|
|
|
The Latest: Colorado governor announces Supreme Court pick
Law Firm News |
2018/06/02 13:20
|
Gov. John Hickenlooper has named Carlos Samour to the Colorado Supreme Court, filling a vacancy left by Chief Justice Nancy Rice's imminent retirement.
Samour, a judge in the 18th Judicial District in Arapahoe County, is best known for presiding over the Aurora theater shooting trial in 2015.
Samour was raised in El Salvador, where his father was also a judge. Hickenlooper said his family fled the country when Samour was 13 because his father feared retaliation for finding a military official guilty.
"His father was ousted from his judicial position and his home was riddled by bullets because his father chose to faithfully apply the laws of that country," said Hickenlooper, a Democrat.
Samour was chosen from three nominees after Rice in March announced her plans to retire at the end of June. She will have served more than four years as chief justice, nearly 20 years on the court and about 31 years total as a judge in Colorado.
Gov. John Hickenlooper on Wednesday plans to announce his choice to fill a vacancy on the Colorado Supreme Court.
Earlier this month, a judicial nominating commission gave the governor three judges to choose from, after Chief Justice Nancy Rice announced her retirement.
The nominees are Maria Berkenkotter, the former chief judge of the 20th Judicial District in Boulder County; Karen Brody, a judge in the 2nd Judicial District in Denver County; and Carlos Samour, a judge in the 18th Judicial District in Arapahoe County.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Justices allow Arkansas to enforce abortion restrictions
Law Firm News |
2018/05/27 13:22
|
The Supreme Court is allowing Arkansas to put in effect restrictions on how abortion pills are administered. Critics of a challenged state law say it could effectively end medication abortions in the state.
The justices did not comment Tuesday in rejecting an appeal from the Planned Parenthood affiliate in Arkansas that asked the court to review an appeals court ruling and reinstate a lower court order that had blocked the law from taking effect. The law says doctors who provide abortion pills must hold a contract with another physician who has admitting privileges at a hospital and who would agree to handle complications.
The law is similar to a provision in Texas law that the Supreme Court struck down in 2016. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the court order barring enforcement of the law, but put its ruling on hold while Planned Parenthood appealed to the Supreme Court.
The legal fight over the law is not over, but the state is now free to enforce the law at least for the time being.
Planned Parenthood has said that if the law stands, Arkansas would be the only state where women would not have access to a pair of drugs that end pregnancies: mifepristone, which makes it difficult for a fetus to attach to the uterine wall, and misoprostol, which causes the body to expel it, similar to a miscarriage.
The organization offers pills to end pregnancies at clinics in Fayetteville and Little Rock but says it cannot find any Arkansas obstetrician willing to handle hospital admissions. Preventing women from obtaining medication abortions would create an undue burden on their right to an abortion, Planned Parenthood says. Undue burden is the standard set by the Supreme Court to measure whether restrictions go too far in limiting women who want an abortion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senate GOP 'goes nuclear,' clearing way for Trump court pick
Law Firm News |
2017/04/10 08:50
|
Republicans invoked the "nuclear option" in the Senate Thursday, unilaterally rewriting the chamber's rules to allow President Donald Trump's nominee to ascend to the Supreme Court.
Furious Democrats objected until the end, but their efforts to block Judge Neil Gorsuch failed as expected. Lawmakers of both parties bemoaned the long-term implications for the Senate, the court and the country.
"We will sadly point to today as a turning point in the history of the Senate and the Supreme Court," said Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York.
The maneuvering played out in an atmosphere of tension in the Senate chamber with most senators in their seats, a rare and theatrical occurrence.
First Democrats mounted a filibuster in an effort to block Gorsuch by denying him the 60 votes needed to advance to a final vote. Then Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky raised a point of order, suggesting that Supreme Court nominees should not be subjected to a 60-vote threshold but instead a simple majority in the 100-member Senate.
McConnell was overruled, but appealed the ruling. And on that he prevailed on a 52-48 party line vote. The 60-vote filibuster requirement on Supreme Court nominees was effectively gone, and with it the last vestige of bipartisanship on presidential nominees in an increasingly polarized Senate.
A final confirmation vote on Gorsuch is expected Friday and he could then be sworn in in time to take his seat on the court later this month and hear the final cases of the term.
The maneuvering played out with much hand-wringing from all sides about the future of the Senate, as well as unusually bitter accusations and counter-accusations as each side blamed the other. The rules change is known as the "nuclear option" because of its far-reaching implications. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court nixes faith-based birth control mandate challenge
Law Firm News |
2015/02/16 11:32
|
An appeals court has ruled that the birth control coverage required by federal health care reforms does not violate the rights of several religious groups because they can seek reasonable accommodations.
Two western Pennsylvania Catholic dioceses and a private Christian college had challenged the birth control coverage mandates and won lower-court decisions. However, the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court ruling Wednesday said the reforms place "no substantial burden" on the religious groups and therefore don't violate their First Amendment rights.
All three groups — the college and the Pittsburgh and Erie dioceses — are mulling whether to appeal to the entire 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals or the U.S. Supreme Court.
"Such a ruling should cause deep concern for anyone who cares about any First Amendment rights, especially the right to teach and practice a religious faith," Pittsburgh Bishop David Zubik said in a statement. "This decision says that the church is no longer free to practice what we preach."
At issue is an "accommodation" written into the Affordable Care Act that says religious organizations can opt out of directly providing and paying to cover medical services such groups would consider morally objectionable. In this case, that refers to all contraceptive and abortion services for the Catholic plaintiffs, and contraceptive services like the "week-after" pill and other medical coverage that Geneva College contends violate its anti-abortion teachings. The school in Beaver Falls is affiliated with the Reformed Presbyterian Church.
Justice Department lawyers have argued the accommodation solves the problem because it allows religious groups to opt out of directly providing such coverage. But the plaintiffs contend that merely filing the one-page form, which puts a religious group's objections on record with the government, violates their rights because it still "facilitates" or "triggers" a process that then enables third-party insurers to provide the kind of coverage to which they object. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Former Massey Energy CEO asks court to dismiss charges
Law Firm News |
2015/02/09 15:10
|
A former coal company executive is seeking the dismissal of charges stemming from a 2010 mine explosion that killed 29 workers in West Virginia.
Don Blankenship, former chief executive officer of Massey Energy, also has asked the court to disqualify U.S. District Judge Irene Berger from hearing his case.
Blankenship’s lawyers filed a dozen motions to dismiss on Friday, along with the disqualification motion and other documents, exhibits and legal briefs, The Charleston Gazette reported.
Details of filings in the case are unavailable to the public under a gag order issued by Berger. The Charleston Gazette, The Associated Press and other media outlets are challenging the order, which prohibits parties or victims from discussing the case with reporters or releasing court documents.
Blankenship is charged with conspiring to violate safety and health standards at the Upper Big Branch Mine in Raleigh County. He also is charged with lying to federal financial regulators about safety measures in the deadly explosion. His trial is scheduled to begin April 20 in U.S. District Court in Beckley.
The dismissal motions and other filings came a day after Blankenship sued Alpha Natural Resources in a Delaware court. Bristol, Virginia-based Alpha bought Massey in June 2011. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court to adopt electronic filing of cases
Law Firm News |
2015/01/05 14:46
|
The Supreme Court is belatedly developing an electronic filing system similar to those used in courts around the country, Chief Justice John Roberts said Wednesday in his annual end-of-year report.
Roberts devoted his 10th report as chief justice to discussing the court's wary embrace of information technology over the years, which he attributed in part to the judiciary's role as neutral arbiters of a justice system that must be open to all.
Roberts said that "courts will always be prudent whenever it comes to embracing the 'next big thing.'"
The chief justice talked about the pneumatic tubes that were on the cutting edge of technology in the late 1800s, but not used by the court until its new building opened in 1935. Roberts did not once mention cameras, which are barred from the court's proceedings.
The court's new filing system could be up and running as soon as 2016, although parties in the court's cases will continue to be required to submit paper copies of every brief, Roberts said.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who is the outgoing chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the court should be doing more to allow the public to have meaningful access to the justices' work. "Not mentioned in his report, however, is the failure of the Supreme Court to allow even old technology, like photographs of the Supreme Court in session or live streaming of its oral arguments online," Leahy said.
Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Iowa Republican who is about to become chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the court needs to do more to make its activities accessible to the public.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Las Vegas Accident & Injury Attorney
Law Firm News |
2014/11/07 10:30
|
Drummond Law Firm has a tremendous amount of experience in both the litigation and settlement of personal injury matters. When you become the victim of personal injury, it is important that you meet with an attorney who can help you defend your rights against the insurance companies. One client of Attorney Craig W. Drummond was awarded twelve times the amount of her medical costs in 2011! This was one of the largest dental injury jury verdicts ever awarded in the state of Nevada. The Las Vegas Accident & Injury Attorneys at the Drummond Firm are here for you.
In 2013, Drummond successfully represented a client in front of the Supreme Court of Nevada. In landmark case Humphries v. New York-New York Hotel & Casino, 129 Nev., Adv. Op. 85 (Nov. 7, 2013), the doors were opened for patrons to sue the bar/property/casino for not keeping them safe in the event of an attack (instead of the actor in the attack).
Just as the big insurance companies have lawyers protecting their interests, the little guy should have someone looking out for them too. Our lawyers will communicate directly to you, without middle men, to keep you updated about your case. In addition to legal protection, we have a network of medical professionals to help you heal from injuries sustained as well.
Drummond Law Firm will work on your injury case on a contingency fee, meaning we collect 0 money from you upfront. We are paid directly out of the amount we recover for you. Before you commit to us, we will explain in detail about how this process works. Our fees are always reasonable and fair, and in addition to explaining how we are paid, we will explain your future payment as well. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
