Today's Date: Add To Favorites
Supreme Court strikes down 'millionaire's amendment'
Court Watch | 2008/06/26 11:23
The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down the "millionaire's amendment" as an unfair way to help opponents of wealthy political candidates who spend from their personal fortunes.

The law allows candidates to receive larger campaign contributions when their wealthy opponents spend heavily out of their own pockets.

The court said by a 5-4 vote that the law violates the First Amendment.

The law was challenged by Jack Davis, a New York Democrat who has so far spent nearly $4 million of his own money in two losing campaigns for Congress and says he will spend another $3 million this year.

Davis says the provision in 6-year-old campaign finance reforms unfairly rewards his opponents by letting them exceed campaign fundraising limits simply because Davis dipped into personal funds.

Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito said that under the amendment, the vigorous exercise of the right to use personal funds to finance campaign speech produces fundraising advantages for the opponents of wealthy candidates.

Alito said that if the millionaire's amendment raised the contribution limits for all candidates, Davis's challenge to the law "would plainly fail," raising the question of whether Congress could easily fix what the Supreme Court struck down.

The amendment has come into play in relatively few races. Its most prominent beneficiary so far has been Sen. Barack Obama. He was able to attract additional contributions for his Democratic senatorial primary campaign in Illinois because an opponent spent nearly $29 million of his own money.

A co-author of the 2002 campaign finance law, Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., said the Supreme Court decision has no impact on the central component of the reforms, the ban on six-figure political donations to political parties. Feingold co-authored the reforms with Sen. John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said the court had issued a "confounding decision that takes the First Amendment to an illogical, distorted extreme."

Davis lost in 2004 and 2006 to Republican Rep. Tom Reynolds, who spent more than $5 million in winning re-election two years ago, 51 percent to 49 percent.

Reynolds chose not to solicit increased contributions after Davis triggered the millionaire's amendment by putting at least $350,000 of his own money into the race. Reynolds could have received $6,900 from individual donors, triple the limit otherwise. Reynolds is retiring at the end of this term.



High court rejects case on fast track for border fence
Court Watch | 2008/06/23 08:44
The Supreme Court on Monday turned down a plea by environmental groups to rein in the Bush administration's power to waive laws and regulations to speed construction of a fence along the U.S.-Mexican border.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has used authority given to him by Congress in 2005 to ignore environmental and other laws and regulations to move forward with hundreds of miles of fencing in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas.

The case rejected by the court involved a two-mile section of fence in the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area near Naco, Ariz. The section has since been built.

"I am extremely disappointed in the court's decision," Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said. "This waiver will only prolong the department from addressing the real issue: their lack of a comprehensive border security plan."

Thompson chairs the House Homeland Security Committee. He and 13 other House democrats — including six other committee chairs — filed a brief in support of the environmentalists' appeal.

Earlier this year, Chertoff waived more than 30 laws and regulations in an effort to finish building 670 miles of fence along the southwest border. Administration officials have said that invoking the legal waivers — which Congress authorized in 1996 and 2005 laws — will cut through bureaucratic red tape and sidestep environmental laws that currently stand in the way of fence construction.



Supreme Court voids California union law
Court Watch | 2008/06/20 10:21
In a defeat for the union movement, the Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a first-in-the-nation law adopted in California that would have barred companies from speaking out against unions if they received state funds.

The justices in a 7-2 decision said the state measure conflicts with the free-speech zone created by federal labor law.

The ruling is likely to benefit especially companies in the healthcare industries, such as nursing homes, that receive some state funds and have low-level employees who are not unionized. It is a sharp setback for unions seeking to organize janitors, nurses, clerical workers and other employees in those areas.

Labor organizers may encourage workers to join unions, the high court said, but the employers also are free to try to persuade them against unionizing. Employers do not lose this right simply because they take the government's money, the justices said.

The California law was triggered by a campaign to organize janitors in the Los Angeles area. Mike Garcia, a union leader, complained to lawmakers that some companies were using state money "to pay for aggressive anti-union tactics."

State lawmakers, led by Sen. Gil Cedillo (D-Los Angeles), won approval of a bill to stop this practice. The measure, known as AB 1889, said state contractors and other private employers may not use state money "to assist, promote or deter union organizing."

The sponsors described this as the "nation's first state neutrality law" on labor organizing.


Court puts limits on mentally ill defendants
Court Watch | 2008/06/19 10:24
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that criminal defendants with a history of mental illness do not always have the right to represent themselves, even if they have been judged competent to stand trial.

The justices, by a 7-2 vote, said states can give trial judges discretion to prevent someone from acting as his own lawyer if they are concerned that the trial could turn into a farce.

The decision comes in the case of an Indiana man who was convicted of attempted murder and other charges in 2005 for a shooting six years earlier at an Indianapolis department store.

Ahmad Edwards was initially found to be schizophrenic and suffering from delusions and spent most of the five years after the shooting in state psychiatric facilities. But by 2005, he was judged competent to stand trial.

Edwards asked to represent himself. A judge denied the request because he was concerned that Edwards' trial would not be fair. Edwards, represented by a lawyer, was convicted anyway and sentenced to 30 years in prison.

He appealed, and Indiana courts agreed that his right to represent himself had been violated, citing a U.S. high court decision from 1993. The courts overturned his conviction and ordered a new trial.



Court grants Routier limited DNA testing
Court Watch | 2008/06/18 05:07
Darlie Routier, the Rowlett mother sent to death row after the 1996 stabbing deaths of her two young sons, has been granted a chance to prove her innocence through DNA testing.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals on Wednesday ruled that Routier should be allowed to conduct DNA testing on blood stains, flakes of dried blood and hairs found at the crime scene.

Routier's previously appeals to the court had been denied, but state law allows for post-conviction DNA testing in some cases. Routier has maintained that she is innocent of the murders.

Routier was accused in the slayings of the young boys, Damon and Devon, but was only tried and convicted in the death of Damon. She has maintained that an intruder at the family's home killed them.



Ex-Broadcom chief pleads not guilty
Court Watch | 2008/06/17 06:18
Billionaire Henry T. Nicholas III pleaded not guilty Monday to federal criminal charges that he distributed drugs and that he led an accounting and securities fraud scheme while he headed Irvine, Calif.-based Broadcom Corp.

Nicholas, 48, left the courthouse shortly after 2 p.m., climbing into an awaiting Toyota Sienna van, declining to comment to a pack of news crews and photographers.

''Not guilty,'' Nicholas said in response to questions about the two cases. William J. Ruehle, 66, Broadcom's former chief financial officer, also pleaded not guilty in the securities case and left the building without making a comment. A trial date for both cases was set for July 29.


Court rejects appeal on Ill. horse slaughter ban
Court Watch | 2008/06/16 09:05
The Supreme Court has declined an appeal from the owners of a horse slaughtering plant who challenged an Illinois law prohibiting the killing of horses for human consumption.

Cavel International Inc. closed its plant in DeKalb, Ill., last year after a federal appeals court upheld the ban. The company urged the justices to step in to allow the facility to reopen. The court did not comment on its order Monday.

The plant was the last horse slaughterhouse in the United States. About 40,000 to 60,000 horses were there annually, and most of the meat was shipped to be eaten by diners overseas.

Two other U.S. plants, both in Texas, also closed in 2007.



[PREV] [1] ..[133][134][135][136][137][138][139][140][141].. [206] [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
Supreme Court sides with the..
Ex-UK lawmaker charged with ..
Hungary welcomes Netanyahu a..
US immigration officials loo..
Turkish court orders key Erd..
Under threat from Trump, Col..
Military veterans are becomi..
Austria’s new government is..
Supreme Court makes it harde..
Trump signs order designatin..
US strikes a deal with Ukrai..
Musk gives all federal worke..
Troubled electric vehicle ma..
Trump signs order imposing s..
Elon Musk dodges DOGE scruti..


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