|
|
|
Illinois court won't reopen Philip Morris case
Law Center |
2007/08/24 08:51
|
| The Illinois Supreme Court denied requests that would have reopened a case filed by the state's smokers of "light" cigarettes against Philip Morris USA, according to a court document. The 4-2 ruling, posted on the court's Web site on Wednesday, stamps out efforts by plaintiffs to resurrect the failed case against the largest U.S. cigarette maker, a unit of Altria Group Inc. Plaintiffs in the case had sued the company on behalf of Illinois residents who bought light cigarettes since the introduction of Marlboro Lights in 1971. The lower court had found in favor of the plaintiffs and awarded them $10.1 billion in damages, but the decision was overturned by the state Supreme Court, which also directed the lower court to dismiss the action last year. In May this year, however, after the U.S. Supreme Court took up another case against Philip Morris, the circuit court of Madison County asked whether it had jurisdiction to consider the plaintiff's request to set aside the Illinois Supreme Court's judgment in light of new developments. But on Wednesday, the state Supreme Court denied the request and directed the lower court to enter an order dismissing the plaintiffs' motion. Two Illinois Supreme Court justices, however, dissented. "The court's action today is entirely predictable because it quickly and quietly closes the book on a case that a majority of this court, I am sure, would rather forget," Justice Charles Freeman wrote in his dissent. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ex-Gov. Ryan will remain free during second appeal
Law Center |
2007/08/22 08:22
|
Former Gov. George Ryan will remain free while he pursues a second appeal of his sweeping fraud and corruption convictions, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled late this afternoon. In a crushing legal blow to the former governor earlier today, a three-judge panel from the appeals court denied Ryan's initial appeal 2-1. The judges found that Ryan received a fair trial last year despite a series of juror controversies.
Though Ryan had been allowed to remain free pending that appeal, the court had warned that Ryan and co-defendant Lawrence Warner would have to report to prison within 72 hours if they lost it. Ryan faces a 6 1/2 -year prison sentence.
This afternoon, however, the court stayed that order, finding that Ryan could remain free while a second appeal plays out. Under this afternoon's ruling, Ryan will remain free until the full 7th Circuit—a group of 11 judges—refuses to hear his case or until the full court hears his case and makes a ruling.
A decision on whether the full court would hear Ryan's case could take about six to eight weeks, and a ruling on the case could take until December or January, according to Joel Bertocchi, an attorney who specializes in appellate law.
In pledging to appeal the three-judge panel's decision, Former Gov. James Thompson, a Ryan attorney, noted this afternoon that Judge Michael Kanne issued "a powerful dissent" in which he concluded that the convictions should be overturned and a new trial held.
"No court anywhere has ever deprived a defendant of his life and liberty under these circumstances," Thompson said, alleging that the verdict was unfair because two jurors were replaced during deliberations.
"We believe they reached the wrong result," Thompson said. Ryan, he said, would appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.
In its decision this morning, the three-judge panel found that U.S. District Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer acted within her authority when she replaced the jurors after the Tribune revealed they had failed to disclose information about their criminal backgrounds.
"We conclude that the district court handled most problems that arose in an acceptable manner, and that whatever error remained was harmless," Judge Diane Wood wrote for the panel. "We therefore affirm the convictions."
Ryan was convicted in April 2006 on charges that as secretary of state and governor, he doled out sweetheart deals to co-defendant Warner and other friends and used state resources and employees for political gain.
Warner's conviction also was affirmed today. He was sentenced to almost 3 1/2 years in prison.
Thompson said Ryan was disappointed by the three-judge panel's decision but said he is a "strong guy."
"He's been through a lot," Thompson said. "I worry about him and Mrs. Ryan. But he has faith in the judicial system. He's always had that. He has a very supportive family. . . . He'll take it as it comes day by day."
At the Kankakee home of Ryan and his wife, Lura Lynn, their son Homer Ryan answered the door only to say that the family would not discuss the day's events.
Marie Spalding, 69, who has been Ryan's neighbor for 37 years, said the former governor has "always been there for anybody who ever needed help."
"It's the saddest thing that ever could have happened," she said of the appellate court's decision. "He's a wonderful, wonderful man. He's helped out people in this whole neighborhood."
Another neighbor, Denyell Finch, 27, who lives just a few blocks north of Ryan, said she didn't think he should go to jail. "I don't think it's all his fault," she said. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Researcher Taps High Court Over Samples
Law Center |
2007/08/21 06:34
|
| A Supreme Court justice on Monday rejected a request by a Northwestern University cancer researcher in a dispute over ownership of thousands of blood and tissue samples. Dr. William Catalona spearheaded creation of a repository of more than 3,500 prostate tissue samples and 100,000 blood samples at Washington University in St. Louis. In 2003, he became director of the Clinical Prostate Cancer Program at Northwestern University. Washington University sued to keep the samples, and won several federal rulings. Justice Samuel Alito refused to grant a delay in the federal appeals court decision.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court backs law on driver drug tests
Law Center |
2007/08/15 05:44
|
| The state's highest court upheld a Maine statute yesterday that mandates blood alcohol and drug testing of drivers when a motor vehicle accident results in a fatality. The decision stemmed from a manslaughter case in which a lower court ruled that the results from a blood-alcohol test of a driver were unconstitutional and should be suppressed. The judge ruled that the test results violated the Fourth Amendment protection from "nonconsensual, warrantless and suspicionless searches." The state appealed to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court. In a 34-page opinion, justices issued a 4-to-2 decision, vacating the ruling to suppress the evidence and sending the case back to the lower court for further proceedings. Chief Justice Leigh Saufley wrote that the statute itself is constitutional and that the test results are admissible in court if the state demonstrates that the defendant consented to the test or there was probable cause to believe the driver was operating under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Saufley further wrote that the state's need to obtain information about the intoxication of drivers involved in fatal accidents has to be balanced against the privacy interest of motorists. "We conclude that the state's interest in gathering information to assist in addressing the problem of intoxicated driving outweighs the privacy interest of drivers in the content of their blood," he wrote. Richard Cormier of Gray was driving a car that was involved in a head-on collision on Route 85 in Raymond on May 11, 2003. An elderly couple from Gray was killed in the accident. Cormier was transported by ambulance to a hospital, where his blood was drawn. The blood-alcohol content was 0.08 percent, meaning that he was legally intoxicated. Cormier was later indicted on two counts of manslaughter and other charges, but he moved to suppress the results of the blood test in a court motion. Justice Paul Fritzsche agreed, ruling that Cormier had not consented to the test and that there was not sufficient probable cause to believe he was operating under the influence. Fritzsche found the only justification for the blood test was the state law that mandates a test when an accident has resulted in a fatality. He cited a US Supreme Court decision in declaring the test results as inadmissible in court. Supreme Court Justices Jon Levy and Susan Calkins disagreed with the majority opinion. "The majority's opinion leads the law into new, uncharted territory in which probable cause, a cornerstone of the Fourth Amendment, plays a secondary, after-the-fact role," Levy wrote. "Notwithstanding [the statute's] proper and noble purpose, I conclude that to the extent the statute authorizes searches and seizures based on after-acquired probable cause, the statute is unconstitutional." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Orleans politician pleads guilty to bribery
Law Center |
2007/08/14 12:02
|
| A prominent New Orleans politician pleaded guilty on Monday to federal corruption charges and resigned his seat on the City Council. Councilman Oliver Thomas, 50, admitted in court that he had accepted more than $18,000 dollars in kickbacks in 2002 in exchange for helping a businessman retain a lucrative city parking contract in the famed French Quarter. "It was wrong and I accept full responsibility for this action," Thomas told a news conference. "I will continue to work for the city I love and I have made peace with my God." Thomas, a councilman for 13 years and a leading voice for the recovery of the city from the devastation of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, had been expected to be a strong candidate for mayor when the city picks a successor to Ray Nagin in 2010. Before U.S. District Judge Sarah Vance, Thomas pleaded guilty to bribery and faces up to 10 years in prison and $250,000 in fines. However, he has agreed to cooperate with federal prosecutors in an ongoing investigation into corruption in New Orleans. "This guilty plea is a body blow to a community that is already reeling under a wave of public corruption," Vance said at the hearing. "If this city is ever to recover, we have to have an end to this kind of venality." Thomas' troubles are the latest in a city and state, Louisiana, with a history of corruption in politics. U.S. Rep. William Jefferson, a Democrat from New Orleans, was indicted in June on corruption charges linked to business deals in Africa. Investigators found $90,000 in cash in the freezer of his Washington-area home. Jefferson has denied any wrongdoing. U.S. Sen. David Vitter, a Republican from the New Orleans suburbs, admitted last month to having committed a "very serious sin" after his number was found in the phone records of a woman accused of running a Washington prostitution ring. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Judge: Super Bowl Funds OK for Churches
Law Center |
2007/08/09 05:57
|
| Most of the $736,000 the city promised to three churches as part of a program to clean up the city ahead of the 2006 Super Bowl was justified, but some were not, federal judge has ruled. U.S. District Judge Avern Cohn ruled Wednesday that most of the grants were allowed because any downtown property owner was eligible to apply. He noted that the churches used the grants on lighting, parking lots, sanctuaries and landscaping. But Cohn said some of the money the churches spent on improving large signs and stained glass windows containing religious imagery violated the separation of church and state. It wasn't clear exactly how much grant money would be disallowed under Cohn's ruling. The judge gave both sides until Aug. 28 to discuss how much of the money won't be paid to the churches. New Jersey-based American Atheists, which sued the city, said it may appeal. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court denies test drugs to dying patients
Law Center |
2007/08/08 07:44
|
People who are dying do not have the right to obtain unapproved drugs that are potentially lifesaving, even if their doctors say the treatment offers their best hope for survival, a U.S. appeals court here ruled Tuesday. In an 8-2 decision, the court said federal drug regulators were entrusted by law with deciding when new drugs were safe for wide use.
The families of terminally ill patients, several of whom died after they were denied promising drugs that were still in tests, filed suit. They said that patients who were dying were far more willing to take risks and argued that they should not be forced to wait years for new treatments to win final approval from the Food and Drug Administration.
The judges said the families should take their pleas to Congress, not the courts.
However, the two dissenters said the ruling ignored the Constitution's protection for individuals and their right to life, and instead bowed to "a dangerous brand of paternalism" that put the government's interest first.
Leaders of the Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs said they would appeal to the Supreme Court. The group was named in honor of Abigail Burroughs, a 21-year-old University of Virginia student who died of cancer in 2001. Her father, Frank, said she was denied the use of two investigational anti-cancer drugs that were recommended by her oncologist. These drugs later received FDA approval.
"We are talking about terminally ill patients and about drugs that were shown to work in earlier trials," said alliance co-founder Steve Walker, a St. Petersburg, Fla., geologist whose wife died of colon cancer.
In 2003, the alliance petitioned the FDA, urging it to change its rules so that drug companies could make available to dying patients "investigational drugs" that had won preliminary approval. There is a "different risk-benefit trade-off facing patients who are terminally ill and have no other treatment options," it said.
The FDA turned away the plea, saying it needed "to maintain a strong clinical trial system" to gather evidence before approving drugs for general use.
With the aid of the Washington Legal Foundation, a conservative nonprofit, the alliance sued the FDA. It said the Constitution should be read to "embrace the right of a terminally ill patient with no remaining approved treatment options to decide, in consultation with his or her own doctor . . . to seek access to investigational medications that the FDA concedes are safe and promising enough for substantial human testing."
The case touched on issues that had been debated fiercely in medical and legal circles.
Medical experts have long disagreed on whether the FDA moves too slowly or too quickly in approving new drugs. Some doctors have argued that clinical trials should be opened to more patients who might benefit from the new treatments.
And since the Roe vs. Wade ruling in 1973 that set out the right to abortion, many legal scholars have frowned on judges creating "new rights" from vague clauses in the Constitution. The suit over new drugs focused on the 5th Amendment, which says "no person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law."
In 2004, a federal judge rejected the alliance's suit, saying there was "no constitutional right of access to unapproved drugs."
Last year, however, a three-judge panel of the U.S. appeals court sided with the group.
In a 2-1 decision, it said a "terminally ill, mentally competent adult patient" had a right to "potentially lifesaving investigational new drugs" which had been found to be safe for humans.
But before that decision could take effect, the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia voted to rehear the case. And Tuesday, it reversed its panel's ruling.
"We conclude there is no fundamental right 'deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition' of access to experimental drugs for the terminally ill," said Judge Thomas B. Griffith, a Bush appointee, citing a Supreme Court decision that rejected the notion of a constitutional right to die. Griffith's opinion was joined by conservative and liberal members of the appeals court.
The two dissenters were Judge Judith W. Rogers, a Clinton appointee, and Chief Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg, a Reagan appointee.
"In the end, it is startling," Rogers wrote, that the Constitution has been read to include unnamed "fundamental rights" to marry, to control a child's education, to have sex in private and to have an abortion, "but the right to save one's life is left out."
Julie Zawisza, an FDA spokeswoman, said the agency was pleased with the ruling because it upheld the agency's "role in facilitating appropriate treatment access to investigational therapies while at the same time protecting the public at large by requiring that drugs are proven to be safe and effective before they may be marketed to U.S. consumers."
She also said that "on a limited basis," some patients and their doctors were permitted to obtain new drugs that were in clinical trials. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
