|
|
|
Court weighs president's recess appointments power
Lawyer News Source |
2014/01/13 15:25
|
The Supreme Court is refereeing a politically charged dispute between President Barack Obama and Senate Republicans over the president's power to temporarily fill high-level positions.
The case being argued at the high court Monday is the first in the nation's history to consider the meaning of the provision of the Constitution that allows the president to make temporary appointments to positions that otherwise require Senate confirmation, but only when the Senate is in recess.
The court battle is an outgrowth of increasing partisanship and the political stalemate that's been a hallmark of Washington for years, and especially since Obama took office in 2009.
Senate Republicans' refusal to allow votes for nominees to the National Labor Relations Board and the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau led Obama to make the temporary, or recess, appointments in January 2012.
Three federal appeals courts have said Obama overstepped his authority because the Senate was not in recess when he acted.
The Supreme Court case involves a dispute between a Washington state bottling company and a local Teamsters union in which the NLRB sided with the union. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overturned the board's ruling. Hundreds more NLRB rulings could be voided if the Supreme Court upholds the appeals court decision. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Defamatory online posts revisited by Texas court
Lawyer News Source |
2014/01/10 15:57
|
They say nothing on the Internet ever really goes away, but the Texas Supreme Court is considering whether defamatory postings might be worth the effort to try.
Justices on the state's highest civil court on Thursday weighed broader questions about cyberbullying, hate speech and the First Amendment while hearing a case with far lower stakes. At issue is whether a company can be forced to remove from its website damaging personal comments about a fired Austin businessman.
Lower courts already have ruled that Robert Kinney's former company, Los Angeles-based BCG Attorney Search, can't be forced to remove the comments, even if a judge or jury eventually finds it defamed Kinney on the company's website by accusing him of running a kickback scheme. That's because defamatory speech still has protections under the law.
But Kinney's attorneys told the nine-member court that it's time for Texas law to catch up with technology.
"It was a little harder to defame someone before the Internet. Now, on my cellphone, I can walk out of here and in five minutes I can say something defamatory about somebody and hit a button, and it's there worldwide," said Martin Siegel, Kinney's attorney. "And it's potentially there for perpetuity."
Anthony Ricciardelli, an attorney for BCG, said forcing the comments to be removed would "set a dangerous precedent that will have a chilling effect on speech and may lead to a slippery slope."
The court isn't expected to make a ruling for several months.
Justices asked both sides to consider more divisive cases involving cyberbullying or hate speech _ whether a court should be able to issue orders to stop online antagonists from harassing others, for instance, even if no defamation was present. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Affirmative action foe wins California court fight
Lawyer News Source |
2013/12/20 11:16
|
In a bitter fight over the effects of affirmative action, the California Supreme Court ruled Thursday that law school data on race, attendance and grades should be available to the public.
The unanimous decision represents a legal victory for a law professor seeking to test his notion that minority students are actually harmed by preferential admissions policies.
University of California, Los Angeles law professor Richard Sander created a firestorm when he published his "mismatch theory" in the Stanford Law Review in 2004.
Critics swiftly attacked his conclusions, saying Sander understated the positive effects of affirmative action and based his thinking on inadequate statistics.
To further his research, Sander sought data on ethnicity and scholastic performance compiled by the State Bar of California with a public records request in 2008. The state bar denied the request, prompting the lawsuit.
Information compiled by the bar, a branch of the state judiciary responsible with licensing and disciplining lawyers, is "unparalleled," Sander said after the ruling Thursday. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Attorneys
Lawyer News Source |
2013/10/25 16:01
|
Los Angeles Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Claims Attorneys
Newport Beach Disability insurance, life insurance, annuity, health insurance attorneys can help you resolve your claims and disputes involving the Employee Retirement Income Security Act f 1974, also commonly known as ERISA. McKennon Law Group's main attorney Robert J. McKennon as recognized and awarded the "2013 Top Rated Lawyer in Labor & Employment” by American Lawyer Media and Martindale Hubbell, leading providers of news and rating information to the legal industry.
ERISA is a very complex area of the law and it is important you have an attorney who understands it. ERISA claims are the most common cases litigated in Federal Court, a court in which most lawyers are uncomfortable. ERISA involves mandatory administrative appeals and strict deadlines and it is crucial that you know your rights and that you hire an attorney early in the process after your claim has been denied and before your appeal is administered. Our experience in litigating ERISA cases are the top in the nation and in the Orange County regio. We will be the aggressive advocate for your case to obtain maximum success involving all manners of insurance disputes.
We have over 25 years of experience litigating ERISA cases involving life, health, disability and pension claims. Call or email us to schedule a free consultation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court to look at death row inmate with low IQ
Lawyer News Source |
2013/10/23 12:00
|
The Supreme Court will take up a Florida case over how judges should determine if a death row inmate is mentally disabled, and thus ineligible for execution.
The justices said Monday they will review a Florida Supreme Court ruling that upheld the death sentence for a man who scored just above the state's cutoff for mental disability as measured by IQ tests.
Freddie Lee Hall was sentenced to death for killing Karol Hurst, a 21-year-old, pregnant woman who was abducted leaving a grocery store in 1978.
Florida law prohibits anyone with an IQ of 70 or higher from being classified as mentally disabled, regardless of other evidence to the contrary. Hall's scores on three IQ tests ranged from 71 to 80.
In 2002, the Supreme Court banned the execution of mentally disabled inmates. But the 6-3 decision in Atkins v. Virginia essentially left it to the states to determine how to measure mental disability.
Florida is one of nine death penalty states with a strict IQ limit, said Florida Supreme Court Justice Barbara Pariente. The others are: Arkansas, Delaware, Idaho, Kentucky, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and Washington.
Pariente voted with the majority to uphold Hall's sentence, but noted there is no national consensus on how to determine mental disability.
Hall's case is legally complicated. In 1989, the Florida Supreme Court threw out Hall's original death penalty and ordered a new sentencing hearing. A judge then resentenced Hall to death, but declared he was mentally disabled. That took place before the 2002 U.S. Supreme Court ruling and before Florida passed a law setting the IQ limit. |
|
|
|
|
|
Law Firm SEO RSS Feed
