Today's Date: Add To Favorites
Judge: Giuliani golf lawsuit slices off course
Court Watch | 2009/05/21 03:16
A federal judge uses golf lingo and quotes from "Caddyshack" in his ruling that a lawsuit by ousted Duke University golfer Andrew Giuliani against the school landed out of bounds.


The opinion issued Tuesday by U.S. Magistrate Judge Wallace Dixon recommended dismissing the lawsuit against Duke. Dixon used phrases such as "this shot also lands in the drink" in the decision, which now goes to a District Court judge.

Giuliani's attorney said Wednesday he wants the case to move forward.

Giuliani is the son of former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. His lawsuit claims that Duke's golf coach manufactured accusations against him to justify kicking him off the team.

A Duke spokesman said the opinion recognized there is no right to play on a team.



Court: Old maternity leave doesn't count
Court Watch | 2009/05/20 03:46
Women who took maternity leave before Congress outlawed pregnancy discrimination could be stuck with lower retirement paychecks after the Supreme Court refused to let four women sue AT&T Corp. for higher pension payments.


The high court, in a 7-2 ruling issued Monday, overturned a lower-court decision that said decades-old maternity leaves should count in determining pensions.

The court's decision "forces women to pay a high price today because their employers discriminated yesterday," said Debra L. Ness, president of the National Partnership for Women and Families.

Four AT&T Corp. employees who took maternity leave between 1968 and 1976 sued the company to get their leave time credited toward their pensions. Their pregnancies occurred before the 1979 Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which barred companies from treating pregnancy leaves differently from other disability leaves.

AT&T lawyers said their pension plan was legal when the women took pregnancy leave, so they shouldn't have to recalculate their retirement benefits now. Congress did not make the Pregnancy Discrimination Act retroactive, they said, so the women should not get any extra money.



Court refuses to hear medical marijuana challenges
Court Watch | 2009/05/18 09:25
The Supreme Court won't hear another challenge to California's decade-old law permitting marijuana use for medical purposes.


The high court on Monday refused to hear appeals from San Diego and San Bernardino counties, which say the justices have never directly ruled on whether California's law trumps the federal controlled substances laws.

Supporters say marijuana helps chronically ill patients relieve pain. Critics say the drug has no medical benefit and all use should be illegal.

San Diego supervisors had sued to overturn the state law after it was approved by voters in 1996, but lower courts have ruled against them.

San Diego and San Bernardino counties argued that issuing identification cards to eligible users, as required by the 1996 state law, would violate federal law, which does not recognize the state measure.

A federal appeals court ruled that ID card laws "do not pose a significant impediment" to the federal Controlled Substances Act because that law is designed to "combat recreational drug use, not to regulate a state's medical practices."

The cases are County of San Bernardino v. California, 08-897 and County of San Diego v. San Diego NORML, 08-887.



Court turns away appeal over Steinbeck copyrights
Court Watch | 2009/05/18 06:25
The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal by a son of author John Steinbeck over the publishing rights to "The Grapes of Wrath" and other early works.


The court said Monday it won't disturb a ruling by the federal appeals court in New York that the rights belong to Penguin Group Inc., and the heirs of John Steinbeck's widow, Elaine. Author John Steinbeck died in 1968; his wife in 2003. The heirs include her sister, four children and grandchildren.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said a lower court judge misapplied copyright law in awarding the rights in 2006 to the son, Thomas Steinbeck, and granddaughter Blake Smyle. Both already receive a portion of the proceeds of sales.



Appeals court sides with Redskins over trademark
Court Watch | 2009/05/16 09:28
A federal appeals court is siding with the Washington Redskins against a group of American Indians who say the football team's trademark is racially offensive.


The decision issued Friday by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington doesn't address the main issue in the 17-year-old case of whether the trademark is racist. It upholds the lower court's decision in favor of the football team on a legal technicality.

The court agreed that the seven Native Americans who challenged the trademark waited too long to sue over the trademark issued in 1967.



3 plead not guilty in Anna Nicole Smith drug case
Court Watch | 2009/05/14 03:28
Anna Nicole Smith's lawyer-turned-boyfriend and two doctors pleaded not guilty Wednesday to charges they conspired to provide thousands of prescription pills to the former model before her overdose death two years ago.


The appearance of Howard K. Stern and Drs. Khristine Eroshevich and Sandeep Kapoor in Superior Court set the stage for a preliminary hearing that all parties said could last at least two weeks.

Deputy District Attorney Renee Rose said there are 1,400 pages of discovery in the case, which was investigated for two years before charges were filed. Court Commissioner Kristi Lousteau ordered documents in the case sealed, although attorneys said that about a quarter of the material has already been made public.

The hearing was brief and Smith's name was never mentioned.

Stern, Eroshevich and Kapoor stood before Lousteau with their lawyers. The defendants said "yes" when she asked if they were pleading not guilty and when they agreed to delay the matter until June 8 for setting of the preliminary hearing date. They declined to comment outside court.

Stern's lawyer, Steve Sadow, said he wanted the preliminary hearing to begin as soon as possible.



Court hears appeal by DC sniper mastermind
Court Watch | 2009/05/12 09:22
A lawyer for John Allen Muhammad says the sniper mastermind never should have been allowed to act as his own lawyer for part of his 2003 capital murder trial.


Jonathan Sheldon told a federal appeals court Tuesday that the failure of Muhammad's trial attorneys to tell a judge about their client's mental health issues violated his constitutional right to effective counsel.

A lawyer for the state of Virginia argued that Muhammad's competency was never an issue in his trial for one of the 10 murders committed by Muhammad and teenage accomplice Lee Boyd Malvo. Muhammad was sentenced to death, and Malvo is serving a life term for the 2002 Washington, D.C.-area shooting spree.

The federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., is expected to rule in several weeks.



[PREV] [1] ..[112][113][114][115][116][117][118][119][120].. [205] [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