|
|
|
Ohio court will hear case over bullying, teacher liability
Law Firm Information |
2019/11/29 00:28
|
The Ohio Supreme Court this week agreed to hear a case over whether educators were reckless in failing to prevent an injury to a student even though they had been notified she was being bullied by a fellow kindergartner.
The court will consider whether teachers and principals can be sued when a student is bullied under their supervision, The (Toledo) Blade reported.
In this case, one girl reportedly punctured another girl’s cheek with a pencil at Toledo’s DeVeaux Elementary School several years ago.
A Lucas County court concluded a teacher and two principals were protected from the resulting lawsuit by statutory immunity. But a 2-1 ruling by a state appeals court panel resurrected the lawsuit on the recklessness issue.
State law makes educators immune from liability unless they act with “malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner.”
The appeals court panel concluded there was some evidence of ongoing verbal and physical abuse in the Toledo case but no sign that attempts were made to keep the two girls apart.
The school employees said they spoke with both students after being told about the teasing and bullying. The teacher said she saw no sign of the injury and didn’t learn about it until days afterward.
Their lawyers argue that unless the court decision is overturned, even diligent educators could face costly litigation that could deter others from staying in that field. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Justices question Alaska $500-a-year contribution limit
Attorney Press Release |
2019/11/26 12:01
|
The Supreme Court is raising doubts about Alaska’s $500-a-year limit on contributions to political candidates. The justices are ordering a lower court to take a new look at the issue.
The court says in an unsigned opinion Monday that federal judges who had rejected a challenge to the contribution cap did not take account of a 2006 high court ruling invalidating low-dollar limits on political contributions in Vermont.
The Alaska challengers argue that the state is alone in imposing such low limits even on gubernatorial candidates “who must campaign across Alaska’s vast expanse and widely dispersed media markets.”
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in a short separate opinion that Alaska’s reliance on the energy industry may make the state unusually vulnerable to political corruption and justify low limits. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court shields Trump’s financial records for now
Attorney Press Release |
2019/11/25 12:01
|
The Supreme Court is shielding President Donald Trump’s financial records from House Democrats for now.
The delay announced late Monday allows the justices to decide how to handle the House subpoena and a similar demand from the Manhattan district attorney at the same time.
The House’s quest for the records is not part of the ongoing impeachment inquiry, but the court’s action probably means Democrats will not have the records before an expected vote on impeachment by year’s end.
The justices are giving Trump until Dec. 5 to file a full appeal of a lower court ruling calling for his accountants to turn over the records. The president’s lawyers are certain to comply, and the court’s decision about whether to take up the case is expected by mid-January.
The House Committee on Oversight and Reform had argued that Trump’s case was too weak to earn a delay from the court. There was no noted dissent from the court’s unsigned order.
The New York case centers on Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr.’s subpoena for Trump’s tax returns from the same accounting firm, Mazars USA. Legal briefs have been filed by both sides in that case.
The justices now should be able to say at the same time whether they will take up the cases and decide them by late June.
If they opt to reject Trump’s appeals, the House and Vance would be able to enforce their subpoenas immediately. Mazars has said it would comply with any legal obligation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lawmakers asked to boost spending on New Mexico court system
Attorney Press Release |
2019/11/24 12:00
|
New Mexico Supreme Court Justice Barbara Vigil is asking legislators to boost spending on the state court system.
The Albuquerque Journal reports Vigil joined other court officials Friday in Santa Fe to request an 8.9% increase in appropriations from the state’s general fund.
Vigil says the money would be used to hire five new district judges, expand pretrial services that supervise defendants awaiting trial and improve security, especially for magistrate courts.
If the request is approved, the judiciary will receive about $199 million in the fiscal year that begins in July.
It’s part of a broader state budget expected to exceed $7 billion. Two of the five new judges would be stationed in Albuquerque, and the other three would be based in Santa Fe, Las Cruces and Alamogordo. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hong Kong court reinstates mask ban ahead of elections
Legal Court Feed |
2019/11/23 11:57
|
A Hong Kong court that had struck down a ban on face masks at protests said Friday that the government could enforce it for one week, as police readied for any unrest during keenly contested elections this weekend.
The High Court granted the temporary suspension “in view of the great public importance of the issues raised in this case, and the highly exceptional circumstances that Hong Kong is currently facing.”
Anti-government protests have rocked the semi-autonomous Chinese city for more than five months. Protesters remained holed up on a university campus, refusing to turn themselves in for arrest after intense clashes with police last weekend.
The court had ruled Monday that the ban, imposed last month under rarely used emergency powers to prevent protesters from hiding their identity, infringed on fundamental rights more than was reasonably necessary.
China’s parliament rebuked the court ruling this week, in what some interpreted as an indication it might overrule the decision.
In granting the one-week reprieve, the High Court said it was giving the government time to appeal the decision and seek a longer suspension from the Court of Appeal. |
|
|
|
|
|
Law Firm SEO RSS Feed
