|
|
|
Ill. Supreme Court ends challenge to abortion law
Breaking Legal News |
2013/07/12 09:32
|
The Illinois Supreme Court ended a lengthy and emotionally charged legal appeal over an abortion notification law Thursday, clearing the way for the state to begin enforcing a 1995 measure that requires doctors to notify a girl's parents 48 hours before the procedure.
The court ruled unanimously to uphold a circuit court's earlier dismissal of a challenge to the law that was filed by a Granite City women's health clinic and a doctor at the University of Illinois at Chicago.
After court battles that lasted nearly two decades, Illinois now joins 38 other states in requiring some level of parental notification. The law goes into effect in 35 days unless it's appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has found such laws to be constitutional elsewhere.
Opponents of the notification law had argued that it violated privacy and gender equality rights because young women should be able to make their own decisions about their bodies and pregnancies. Supporters of the law, which was defended by the Illinois Attorney General's office, argued that parents would be deprived of basic rights if they were not notified of a daughter's decision to have an abortion.
Anti-abortion activists have long said Illinois was a haven for teens from states with stricter laws on the books seeking abortions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court strikes federal marriage provision
Breaking Legal News |
2013/06/26 09:30
|
In a major victory for gay rights, the Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down a provision of a federal law denying federal benefits to married gay couples and cleared the way for the resumption of same-sex marriage in California.
The justices issued two 5-4 rulings in their final session of the term. One decision wiped away part of a federal anti-gay marriage law that has kept legally married same-sex couples from receiving tax, health and pension benefits.
The other was a technical ruling that said nothing at all about same-sex marriage, but left in place a trial court's declaration that California's Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. That outcome probably will allow state officials to order the resumption of same-sex weddings in the nation's most populous state in about a month.
In neither case did the court make a sweeping statement, either in favor of or against same-sex marriage. And in a sign that neither victory was complete for gay rights, the high court said nothing about the validity of gay marriage bans in California and roughly three dozen other states. A separate provision of the federal marriage law that allows a state to not recognize a same-sex union from elsewhere remains in place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ID court rules man can face felony stalking charge
Breaking Legal News |
2013/06/10 08:21
|
The Idaho Court of Appeals has ruled that allegedly violating a Washington-issued no-contact order is sufficient to elevate charges against an Idaho man to felony first-degree stalking.
The judges on Friday reversed a 2nd District Court decision that had reduced charges against Paul Carey Hartzell to second-degree stalking, a misdemeanor.
According to court documents, a counselor who lived in Washington but worked in Idaho sought a no-contact order preventing Hartzell from contacting her for a year.
That's after he allegedly made unwanted advances, including at her home.
Initially charged with first-degree stalking, a judge reduced the charges against Hartzell.
That didn't sit well with prosecutors.
The Appeals Court agreed, ruling unanimously the district court judge erred by concluding the Washington state order couldn't elevate the Idaho charge to first-degree stalking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intel chair says NSA court order is renewal
Breaking Legal News |
2013/06/06 21:12
|
The chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence committee says the top secret court order for telephone records of millions of U.S. customers of Verizon is a three-month renewal of an ongoing practice.
Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California spoke to reporters at a Capitol Hill news conference on Thursday after the Obama administration defended the National Security Agency's need to collect the records.
Other lawmakers have said previously that the practice is legal under the Patriot Act although civil libertarians have complained about U.S. snooping on American citizens.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court: Police can take DNA swabs from arrestees
Breaking Legal News |
2013/06/03 14:12
|
A sharply divided Supreme Court on Monday said police can routinely take DNA from people they arrest, equating a DNA cheek swab to other common jailhouse procedures like fingerprinting.
"Taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the court's five-justice majority.
But the four dissenting justices said that the court was allowing a major change in police powers.
"Make no mistake about it: because of today's decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason," conservative Justice Antonin Scalia said in a sharp dissent which he read aloud in the courtroom.
At least 28 states and the federal government now take DNA swabs after arrests. But a Maryland court was one of the first to say that it was illegal for that state to take Alonzo King's DNA without approval from a judge, saying King had "a sufficiently weighty and reasonable expectation of privacy against warrantless, suspicionless searches."
But the high court's decision reverses that ruling and reinstates King's rape conviction, which came after police took his DNA during an unrelated arrest. Kennedy wrote the decision, and was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer. Scalia was joined in his dissent by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court Upholds Rifle Sales Reporting Requirement
Breaking Legal News |
2013/06/01 10:45
|
A federal appeals court panel has unanimously upheld an Obama administration requirement that dealers in southwestern border states report when customers buy multiple high-powered rifles.
The firearms industry trade group, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, and two Arizona gun sellers argued that the administration overstepped its legal authority in the 2011 regulation, which applies to gun sellers in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.
But the three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said that the requirement was "unambiguously" authorized under the Gun Control Act of 1968.
The challengers argued that the requirement unlawfully creates a national firearms registry, but the court said because it applies to a small percentage of gun dealers, it doesn't come close to creating one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court strikes down Arizona 20-week abortion ban
Breaking Legal News |
2013/05/23 09:06
|
A federal court in San Francisco Tuesday struck down Arizona's ban on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the law violates a string of U.S. Supreme Court rulings starting with Roe v. Wade that guarantees a woman's right to an abortion before a fetus is able to survive outside the womb. That's generally considered to be about 24 weeks. Normal pregnancies run about 40 weeks
Several states have enacted similar bans starting at 20 weeks. But the 9th Circuit's ruling is binding only in the nine Western states under the court's jurisdiction. Idaho is the only other state in the region covered by the 9th Circuit with a similar ban.
A trial judge had ruled that the ban could take effect. U.S. District Judge James Teilborg ruled it was constitutional, partly because of concerns about the health of women and possible pain for fetuses.
But abortion-rights groups appealed that decision, saying the 20-week ban would not give some women time to carefully decide whether to abort problem pregnancies. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
