bankruptcy in light of the more than 140 pending lawsuits alleging sexual abuse by priests. In January 2007, the Catholic Diocese of Spokane agreed to settle molestation claims against priests for $48 million as part of its Chapter 11 reorganization plan. The Archdiocese of Portland filed for Chapter 11 in 2004, and the dioceses of Tuscon, Spokane, and Davenport soon followed suit in the wake of hundreds of sexual abuse lawsuits against clergy. Last month, the Portland archdiocese filed a new bankruptcy plan including a $75 million settlement of the sexual abuse claims.



US judge refuses to block execution of Ex-Iraqi Vp
Breaking Legal News | 2007/02/27 22:33

The US District Court for the District of Columbia ruled Tuesday that it has no jurisdiction to block the Iraqi death sentence for former Iraqi Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan. Ramadan was convicted by the Iraqi High Tribunal (IHT) in November and originally sentenced to life in prison. The IHT Appeals Chamber later deemed the sentence too lenient and ordered the death penalty for Ramadan.

Following the example of suspected Iraqi terrorist and US citizen Shawqi Omar, Ramadan brought a petition for a writ of habeas corpus before the federal court. Basing his claim on the fact that he is presently in US custody, Ramadan claimed that he would be subject to harm if turned over to Iraqi officials. Judge Paul Friedman ruled that regardless of whether Ramadan was in US custody, a US court lacks jurisdiction over an alien who is detained overseas and convicted by a foreign court. Friedman stated from the bench that granting the petition would constitute an improper collateral review of another court's decision.



[PREV] [1] ..[233][234][235][236][237][238][239][240][241].. [257] [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
TikTok content creators sue ..
Abortion consumes US politic..
Trump faces prospect of addi..
Retrial of Harvey Weinstein ..
Starbucks appears likely to ..
Supreme Court will weigh ban..
Judge in Trump case orders m..
Court makes it easier to sue..
Top Europe rights court cond..
Elon Musk will be investigat..
Retired Supreme Court Justic..
The Man Charged in an Illino..
Texas’ migrant arrest law w..
Former Georgia insurance com..
Alabama woman who faked kidn..


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