|
|
|
Minn. gay couple in '71 marriage case still united
Current Cases |
2012/12/10 12:17
|
When Jack Baker proposed to Michael McConnell that they join their lives together as a couple, in March 1967, McConnell accepted with a condition that was utterly radical for its time: that someday they would legally marry.
Just a few years later, the U.S. Supreme Court slammed the door on the men's Minnesota lawsuit to be the first same-sex couple to legally marry in the U.S. It took another 40 years for the nation's highest court to revisit gay marriage rights, and Baker and McConnell — still together, still living in Minneapolis — are alive to see it.
On Friday, the justices decided to take a potentially historic look at gay marriage by agreeing to hear two cases that challenge official discrimination against gay Americans either by forbidding them from marrying or denying those who can marry legally the right to obtain federal benefits that are available to heterosexual married couples.
"The outcome was never in doubt because the conclusion was intuitively obvious to a first-year law student," Baker wrote in an email to The Associated Press. The couple, who have kept a low profile in the years since they made national headlines with their marriage pursuit, declined an interview request but responded to a few questions via email.
While Baker saw the court's action as an obvious step, marriage between two men was nearly unthinkable to most Americans decades earlier when the couple walked into the Hennepin County courthouse in Minneapolis on May 18, 1970, and tried to get a license. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court upholds sentence of ex-CIA station chief
Current Cases |
2012/12/03 15:45
|
An appeals court has unanimously upheld the nearly 5 ½-year sentence of a former CIA station chief for sexually abusing an unconscious woman at the mansion the U.S. government provided for him in Algeria.
The three-judge panel ruled Friday that U.S. District Judge Ellen Huvelle had adequately explained why she sentenced Andrew Warren to roughly double what was called for in sentencing guidelines.
Warren argued that his Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, depression and substance abuse made it unreasonable to give him more than a brief sentence, followed by treatment at a private facility. The appeals court disagreed.
After Warren was fired, federal agents found him high on crack in a Virginia motel room with a semi-automatic pistol in his shorts. He pleaded guilty to abusive sexual contact and a gun charge. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court sides with state in DNA case
Current Cases |
2012/06/18 12:14
|
The Supreme Court on Monday upheld a rape conviction over objections that the defendant did not have the chance to question the reliability of the DNA evidence that helped convict him.
The court's 5-4 ruling went against a run of high court decisions that bolstered the right of criminal defendants to confront witnesses against them.
Justice Clarence Thomas provided the margin of difference in the case to uphold the conviction of Sandy Williams, even though Thomas has more often sided with defendants on the issue of cross-examination of witnesses.
The case grew out of a DNA expert's testimony that helped convict Williams of rape. The expert testified that Williams' DNA matched a sample taken from the victim, but the expert played no role in the tests that extracted genetic evidence from the victim's sample.
And no one from the company that performed the analysis showed up at the trial to defend it.
The court has previously ruled that defendants have the right to cross-examine the forensic analysts who prepare laboratory reports used at trial. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP Announces Class Action
Current Cases |
2011/03/24 09:56
|
The law firm of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP announces that class action lawsuits have been brought on behalf of all persons who purchased the securities of ShengdaTech, Inc. (“ShengdaTech” or the “Company”) (Nasdaq: SDTH) between March 15, 2010 and March 15, 2011, inclusive (the “Class Period”). “potentially serious discrepancies and unexplained issues relating to the Company and its subsidiaries’ financial records identified by the Company’s auditors.”
.If you purchased ShengdaTech securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff by no later than May 17, 2011. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in this action will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or other attorneys, as your counsel in this action. ShengdaTech shareholders who wish to learn more about this action and how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff may visit Lieff Cabraser’s website at http://www.lieffcabraser.com/cases.php?CaseId=452 or contact Sharon Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll free at (800) 541-7358. Background on ShengdaTech Securities Fraud Class Litigation The actions, pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York were brought against ShengdaTech and certain of its officers and directors for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. ShengdaTech, headquartered in Shanghai, China, describes itself as a leading developer and manufacturer of nano precipitated calcium carbonate used as an additive in various products, including paint, paper, plastic, and rubber. The actions allege that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading information regarding ShengdaTech’s business and prospects. Specifically, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that ShengdaTech lacked adequate internal and financial reporting controls and that its financial statements during at least 2010 were materially false and misleading and did not conform with U.S. GAAP. As a result of defendants’ false and misleading statements, ShengdaTech’s stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. On March 15, 2011, ShengdaTech announced that it had appointed a special committee of the Board of Directors to investigate “potentially serious discrepancies and unexplained issues relating to the Company and its subsidiaries’ financial records identified by the Company’s auditors.” ShengdaTech also disclosed that its audit committee had retained O’Melveny & Myers LLP as independent outside counsel, which had commenced an internal investigation, that the SEC had been notified about the investigation, and that it would not be able to file its 2010 Form 10-K in a timely manner. Following these announcements, Nasdaq halted trading of ShengdaTech shares. About Lieff Cabraser Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San Francisco, New York and Nashville, is a nationally recognized law firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting corporate responsibility. Since 2003, the National Law Journal has selected Lieff Cabraser as one of the top plaintiffs’ law firms in the nation. In compiling the list, the National Law Journal examined recent verdicts and settlements in addition to overall track records. Lieff Cabraser is one of only two plaintiffs’ law firms in the United States to receive this honor for the last eight consecutive years. For more information about Lieff Cabraser and the firm’s representation of investors, please visit http://www.lieffcabraser.com. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP Files Class Action Lawsuit
Current Cases |
2010/09/04 00:38
|
Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP has filed a class action alleging securities fraud in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against China Natural Gas, Inc., and certain of its officers and directors. The case was filed on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of China Natural Gas during the period from March 10, 2010 through August 19, 2010 (the "Class Period"). The case is entitled Vandevelde v. China Natural Gas, Inc., C.A. No. 1:10-cv-00728-SLR. If you purchased China Natural Gas common stock during the Class Period, and you suffered damages, you may move the court to appoint you as lead plaintiff no later than 60 days from today. The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing false and misleading public statements in its Annual Report for the year ended December 31, 2009 and its Quarterly Report for the quarter ended March 31, 2010, specifically that the defendants failed to disclose and properly account for a $17.7 million loan it had entered on February 26, 2010 ("the Bank Loan"). The Complaint further alleges that the defendants failed to disclose that the Bank Loan violated an Indenture for senior notes and warrants of the Company, placing China Natural Gas in default under the Indenture. As a result of the Bank Loan and the resulting default under the Indenture, China Natural Gas was required to reclassify approximately $45 million in long term liabilities to short term liabilities, increasing the company's short term liabilities as originally reported by over 700% and increasing the company's short term liabilities as originally reported by over 600%. On August 13, 2010, after the close of the market, China Natural Gas disclosed that the company would be amending its annual and quarterly reports because of its failure to disclose the Bank Loan and the resulting need to reclassify certain long term liabilities to short term liabilities. On August 19, 2010, China Natural Gas filed a Form 8-K in which it disclosed that its prior financial statements should not be relied upon. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff and other Class members were damaged because they purchased stock at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period as a result of the defendants' fraudulent conduct. The factual and legal bases for the Plaintiffs' claims are set forth in greater detail in the Complaint. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained from the office of the Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, 844 N. King Street, Unit 18, Wilmington, DE 19801, (302) 573-6170. A copy of the Complaint can also be obtained, without any obligation, from counsel for the plaintiff, Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP, 53 State Street, Boston, MA 02109, (800) 287-8119 or (617) 439-3939, cases@shulaw.com. More information about the law firm of Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP and its qualifications is available on the firm's website at www.shulaw.com.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
