|
|
|
Ohio court: Wording of pot legalization ballot is misleading
Top Court Watch |
2015/09/14 15:26
|
Ohio's Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that part of the ballot wording describing a proposal to legalize marijuana in the state is misleading and ordered a state board to rewrite it.
Supporters of the measure, known in the fall election as Issue 3, challenged the phrasing of the ballot language and title, arguing certain descriptions were inaccurate and intentionally misleading to voters. Attorneys for the state's elections chief, a vocal opponent of the proposal, had said the nearly 500-word ballot language was fair.
In a split decision, the high court sided with the pot supporters in singling out four paragraphs of the ballot language it said "inaccurately states pertinent information and omits essential information."
The court ordered the state's Ballot Board to reconvene to replace those paragraphs about where and how retail stores can open, the amount of marijuana a person can grow and transport and the potential for additional growing facilities.
"The cumulative effect of these defects in the ballot language is fatal because the ballot language fails to properly identify the substance of the amendment, a failure that misleads voters," the court said.
The court allowed the ballot issue's title, "Grants a monopoly for the commercial production and sale of marijuana for recreational and medicinal purposes," to stand in a blow to the backers who had taken issue with the use of the word "monopoly."
Passage of Issue 3 would make Ohio a rare state to go from outlawing marijuana to allowing it for all uses in one vote.
The full text of the proposed constitutional amendment has nearly 6,600 words. It would allow anyone 21 and older to buy marijuana for medicinal or personal use and grow four plants. It creates a network of 10 authorized growing locations, some that already have attracted a celebrity-studded list of private investors, and lays out a regulatory and taxation scheme.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OJ Simpson appeal rejected by Nevada Supreme Court
Law Firm Blog News |
2015/09/12 22:55
|
Imprisoned former football star O.J. Simpson lost his latest appeal of his 2008 kidnapping and armed robbery conviction in Las Vegas.
A three-member Nevada Supreme Court panel rejected Simpson's request for a new trial, ruling in a 16-page order Thursday that there was no reason to overturn a lower court judge's decisions in the case.
"We ... conclude the district court did not err in denying these claims," justices Ron Parraguire, Michael Douglas and Michael Cherry said.
Simpson lawyers filed the appeal last October, arguing that Clark County District Court Judge Linda Marie Bell was wrong to deny Simpson a new trial on charges that got Simpson sentenced to 9 to 33 years in a botched hotel room heist.
Simpson lawyers Patricia Palm, Ozzie Fumo and Tom Pitaro argued that his trial attorney mishandled his case and had conflicts of interests. The three attorneys didn't immediately respond to messages late Thursday, and it wasn't immediately known if Simpson was aware of the ruling.
Simpson, 68, is serving his sentence in a northern Nevada prison after a jury found him guilty of multiple felonies for leading five other men in a September 2007 confrontation with two sports memorabilia dealers at a Las Vegas hotel. Two of the men with Simpson testified they brought guns, at Simpson's request.
The Heisman Trophy winner, NFL Hall of Fame member and former television and movie star didn't testify at his robbery trial in Las Vegas. His attorneys, Yale Galanter and Gabriel Grasso, claimed Simpson was just trying to retrieve items stolen from him after his 1995 acquittal in Los Angeles in the deaths of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman.
The Supreme Court in September 2010 rejected a previous Simpson appeal, filed by Galanter.
Simpson's appeal argued that his multiple convictions and sentences for assault with a deadly weapon and robbery with use of a deadly weapon constitute double-jeopardy; that Galanter should have challenged his multiple convictions and punishments; and that the jury should have been given a chance to consider lesser kidnapping and theft offenses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Idaho high court upholds law banning horse racing terminals
Legal Blog News |
2015/09/11 22:55
|
Idaho's highest court says the state must enforce legislation banning lucrative instant horse racing terminals after ruling that Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter's veto of the bill was invalid.
The decision is a blow to Idaho's horse racing industry, where officials have pleaded that the machines are vital to keeping their businesses afloat.
In a unanimous decision issued Thursday, the court ruled that the ban must go into effect because Otter did not complete the veto within the required five-day time span. In Idaho, a bill automatically becomes law — even if the governor doesn't sign it — unless it is vetoed within the legal timeframe.
"This pivotal decision reaffirms that even Idaho's highest elected officials must follow the Constitution," said Coeur d'Alene Tribe Chief James Allan, chairman of the tribe that filed the lawsuit against the state, prompting the court's ruling. The tribe, which profits from its own video gaming on the reservation and faced competition from the new horse racing versions, said it was "extremely happy" with the ruling.
Secretary of State Lawerence Denney must now certify the law, which will make the machines illegal. He did not immediately return calls from The Associated Press on when he will certify it. There are currently about 250 machines installed in three locations across Idaho.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appeals court refuses to halt power plant rules
Legal Opinions |
2015/09/10 22:55
|
A federal appeals court has refused to halt the Obama administration's new clean air standards for power plants while opponents wage a legal challenge.
The federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday rejected an emergency request from 15 states and Peabody Energy Corp. to temporarily block the sweeping plan that would require states to cut carbon emissions from existing power plants.
West Virginia and other coal-reliant states have been leading opposition to the plan, which would mandate a 32 percent cut in emissions nationwide by 2030.
The Environmental Protection Agency and the White House have said they believe the limits are legal and rejected an earlier request to put them on hold.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
German court rules against Lufthansa pilot strike
Top Court Watch |
2015/09/08 22:56
|
A German court issued an injunction Wednesday ordering a halt to a strike by pilots at Lufthansa, Germany’s biggest airline, that caused the cancelation of 1,000 flights.
Lufthansa welcomed the ruling by the state labor court in Frankfurt but said that a special, reduced timetable it had drawn up for the day would remain in place. It said that largely normal services would be resumed on Thursday.
The pilots’ union, Vereinigung Cockpit, has been calling regular short-term strikes in the long-running labor dispute, which comes as Lufthansa restructures to meet increasing competition from Gulf airlines. The pilots want the airline to keep making transition payments for those seeking early retirement.
The court found that the union’s aims went beyond that demand, to exerting more influence on Lufthansa’s new low-cost operation, making the strike illegal, news agency dpa reported.
Vereinigung Cockpit began its strike on long-haul flights Tuesday, forcing the cancellation of 90 flights, and extended the walk-out to medium-and short-haul flights Wednesday.
Union spokesman Markus Wahl told n-tv television after the ruling that it had told pilots to be available for work immediately. Wednesday’s ruling overturned one by a lower court on Tuesday that went in the union’s favor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Law Promo can construct your law firm a brand new responsive website, or help you redesign your existing site to secure your place in the internet world. Small Law Firm Web Design by Law Promo |
|
|
Recent Lawyer Blog Updates |
|
Lawyer News RSS
