|
|
|
Ala. courts seek $8.5 million to avoid layoffs
Lawyer News |
2013/08/19 14:03
|
When the state government's new budget year begins on Oct. 1, Chief Justice Roy Moore says he will need assurances that the courts are going to get an extra $8.5 million in state funding or he will have to lay off 150 employees.
The governor and a legislative budget chairman say it's going to be hard to come up with that much money.
Gov. Robert Bentley said he has sympathy for the court system, but the state General Fund is tight. "I don't see $8.5 million being awarded. We'll have to see what's available," he said.
The state's $1.7 billion General Fund for the new fiscal year starting Oct. 1 is 0.4 percent larger than the current year's budget.
The budget will increase the court system's appropriation from $102.8 million this fiscal year to $108.4 million for the new year. That $5.6 million increase is second only to the $16.7 million increase given to the prison system. But Moore, who oversees the state court system, said $8.5 million more was needed to maintain court services at their current level.
To help the court system, the budget includes what legislators call a "first-priority conditional appropriation" of $8.5 million. The budget allows the governor to release extra funding to some state programs if tax collections exceed expectations. The budget requires that if the governor wants to release any extra funding, the court system has to get its $8.5 million first before any other program gets a penny extra.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Law Offices of David Stein - Maryland Gun Lawyer
Lawyer News |
2013/06/22 12:45
|
The state of Maryland has strict rules that prohibit the wearing, carrying, and transporting of guns whether it is hidden or in the open. These rules also apply to any other firearms including but not limited to handguns, rifle, shotgun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, starter gun, or any other firearm, whether loaded or unloaded.
If you are accused of this offense, you may be charged with severe punishments including both fines and time in jail. To avoid these charges involving weapons of any kind, contact a skilled Maryland Criminal Defense or Maryland gun attorney as soon as possible. Weapons charges carry significant and substantial jail time as well as stiff financial penalties and are generally subject to vigorous prosecution by the State. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court Upholds Rifle Sales Reporting Requirement
Lawyer News |
2013/06/01 11:10
|
A federal appeals court panel has unanimously upheld an Obama administration requirement that dealers in southwestern border states report when customers buy multiple high-powered rifles.
The firearms industry trade group, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, and two Arizona gun sellers argued that the administration overstepped its legal authority in the 2011 regulation, which applies to gun sellers in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.
But the three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said that the requirement was "unambiguously" authorized under the Gun Control Act of 1968.
The challengers argued that the requirement unlawfully creates a national firearms registry, but the court said because it applies to a small percentage of gun dealers, it doesn't come close to creating one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court won't allow challenge to surveillance law
Lawyer News |
2013/02/27 22:20
|
A sharply-divided Supreme Court on Tuesday threw out an attempt by U.S. citizens to challenge the expansion of a surveillance law used to monitor conversations of foreign spies and terrorist suspects.
With a 5-4 vote, the high court ruled that a group of American lawyers, journalists and organizations can't sue to challenge the 2008 expansion of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) because they can't prove that the government will monitor their conversations along with those of potential foreign terrorist and intelligence targets.
Justices "have been reluctant to endorse standing theories that require guesswork," said Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote for the court's majority.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, was enacted in 1978. It allows the government to monitor conversations of foreign spies and terrorist suspects abroad for intelligence purposes. The 2008 FISA amendments allow the government to obtain from a secret court broad, yearlong intercept orders, raising the prospect that phone calls and emails between those foreign targets and innocent Americans in this country would be swept under the umbrella of surveillance.
Without proof that the law would directly affect them, Americans can't sue, Alito said in the ruling.
Despite their documented fears and the expense of activities that some Americans have taken to be sure they don't get caught up in government monitoring, they "have set forth no specific facts demonstrating that the communications of their foreign contacts will be targeted," he added. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court: Judges cannot indefinitely delay appeals
Lawyer News |
2013/01/08 21:34
|
The Supreme Court says federal judges cannot indefinitely delay a death row inmate's federal appeals to see if the convict can become mentally competent enough to help his lawyer.
The high court unanimously ruled Tuesday against Arizona death row inmate Ernest Gonzales and Ohio death row inmate Sean Carter.
Inmates appealing state death sentences to federal court have a right to a lawyer. But the courts never said whether the inmates have to be mentally competent enough to help their lawyers with their federal appeals. Gonzales and Carter wanted the high court to say that federal judges have discretion to hold up proceedings indefinitely until the inmates are ready.
Justice Clarence Thomas says "at some point, the state must be allowed to defend its judgment of conviction." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wisconsin Court Upholds Domestic Partner Registry
Lawyer News |
2012/12/25 23:23
|
Gay rights advocates scored a major win Friday when an appeals court ruled Wisconsin's domestic partnership registry was constitutional, but the victory could be short-lived as conservatives pledged to take the case to the Republican-leaning state Supreme Court.
Conservatives had argued the registry bestows a status similar to marriage on same-sex couples and violates a 2006 state constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage or anything substantially similar to it.
The 4th District Court of Appeals disagreed. The court noted that legislators who supported the ban repeatedly said it wouldn't prevent same-sex couples from receiving some benefits and went on to list a range of rights married couples enjoy that same-sex couples still don't, including joint property ownership, joint adoption and the ability to share health benefits even after a divorce. |
|
|
|
|
|
Lawyer News RSS Feed
