The lawsuits are coming fast and furious against Yum! Brands subsidiary Taco Bell after the E .coli incident hit many New York area Taco Bell restaurants. The latest lawsuit comes from the law firm of Marler Clark on behlaf of one of the victims Michael Notar, a Clinton, New York, resident, who according to reports fell ill with an E. Coli infections shortly after dining at Taco Bell. Notar was Hospitalized for over four days.
The lawsuit was filed in  U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York and coincides with a tour that is taking place today at a Taco Bell location in Philadelphia by Taco Bell President Greg Creed and Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell

There have been numerous Katrina-related insurance cases in Mississippi over the past year. In August, Judge Senter ruled that Nationwide Insurance was not obligated to cover a policyholder's claims for water damage caused by the hurricane because “provisions of the Nationwide policy that exclude coverage for damages caused by water are valid and enforceable terms of the insurance contract” and “similar policy terms have been enforced with respect to damage caused by high water associated with hurricanes in many reported decisions.”

In its opinion, the court wrote:

We have no statutory authority to issue a declaratory judgment concerning the constitutionality of legislative action, or inaction, in this matter . . . The only remedy set forth in art. 48 for the failure of a joint session to act is a direction to the Governor to call a joint session or a continuance of a joint session if the joint session fails in its duty. . .The plaintiffs have not set forth any legally tenable judicial enforcement role in ensuring that the members of the joint session comply with their constitutional duties under art. 48, and . . . case law provides no enforcement mechanisms.

The Court did, however, go on to criticize the inactivity of lawmakers to vote on the measure in November:

The members of the General Court are the people's elected representatives, and each one of them has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of the Commonwealth. Those members who now seek to avoid their lawful obligations, by a vote to recess without a roll call vote by yeas and nays on the merits of the initiative amendment . . . ultimately will have to answer to the people who elected them.

Gay rights groups praised Wednesday's ruling; Lee Swislow, Executive Director of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), said in a press statement:
The court has ruled on this question repeatedly, and today’s decision is consistent with what they’ve said before: that the legislature cannot be compelled to vote. The ruling maintains the critical separation of powers between the branches of government.

The Legislature has consistently refused to insert discrimination into the Constitution. Legislators have not only the freedom, but the right and the responsibility to vote their conscience. It is never right for the majority to vote on the rights of minorities.

In 2003, Massachusetts became the first state to legalize same-sex marriage with the high court's decision in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health. The proposed constitutional amendment, which has garnered over 170,000 signatures, would strictly define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, though it would leave existing Massachusetts same-sex marriages intact. It would need 50 votes in the 2007 legislature with the same in 2008 to be put on the November 2008 electoral ballot. When the state legislature last considered the amendment, opponents of the measure failed to amass the 151 votes necessary to kill the matter, instead voting 109-87 to recess a joint session with the Senate until January.

The left leaning Democratic Party was highly critical of many major points of the right-wing Republican Party's proposals and bills introduced this year. Having secured a thin majority control of the Congress in the November elections, there is pressure for them to show progress on highly visible issues.

The committee, led by Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Representatives Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) and Jeff Flake (R-AZ), expects to have a reconciled bill ready for the Senate to consider in March or April, followed by a House vote in the months following. The committee must reach compromise between a Senate bill passed in May that would set millions of illegal immigrants on a path to potential citizenship and would authorize a temporary worker program, with the more restrictive House version passed late last year which makes unlawful presence in the US a felony subject to deportation and could punish humanitarian groups aiding illegals.

The committee may also decide not to provide sufficient funding for the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which provides for 700 miles of border fencing to be constructed between the US and Mexico. The border fence bill, signed into law by President Bush in October, was passed by the House and Senate after Republican leadership decided to leave comprehensive immigration reform proposals for the next session of congress.

What might reform look like?

With the new Democratic majority in Congress, Democratic lawmakers and some key center-leaning Republican allies are working on measures that could place millions of illegal immigrants on a more direct path to citizenship. In May, the Senate passed a bill that was much more centrist than the radically right-wing bill passed by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives at the end of 2005.

The new efforts in both houses of Congress are likely to look more like the Senate bill, and in many cases be much more humane and liberal-leaning.

This is in direct response to public support by Americans that felt some of the measures went too far in punishing immigrants, while giving a free pass to businesses that were in greater violation of existing laws.

Being a nation of immigrants, most Americans want to welcome newcomers to the United States. The trick is to balance between security of the country, stability of the economy and the society, and simple humanity toward other people.

Accordingly, lawmakers are considering abandoning a requirement in the Senate bill that would compel several million illegal immigrants to leave the United States before becoming eligible to apply for citizenship.

The lawmakers are also considering denying financing for 700 miles of fencing along the border with Mexico, a law championed by Republicans. The original $6 billion to $10 billion estimate has increased to a $36 billion estimate, and may take longer than a decade to complete.

Details of the bill, which would be introduced early next year, are being drafted. Key points include tougher border security and a guest worker plan. The lawmakers, who hope for bipartisan support, will almost certainly face pressure to compromise on the issues from some Republicans and conservative Democrats.

The case, one of the nation's longest-running, non-criminal legal disputes, stems from a 1994 decision by an Anchorage jury to award the punitive damages to 34,000 fishermen and other Alaskans. Their property and livelihoods were harmed when the Valdez oil tanker struck a charted reef, spilled 11 million gallons of crude oil.

It's the third time the appeals court ordered the Anchorage court to reduce the $5 billion award, the nation's largest at the time, saying it was unconstitutionally excessive in light of U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

This time, in its 2-1 decision, the court ordered a specific amount in damages, while its previous rulings demanded a lower court to come up with its own figures.

"It is time for this protracted litigation to end," the court said.

U.S. District Judge H. Russel Holland of Anchorage begrudgingly complied in 2002, reducing damages to $4 billion. Irving, Texas-based Exxon again appealed.

The following year, the appeals court ordered Holland to revisit his decision, this time balancing it against a new 2003 Supreme Court ruling that said punitive damages usually could not be more than nine times general damages. The Anchorage jury awarded $287 million in general damages -- and issued punitive damages that were 17 times that amount.

Holland, appointed by President Reagan in 1984, declared Exxon's conduct "reprehensible" and set the figure at $4.5 billion plus interest, ruling that the Supreme Court's precedent did not directly apply to the case.

Exxon again appealed, and argued that it should have to pay no more than $25 million in punitive damages, which are meant to punish a company for misconduct.

The company, whose $36.1 billion in earnings last year were the highest ever by any U.S. corporation, said it has spent more than $3 billion to settle federal and state lawsuits and to clean the Prince William Sound area. The company earned about $5 billion when the spill occurred.

In October, Exxon Mobil reported earnings of $10.49 billion in the third quarter, the second-largest quarterly profit ever recorded by a publicly traded U.S. company.

In 1994, a federal jury found recklessness by Exxon and the captain of the Valdez, Joseph Hazelwood, who caused the tanker to run aground. That finding of malfeasance made Exxon liable for punitive damages.

The plaintiffs alleged Hazelwood ran the ship into a reef while drunk and Exxon knew he had a drinking problem, but left him in command of tankers.

Several Iraqi citizens sued a leading European bank and Australia's wheat exporting agency in New York federal court Friday for corporate misconduct facilitating the corruption of the Iraq Oil-for-Food program which bilked Iraqis out of humanitarian aid while simultaneously enriching the Saddam Hussein regime. French bank BNP Paribas and the Australian Wheat Board (AWB) face a claim for $200 million in damages brought by seven Iraqis seeking class-action status for Iraqi residents of Irbil, Dokuk and Sulaimaniyah who were allegedly deprived of humanitarian aid by the Oil-for-Food kickbacks. The plaintiffs are suing under RICO, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

Just last month the Australian government determined that AWB worked directly with Hussein's government to orchestrate the kickbacks that netted the company over an estimated $220 million and recommended charges against the company]. Iraq no longer permits AWB wheat imports. BNP Paribas is believed to have made nearly $1.5 billion in kickbacks.

New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine signed into law Thursday legislation providing legal recognition to same-sex civil unions. The New Jersey Legislature passed the civil unions bill last week in response to an October New Jersey Supreme Court ruling that same-sex couples must be given equal rights. The court said the state legislature must decide within 180 days whether the state would recognize same-sex marriage or another form of civil partnership. The civil unions law will take effect February 19. AP has more.

Currently, Massachusetts is the only US state to allow full same-sex marriage, which was legalized when the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled in 2003 that a ban on such marriages was unconstitutional.