|
|
|
Illinois Court Upholds Free-Speech Right For Ad
Court Watch |
2008/02/08 03:54
|
A newspaper advertisement harshly criticizing a competitor for a discount sale might have been distasteful and juvenile but also was constitutionally protected free speech, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
Chicago men’s clothing store Imperial Apparel took competitor Cosmo’s Designer Direct to court after Cosmo’s ran an ad in October 2004 in the Chicago Sun-Times.
Cosmo’s ran the ad to notify customers that it was unhappy that Imperial was touting a new 3-for-1 sale, which Cosmo’s was known for offering.
The wide-ranging ad did not mention Imperial by name, but did refer to “Empire rags center.” It said the competitor had the integrity of the “Iraq information minister” and that the 3-for-1 was an imitation offer that “has the transparency of a hooker’s come on.”
Imperial’s owners responded by suing Cosmo’s and the Sun-Times for running the ad, saying it was defamatory and damaged the company’s reputation.
An appellate court partially agreed with Imperial’s argument.
But the Supreme Court determined that the ad wasn’t defamatory because its statements couldn’t be viewed as facts about Imperial.
“The text is artless, ungrammatical, sophomoric and sometimes nonsensical,” Justice Lloyd Karmeier wrote in the court’s opinion.
“We do not believe, however, that an ordinary reader would perceive it as making objectively verifiable assertions about [Imperial’s] business.”
Imperial lawyer Edward Feldman said Thursday he hadn’t talked with Imperial’s owners about the next step in the case. The company changed its name to Suits 20/20 in recent years in an unrelated business decision, Feldman said.
“We think this was a vicious and intentional libel and that the ad contained facts that are defamatory and not mere opinion,” Feldman said.
Cosmo’s lawyer James Wolf said the company was pleased with the outcome.
“The law is offensive speech does not render it defamatory,” Wolf said.
Wolf and Sun-Times lawyer Damon Dunn agreed that advertisers and newspapers can breathe easier with Thursday’s ruling.
Advertisers could have been scared away from aggressive competition and newspapers could have been forced to screen ads and even letters to the editor for factual accuracy if the ruling had been different, they said.
“We think that this means that we won’t have all these lawyers and judges and juries all looking over our shoulders,” Dunn said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disorder in the Court: Lawyer Punched
Court Watch |
2008/02/07 06:15
|
A public defender who was punched in court by a disgruntled client said Thursday he doesn't blame the man who gave him with two black eyes. The disorder in the court, captured on video, happened Monday at Scott County Circuit Court after the judge refused defendant Peter Hafer's request for a new attorney. Hafer, 30, of Cynthiana, told the judge he didn't trust his court-appointed lawyer, Doug Crickmer. As Crickmer began to tell Judge Rob Johnson that Hafer couldn't choose his public defender, Hafer landed the first punch. "I just couldn't take it anymore and I just snapped," Hafer said later at the Scott County jail. Hafer hit the attorney several times in the face and stomach. Hafer was restrained on the ground. Crickmer was admitted to Georgetown Community Hospital and released later that day. He said he will not file assault charges. "I certainly don't fault him or blame him or wish him any ill will," Crickmer said Thursday on NBC's "Today" show. "I think Mr. Hafer was just frustrated. Like I said, he had been in jail for some time. ... I think he just got frustrated, fed up, and he just snapped and I was the nearest target." Hafer was arrested in August on charges of burglarizing a K-Mart store in June. As for his request for a new attorney, Hafer apparently will get his way. Authorities said a new one will be appointed. |
|
|
|
|
|
Georgia loses major ruling on rights to Lanier water
Court Watch |
2008/02/06 04:33
|
It would take an act of Congress to get more drinking water out of Lake Lanier for metro Atlanta, a federal appellate court ruled Tuesday. Alabama and Florida immediately declared a major victory in the 18-year, tri-state water war, with Alabama Gov. Bob Riley calling it "one of the most important" legal decisions in his state's history.
"The ruling invalidates the massive water grab that Georgia tried to pull off," Riley said in a statement. The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit comes at a critical juncture, with the three states rushing toward a Feb. 15 deadline to reach a long-term, water-sharing agreement. Observers say it gives Alabama and Florida leverage in the negotiations and belies metro Atlanta's assumption that it can count on Lanier to continue fueling its growth. Water from Lanier, the largest federal reservoir on the Chattahoochee River, forms Georgia and Alabama's southern border and winds up in Gulf of Mexico. Lanier is the main water source for more than three million metro Atlantans. But it also supports multiple downstream users, from a nuclear power plant near Dothan, Ala., to oystermen in Florida's Apalachicola Bay. "The big loser here is metro Atlanta," said George William Sherk, an expert in water law at the Colorado School of Mines who once represented the city of LaGrange and Troup County in tri-state water matters. "The logical response for metro Atlanta right now is no new building permits unless the applicant can demonstrate a long-term water supply. |
|
|
|
|
|
NY broker in Cunningham scandal pleads guilty
Court Watch |
2008/02/05 09:13
|
A New York mortgage broker who was involved in the Randy “Duke” Cunningham bribery scandal pleaded guilty to two charges Monday in federal court. John Michael pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit an unlawful monetary transaction and to making a false statement to a federal grand jury. He is free on bond while awaiting sentencing May 5 before Judge Larry Burns. He faces a maximum of 10 years on each of the charges. Michael pleaded guilty to using his Long Island, N.Y., mortgage company, Coastal Capital, to hide a half million dollars in bribes to Cunningham paid by Brent Wilkes, a Poway businessman. He also admitted to lying to the grand jury about how the financial transaction was structured. Michael, 36, is the last person in the case to have his case resolved. Wilkes was convicted Nov. 5 on 13 counts of bribery, conspiracy and wire fraud. Prosecutors said he paid Cunningham at least $625,000 in bribes, including meals, trips and gifts. Cunningham, who in return steered millions in federal contracts to Wilkes' company, ADCS Inc. of Poway, is serving an eight-year prison term after pleading guilty to conspiracy and tax evasion. Michael's uncle, New York financier Thomas Kontogiannis, pleaded guilty a year ago, and is awaiting sentencing. |
|
|
|
|
|
Jailhouse Lawyer Gets a Hearing
Court Watch |
2008/02/05 02:09
|
While other prisoners are lifting weights or playing basketball, Michael Ray is working 40 hours a week, his head buried in legal texts and journals. Over the years, the jailhouse lawyer has helped dozens of fellow inmates file appeals, sometimes with success. But recently Ray secured an achievement rarely seen by even the most experienced of attorneys on the outside: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in one of his cases. Legal experts estimate the high court accepts less than 1 percent of the thousands of cases it receives each year. The court's action was even more extraordinary in this instance, because the appeal was drawn up by a prisoner who earns 29 cents an hour and does not even have a college degree, much less a law school education. "This is basically a once-in-a-lifetime for a good criminal defense attorney, so you can imagine I'm on cloud nine, with my background," the 42-year-old Ray said with a laugh during a recent phone interview from a federal prison in Estill, about 100 miles south of Columbia. He will not argue the case himself when it comes up in March. Only those admitted to the bar of the U.S. Supreme Court can do that. He will not even be allowed out of prison to attend the hearing. Ray has been behind bars for much of his adult life for various fraud schemes. A former paralegal on the outside, he is nearing the end of a six-year sentence handed down after he pleaded guilty to various offenses, including passing a bad check for about $285,000 as part of a real estate scheme in Myrtle Beach. "I just have a real problem with financial institutions, and I'm a self-proclaimed addicted gambler," he said. As a prison law clerk, Ray files petitions and draws up motions for inmates who ask for his help. He keeps current on legal issues by reading professional journals and has joined several legal associations, including the American Bar Association. "They're probably not super proud to have me as a member, but I do pay my dues every year," said Ray, who is also trying to complete his undergraduate degree through a correspondence course. |
|
|
|
|
|
Court: Elderly sisters must split lottery winnings
Court Watch |
2008/02/03 07:16
|
The Connecticut Appeals Court has ruled a 1995 pact struck by two widowed sisters to split each other’s future gambling winnings is still binding despite the fact they no longer speak to one another. The decision paves the way for a public family feud pitting Theresa Sokaitis, 81, against Rose Bakaysa, 85, over a $500,000 Powerball jackpot Bakaysa hit on June 18, 2005, but doesn’t want to share with her estranged sibling. Sokaitis is suing Bakaysa for breach of contract. Bakaysa’s attorney, William Sweeney Jr., told the Herald in November Sokaitis is a “gold digger.” “We’re going to go to trial court and battle it out,” Sokaitis’ Boston attorney, Sean Higgins, said. She was, he said, “extremely excited by the court’s decision. She’s obviously elated for the chance to prove that she is entitled to her share of the money.” Unlike Massachusetts, a bygone Connecticut law still frowns upon private wagering contracts. However, two appellate judges, in overruling Connecticut Superior Court Judge Patty Pittman’s 2006 summary judgment awarding the money to Bakaysa, found the notarized agreement between the sisters was not induced by the guarantee of hard cash, “but rather their mutual promises to one another to share in any winnings they received.” Though Connecticut now widely embraces many forms of gambling, Appeals Court Judge William Lavery cast the lone dissenting vote against Sokaitis, stating in written remarks that “money” was the motivation behind the deal. “We must assume that it was the intent of the Legislature to continue to prohibit wagering contracts like the one at issue in this case,” he said. |
|
|
|
|
|
Abortion provider must turn over files
Court Watch |
2008/02/01 04:08
|
One of the nation's few late-term abortion doctors was ordered Wednesday to turn over about 2,000 patient medical records to a Kansas grand jury investigating his practice.
Abortion opponents hope that the records will lead to further criminal charges against Dr. George Tiller, who already is facing 19 misdemeanor counts stemming from late-second and third-trimester abortions at his clinic in Wichita.
Tiller's lawyers say he scrupulously follows the law. They plan to ask the Kansas Supreme Court to overturn a state district court judge's ruling that Tiller begin handing over files as early as today.
"It's an unprecedented encroachment upon a woman's right to privacy," attorney Dan Monnat said.
Monnat was joined in court by a lawyer from the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights, who filed affidavits from three patients demanding that their medical records remain private.
Even though the judge ordered names and addresses removed from the files, the patients said they feared their identities could be deduced from details about their families and medical histories. The antiabortion group Operation Rescue has given the grand jury several photos that it says show pregnant women entering Tiller's clinic; the same pictures are posted online, with the women's faces blurred.
"Even thinking about the possibility of anti-choice extremists identifying me has caused my partner and I great distress," one woman wrote.
The unfolding legal dispute treads familiar ground.
Tiller spent three years battling a subpoena for a much smaller group of medical records sought by former Atty. Gen. Phill Kline, an opponent of legal abortion. The Kansas Supreme Court eventually forced Tiller to turn over 60 records on the condition that an independent lawyer first review them to redact names, addresses and other information not relevant to the criminal inquiry.
After Kline was voted out of office, his successor -- a supporter of abortion rights -- charged Tiller with the misdemeanors. |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|