|
|
|
Appeals court delay requested in ex-Virginia governor's case
Legal Center |
2016/07/25 10:27
|
Prosecutors have asked a federal appeals court to delay action for 30 days on a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell's corruption case — to allow both sides time to analyze it.
The Richmond Times-Dispatch reportsthe U.S. Attorney's Office said the motion filed jointly Thursday proposes that parties file a briefing schedule or update the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals on discussions after 30 days.
McDonnell was convicted in 2014 of doing favors for a wealthy businessman in exchange for more than $165,000 in gifts and loans.
The Supreme Court overturned McDonnell's conviction in June, saying his actions were distasteful but didn't necessarily violate federal bribery laws. The case was returned to the lower court to decide whether there's enough evidence for another trial.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arkansas court denies request for new execution law hearing
Legal Center |
2016/07/21 10:28
|
Arkansas' highest court has denied a request to reconsider its June ruling upholding the state's execution secrecy law, but justices issued a stay that prevents the state from setting new execution dates as some inmates appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Arkansas Supreme Court issued an order Thursday denying a rehearing request by attorneys representing nine inmates who challenged the law that requires the Department of Correction to conceal the maker, seller and other information about the drugs. The inmates have argued the law could lead to cruel or unusual punishment and reneges on an earlier pledge by the state to share information.
The order also grants a request to delay putting the ruling into effect so the inmates can appeal the drug protocol to the U.S. Supreme Court. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bollywood filmmaker challenges censoring of drug-abuse film
Legal Center |
2016/06/10 12:31
|
A Bollywood film producer took his row with India's censor board to a court Wednesday, challenging dozens of cuts and changes to a film that depicts the menace of drug abuse in the northern state of Punjab.
Censor Board chief Pahlaj Nihalini said in a newspaper interview that the movie wrongly depicts 70 percent of people of the state consuming drugs and defaming them. He told reporters that the censor board has approved the movie for screening in theaters with the cuts ordered.
He accused producer Anurag Kashyap of whipping up a controversy to create interest in his film. Compared to Hollywood, movie norms in India are extremely strict. Censorship authorities often order filmmakers ? both Indian and foreign ? to chop scenes deemed offensive. Films with graphic content can be barred completely.
Last year, India's censor authorities ordered that kissing scenes in the James Bond movie, "Spectre," be shortened before it was released in the country.
Kashyap asked the Mumbai High Court to overrule the cuts ordered by the censor board. The court is expected to take up the petition later Wednesday. It could reject the matter or order reconsideration.
Kashyap said the censor board chief Nihalini demanded 89 cuts to the film and even asked him to drop the name of the state from the title, "Udta Punjab," or "Flying Punjab."
Bollywood producers and directors rallied behind Kashyap in his fight with the censor board. "The job of the censor board is to certify films and not suggest cuts." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court rejects Google's appeal in class action lawsuit
Legal Center |
2016/06/07 00:01
|
The Supreme Court won't hear an appeal from Google over a class action lawsuit filed by advertisers who claim the internet company displayed their ads on "low quality" web sites.
The justices on Monday let stand a lower court ruling that said the lawsuit representing hundreds of thousands of advertisers using Google's AdWords program could go forward.
Google argued that a federal appeals court in San Francisco should not have approved the class action because damages must be calculated individually for each company advertiser. The appeals court rejected that argument and approved use of a formula that would calculate harm based on the average advertiser's experience.
Google runs what is by far the world's largest digital ad network. It generated $67 billion in revenue last year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court sides with property owners in wetlands case
Legal Center |
2016/06/02 00:01
|
The Supreme Court is making it easier for landowners to bring a court challenge when federal regulators try to restrict property development due to concerns about water pollution.
The justices ruled unanimously Tuesday that a Minnesota company could file a lawsuit against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers over the agency's determination that its land is off limits to peat mining under the Clean Water Act.
The ruling is a win for property rights and business groups that said it was unfair for government agencies to decide what land is subject to complex environmental laws without a court ever deciding whether the agency is right.
It was the second time in four years that the high court sided with property owners against the government in a dispute over the right to challenge a designation of protected wetlands.
The Obama administration argued that the Hawkes Company could only contest the finding by seeking a permit, an expensive process that could take years to resolve. The company said it should be able to challenge the order immediately in federal court without having to spend more than $100,000 on a permit or risk hefty fines.
Writing for the court, Chief Justice John Roberts said the Corps' decision was the kind of final decision that carries a risk of major criminal and civil penalties if landowners don't go along. He said property owners shouldn't have to wait for the agency to "drop the hammer in order to have their day in court."
The case began when the East Grand Forks, Minnesota, company planned to expand its peat processing operations and asked the Corps for guidance. The agency issued a determination that the property was governed by the Clean Water Act because it affected the Red River of the North about 120 miles away.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court: Slipknot bassist's child born after he died can sue
Legal Center |
2016/05/09 00:15
|
Idaho's state Supreme Court candidates went after each other's political independence Friday evening during their only scheduled major debate.
"When you stand on the courthouse steps with the Legislature, I'm not sure if you're sending the right messages to the people of Idaho that there's a clear division of judiciary and legislative branch," said candidate Robyn Brody, an attorney from Rupert.
Brody was calling out fellow candidates Clive Strong, a longtime deputy attorney general, and Curt McKenzie, a seven-term Republican state senator ? who have both held press conferences at courthouses announcing endorsements from partisan lawmakers.
Idaho Court of Appeals Judge Sergio Gutierrez also echoed Brody's concerns of seeking high-profile endorsements, adding that he's not running to be a politician but a justice.
However, Strong countered that his 33-year career inside the attorney general's office has often required him to stand up to the Idaho Legislature and McKenzie argued that he strayed from his fellow GOP members during the Legislature by voting no on the so-called ag-gag bill, which was later ruled illegal in federal court.
The first round of campaign contribution reports aren't due until May 10, making endorsements that much more open to scrutiny for signs of possible bias.
Furthermore, Supreme Court candidates are banned from talking about their past of current political party affiliations even though political party registrations are public records as well as giving their opinions on how they would vote on previous or pending state supreme court decisions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lawyer News RSS Feed
