|
|
|
Wash. man due in court in alleged Obama threat
Court Watch |
2012/08/22 14:11
|
A Washington state man accused of making an email threat against President Barack Obama and brandishing a shotgun at officers who came to his door is scheduled to appear in federal court.
Secret Service spokesman Brian Leary says 31-year-old Anton Caluori was arrested Tuesday at an apartment in Federal Way for investigation of making threats against the president and assault on a federal officer.
U.S. attorney's spokeswoman Emily Langlie says the threat was sent to a general purpose FBI email address.
A Secret Service agent and a Federal Way police officer went to an apartment, knocked and announced themselves for about three minutes, then found themselves facing a man armed with a shotgun when the door opened.
Leary says Caluori is set to appear at 2 p.m. Wednesday in court. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appeals court reinstates lawsuit against Glock
Court Watch |
2012/07/25 14:25
|
A California appeals court has reinstated a now-retired paralyzed Los Angeles police officer's product liability lawsuit against gun manufacturer Glock.
Enrique Chavez was paralyzed from the waist down when his 3-year-old son accidentally shot him with his service pistol.
The lawsuit claims the .45-caliber Glock 21 pistol lacks adequate safeguards against accidental discharge. There is no grip safety on the Glock.
A Los Angeles judge dismissed the suit two years ago, saying a Police Department review of the gun's design found the Glock's advantages outweighed any inherent risks.
The San Francisco Chronicle says the 2nd District Court of Appeals on Tuesday reinstated the suit, saying a jury could conclude that a grip safety strong enough to withstand a child's grasp would minimize the risk of accidental discharge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Texas Voter ID Law to be Tested in a Federal Court
Court Watch |
2012/07/09 15:16
|
The fate of Texas' controversial new voter ID law - which requires voters to show photo identification at the polls - is set to be decided this week in a federal court in Washington.
The state, which claims the law will prevent voter fraud, is seeking to persuade a three-judge panel to uphold the statute. The Justice Department and a slew of intervening groups say the law disproportionately affects minority voters, violating the federal Voting Rights Act. They want it thrown out.
The case will be a test of the Voting Rights Act, passed in 1965, which was designed to protect minorities' rights to vote.
The Justice Department set up this week's court fight when it blocked implementation of the law in March. Texas quickly filed a lawsuit in federal court, bringing the two sides back to Washington for the second time in months.
The two sides spent two weeks earlier this year arguing in front of a similar three-judge panel about Texas' redrawn congressional maps. As now, the Justice Department claimed Texas was violating the federal Voting Rights Act. No final decision has been made in that case, but a federal court has approved interim maps that have allowed Texas elections to go ahead. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wis. Supreme Court upholds damages in drug lawsuit
Court Watch |
2012/06/22 10:54
|
The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Friday upheld damages that were awarded in a lawsuit the state brought against a prescription drug company accused of inflating prices.
The lawsuit dates back to 2004 when then-Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager sued 36 drug companies alleging they inflated wholesale prices to get larger payments from Medicaid, private insurers and consumers.
The case against Pharmacia Inc. was the first to go to trial, and in 2009 a jury found that the drug maker violated the state's Medicaid fraud law 1.44 million times over a decade. After reviewing the evidence, the judge found the actual tally was 4,578 and ordered the company to pay $4.5 million in forfeitures and other costs. The jury also awarded $9 million in damages.
Pharmacia appealed, arguing that the jury incorrectly calculated the damages, that the number of violations should be reduced to zero, and that a jury trial was improper. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kan. gov. signs measure blocking Islamic law
Court Watch |
2012/05/27 16:06
|
Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback has signed a law aimed at keeping the state's courts or government agencies from basing decisions on Islamic or other foreign legal codes, and a national Muslim group's spokesman said Friday that a court challenge is likely.
The new law, taking effect July 1, doesn't specifically mention Shariah law, which broadly refers to codes within the Islamic legal system. Instead, it says courts, administrative agencies or state tribunals can't base rulings on any foreign law or legal system that would not grant the parties the same rights guaranteed by state and U.S. constitutions.
"This bill should provide protection for Kansas citizens from the application of foreign laws," said Stephen Gele, spokesman for the American Public Policy Alliance, a Michigan group promoting model legislation similar to the new Kansas law. "The bill does not read, in any way, to be discriminatory against any religion."
But supporters have worried specifically about Shariah law being applied in Kansas court cases, and the alliance says on its website that it wants to protect Americans' freedoms from "infiltration" by foreign laws and legal doctrines, "especially Islamic Shariah Law."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court: Families cannot sue over loan discount fee
Court Watch |
2012/05/25 16:06
|
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday that three families cannot sue a mortgage company for allegedly charging them a loan discount fee without giving them a lower interest rate.
The high court's decision tosses out lawsuits filed in 2008 against Quicken Loans, Inc., in Louisiana by three families who claimed they paid the fees without receiving anything in return. The Freeman family paid $980 and the Bennett family $1,100 in loan discount fees but allegedly did not get lower interest rates in return. The Smith family allegations focus partly on a loan origination fee of $5,100, which they claim was a mislabeled loan discount fee.
A federal judge threw the lawsuit out, saying the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act made the lawsuit improper. That decision, which was upheld by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, was appealed to the Supreme Court.
The law says no "person shall give and no person shall accept any portion, split, or percentage of any charge made or received for the rendering of a real estate settlement service in connection with a transaction involving a federally related mortgage loan other than for services actually performed."
The argument is over whether that law "prohibits the collection of an unearned charge by a single settlement provider, or whether it covers only transactions in which a provider shares part of a settlement-service charge with one or more other persons who did nothing to earn it," said Justice Antonia Scalia, who wrote the opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lawyer News RSS Feed
