|
|
|
Court to hear bid to sue Shell for Nigerian abuses
Breaking Legal News |
2011/10/17 01:56
|
The Supreme Court said Monday it will use a dispute between Nigerian villagers and oil giant Royal Dutch Shell to decide whether corporations may be held liable in U.S. courts for alleged human rights abuses overseas.
The justices said they will review a federal appeals court ruling in favor of Shell. The case centers on the 222-year-old Alien Tort Statute that has been increasingly used in recent years to sue corporations for alleged abuses abroad.
The villagers argue Shell was complicit in torture and other crimes against humanity in the country's oil-rich Ogoni region in the Niger Delta.
A divided panel of federal appeals court judges in New York said the 18th century law may not be used against corporations. More recently, appellate judges in Washington said it could.
In a second case the court agreed to hear, the justices will weigh whether the Torture Victims Protection Act of 1992 can be invoked against organizations, or only individuals.
The sons and widow of Azzam Rahim have filed a civil lawsuit against the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization. The Palestinian-born Rahim was a naturalized U.S. citizen who was beaten and died in the custody of Palestinian intelligence officers in Jericho in 1995. Three officers were jailed for their role in the case, according to a State Department report.
But when Rahim's relatives sought money damages for his death, the federal appeals court in Washington said they could not use the 1992 law to go after the Palestinian organizations. The law may be applied only to "natural persons," the appeals court said.
The Nigerians' lawsuit stems from alleged human rights violations between 1992 and 1995. The suit claims that Shell was eager to stop protests about continuing oil exploration in the area and was complicit in Nigerian government actions that included fatal shootings, rapes, beatings, arrests and property destruction. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ex-Justice Stevens optimistic about court's future
Breaking Legal News |
2011/10/10 09:42
|
Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens spent much of his 35 years on the court disagreeing with the majority, but he's bullish about the institution.
At a talk Monday at Princeton University, his biggest applause line was for his shortest answer. The question: Are you optimistic about the future of the court and the Constitution?
His answer: "Yes."
The 91-year-old retired justice had a public conversation with Princeton Provost Christopher Eisgruber, who served as a clerk for him in the 1989-1990 court session.
His talk came a week after the publication of his book "Five Chiefs," about the three chief justices he served under and the two others he got to know earlier in his legal career as a clerk and a lawyer.
Stevens, famous for his bow ties, donned one in Princeton black and orange for the occasion. During a tenure that was the third-longest in court history, he also became famous for disagreeing with the court's majority. Stevens was appointed by Republican President Gerald Ford, and by the time he left last year, he was perhaps the most reliably liberal member of the court. About half his 1,400 opinions were dissents
For some Princeton students, that made him a hero. One woman wore a T-shirt that said, "I (heart) JPS."
Stevens has regrets about upholding a Texas capital punishment law and wishes the court would change positions on sovereign immunity and allow lawsuits against the government.
Yet he's happy with the way the court works.
He appeared a bit taken aback when one student asked him if the court should have a way to enforce its own rulings. "It's true that the court has to rely on the executive branch," he said. "But I don't think that's ever been a problem."
He also that by the time he joined the court in 1975, it was a congenial place — something he said wasn't the case when he was a clerk there himself in 1947. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Airline attack suspect sought martyrdom
Breaking Legal News |
2011/10/10 09:41
|
A young Nigerian allegedly on a terrorist mission for al-Qaida prayed, washed and put on perfume moments before trying to detonate a bomb in his underwear to bring down an international jetliner on Christmas 2009, a prosecutor told jurors as the man's trial opened Tuesday.
Virtually everyone aboard Northwest Airlines Flight 253 had holiday plans, but Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab believed his calling was martyrdom, Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathan Tukel said.
In the plane's bathroom, "he was engaging in rituals. He was preparing to die and enter heaven," Tukel said. "He purified himself. He washed. He brushed his teeth. He put on perfume. He was praying and perfuming himself to get ready to die."
After returning to his seat, Abdulmutallab pushed a small plunger on the chemical bomb in his underwear, an action that produced a "pop," the prosecutor told jurors.
The bomb didn't work as planned but Abdulmutallab was engulfed in flames, said Tukel, who displayed the flight's seating chart on a screen to show jurors where things happened on the plane.
Opening statements began after an unexplained 70-minute recess requested by Abdulmutallab and his attorney, Anthony Chambers, shortly after they entered the courtroom. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court turns away appeal over commandments display
Breaking Legal News |
2011/10/04 11:18
|
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear the appeal of an Ohio judge wanting to display a poster of the Ten Commandments in his courtroom.
The display has been covered with a drape since a federal judge ordered Richland County Common Pleas Judge James DeWeese to remove it in October 2009. DeWeese also had posted a label above it bearing the word "Censored."
DeWeese that he is disappointed but knew his effort to get the Supreme Court to hear the case was a long shot, the Mansfield News Journal reported.
"I will probably eventually take the display down," he told the newspaper.
DeWeese hung the poster in his Mansfield courtroom in 2006 after the U.S. Supreme Court let stand lower-court rulings that another Ten Commandment poster he hung in 2000 violated separation between church and state.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio Foundation sued, and the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati ruled the display endorsed religious views and was unconstitutional. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appeals court hears challenge to health care law
Breaking Legal News |
2011/09/26 09:41
|
A conservative-leaning panel of federal appellate judges raised concerns about President Barack Obama's health care overhaul Friday, but suggested the challenge to it may be premature.
The arguments at the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington over a lawsuit against Obama's signature domestic legislative achievement focused on whether Congress overstepped its authority in requiring people to buy health insurance or pay a penalty on their taxes, beginning in 2014.
But Judge Brett Kavanaugh, a former top aide to President George W. Bush who appointed him to the bench, said that he has a "major concern" that courts might not be able to rule on the law's constitutionality until 2015. That's because a federal law bars most challenges to tax-related legislation before the tax or penalty is paid.
A federal appeals court in Richmond cited that law in throwing out another challenge to the overhaul. Two other appeals courts have reached differing conclusions — one declaring the law unconstitutional and the other upholding it. The Supreme Court is expected to weigh in and could possibly even decide to review the law before the Washington circuit issues an opinion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Samsung seeks iPhone, iPad sale ban in Dutch court
Breaking Legal News |
2011/09/24 09:41
|
Samsung asked a Dutch court Monday to slap an injunction on Apple Inc. to prevent it from selling iPhones and iPad tablets in the Netherlands, saying Apple does not have licenses to use 3G mobile technology in the devices.
The legal battle is the latest round in a series of claims and counterclaims of patent breaches by the rival technology heavyweights playing out in courtrooms around the world.
Samsung Electronics Co. lawyer Bas Berghuis told a civil judge at The Hague District Court that Apple "never bothered to ask about licenses" before it started selling 3G-enabled iPhones.
Apple lawyer Rutger Kleemans hit back by accusing Samsung of using the patent dispute to "hold Apple hostage" because of Apple's legal battles accusing Samsung of copying its iPhone and iPad designs.
"It's a holdup," Kleemans said. "Because Apple dared to take action against Samsung's copycat tactics."
Kleemans urged the court to reject the injunction request, saying the patents involved "are not designed to be used as a weapon against Apple."
No date was immediately given for a ruling.
Earlier this month, a court in Duesseldorf, Germany, ruled that Samsung cannot sell its Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Germany because its design too closely resembled the iPad2. The ruling only applied to direct sales from the Samsung, meaning distributors who acquire the Tab 10.1 from abroad could resell them in Germany. Samsung said it would appeal that judgment. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court: Samsung can't sell tablet in Germany
Breaking Legal News |
2011/09/08 08:47
|
A German court rules that Samsung Electronics's Galaxy Tab cannot be sold in Germany because it violated patents of rival Apple's iPad2.
A Duesseldorf state court said Friday it would not allow Samsung, based in Seoul, South Korea, to market its Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Germany because it too closely resembles the iPad2.
Already in August, the court had ruled in favor of Apple, based in Cupertino, California, forcing Samsung to withdraw its tablet from the market.
Samsung challenged the ban. The companies are involved in a series of legal disputes in countries around the world over allegations that each copies the other's technology.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
