Today's Date: Add To Favorites
7 now guilty in Pendleton contractor bribery case
Current Cases | 2014/02/03 13:57
Two civilian defense contractors have pleaded guilty in a San Diego federal court, bringing to nine the number of defendants who have admitted guilt in recent days to their involvement in a scheme involving bribes and kickbacks at Camp Pendleton and other federal facilities.

Federal prosecutors say Paul Dana Kay of PK Excavation and Manuel Ramirez of MRN Construction, Inc., entered the pleas to violations of the Anti-Kickback Act on Friday.

Six former contractors and a former Defense Department employee have pleaded guilty in the past two weeks to involvement in the scheme.

They include Natividad Lara Cervantes, who referred to himself as "The Godfather of Camp Pendleton," and admitted accepting bribes.

Sentencing is scheduled for April. The defendants face maximums ranging from three years to 20 years in prison.


Teen charged in Mass. teacher killing due in court
Current Cases | 2014/01/30 13:56
A 15-year-old Massachusetts boy charged with killing his math teacher is returning to court Thursday for arraignment on a second rape charge.

Philip Chism is charged in the October killing of Colleen Ritzer, a 24-year-old teacher at Danvers High School.

Chism has pleaded not guilty to charges of rape, robbery and murder. He was indicted last week on the initial rape charge. In court documents filed last week, state police say Chism admitted killing Ritzer but denied raping her.

Police say they want to conduct a forensic examination of Chism's cellphone to see if he memorialized the killing in photos, video or audio recordings.

Authorities allege Chism raped and killed Ritzer after she asked him to stay after school for extra help.

Chism's arraignment is in Salem Superior Court.


High court rules against steelworkers' claim
Current Cases | 2014/01/27 13:39
The Supreme Court says steelworkers do not have to be paid for time they spend putting on and taking off protective gear they wear on the job.

The court was unanimous Monday in ruling in favor of United States Steel Corp. over workers' claims that they should be paid under the terms of federal labor law for the time it takes them to put on flame-retardant jackets and pants, safety glasses, earplugs, hardhats and other equipment.

Justice Antonin Scalia said for the court that the labor agreement between the company and the workers' union says the employees don't get paid for time spent changing clothes. Scalia said most of the items count as clothing. He said earplugs, glasses and respirators are not clothing, but take little time to put on.


Supreme Court Upholds Hawaii Reapportionment
Current Cases | 2014/01/24 12:58
The Supreme Court has upheld Hawaii's reapportionment plan that leaves out some military personnel and students when calculating population and determining state legislative districts.

The justices affirmed a lower court ruling without comment Tuesday.

Voters challenging the reapportionment plan said it wrongfully excluded more than 108,000 military members, their families and university students. But a three-judge court in Hawaii found that the plan did not violate the Constitution's right to equal protection.

The case is Kostick v. Nago, 13-456.


$15 SeaTac minimum wage challenged in court
Current Cases | 2013/12/16 10:28
A King County Superior Court judge declined Friday to immediately rule on a challenge to the voter-approved $15 an hour minimum wage requirement for airport workers in Seattle-Tacoma International Airport.

Judge Andrea Darvas said she'll issue a ruling with reasoning after Christmas Day but before January 1. Parties in the case had been expecting a ruling Friday.

The measure is scheduled to go into effect on January 1.

Last month voters in the city of SeaTac narrowly approved the measure, which would require a $15 minimum wage, a handful of paid sick days and other standards to around 6,000 workers at the airport and related industries, like hotels and rental car companies.

However, the legal fight over the measure is not expected to end with Darvas' ruling. An eventual appeal to the state Supreme Court could come from either side, depending on her ruling.

The challenge to the newly approved measure is being led by Alaska Airlines Group and other businesses. They say that an initiative approved by city residents doesn't have power over the airport, which is operated by the Port of Seattle. The Port of Seattle, a public entity, agrees.

Alaska Airlines Group also says state law prohibits initiatives from packaging laws. So they're arguing that the multiple requirements in the measure, such as the minimum wage and paid sick days, constitute packaging multiple laws into one initiative.


Appeals court vacates ban on US horse slaughter
Current Cases | 2013/12/16 10:27
A federal appeals court on Friday removed a temporary ban on domestic horse slaughter, clearing the way for companies in New Mexico, Missouri and Iowa to open while an appeal of a lawsuit by animal protection groups proceeds.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver lifted the emergency injunction it issued in November after The Humane Society of the United States and others appealed the ruling of a federal judge in Albuquerque. The judge said the U.S. Department of Agriculture followed proper procedure in issuing permits to Valley Meat Co. in Roswell, N.M., Rains Natural Meats of Gallatin, Mo., and Responsible Transportation in Sigourney, Iowa.

The appeals court's order Friday said the groups had "failed to meet their burden for an injunction pending appeal."

Blair Dunn, an attorney for Valley Meat and Rains Natural Meats, said the order lifts the emergency status of the case, meaning it will likely be months before a final decision is issued.

Dunn said the plants are ready to open, although they could agree to remain shuttered if the plaintiffs agree to post a sufficient bond to cover the companies' losses should they ultimately prevail.


Dutch Supreme Court: Fortis was mismanaged
Current Cases | 2013/12/09 13:06
The Netherlands' Supreme Court has upheld rulings that the now-defunct Belgian bank Fortis NV was mismanaged from September 2007 to September 2008, and its then-management board can be held accountable.

Friday's ruling opens the door for investor claims against former CEO Jean-Paul Votron, among others, though not former supervisory Chairman Count Maurice Lippens, whom lower courts found was too far removed from decision making to be held liable.

Fortis, Royal Bank of Scotland and Spain's Santander bought Dutch bank ABN Amro in a hostile takeover in 2007, nominally the largest in banking history.

Fortis agreed to buy ABN's Dutch operations for 24 billion euros in its part of the deal but was unable to finance the buy — which represented around half of its own total size — and eventually spiraled toward bankruptcy. The Dutch state ultimately nationalized all Fortis-ABN operations in the Netherlands in 2008 to avoid a meltdown of the country's financial system. The rescue has cost taxpayers at least 32 billion euros.


[PREV] [1][2][3][4][5] [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