|
|
|
High court rejects appeal on sex-offender rules
Legal Blog News |
2014/04/25 11:08
|
The California Supreme Court declined to review a lower court's ruling striking down sex-offender restrictions in Orange County that were among the strictest in the state.
Wednesday's move means that local bans in dozens of California communities are trumped by state law and invalidated, as the 4th District Court of Appeal found in January.
"We're obviously disappointed," Susan Kang Schroeder, chief of staff for Orange County's district attorney, told City News Service. "We put our heart and soul in every brief and every argument to protect the children of Orange County from dangerous sex offenders. ... We still believe it was the right thing to do."
Some 30 cities statewide, half of them in Orange County, have passed sex-offender ordinances that the Supreme Court's action effectively invalidates. To revive them, state law would have to be changed to allow for different local restrictions.
Orange County's restrictions passed in 2011 barred offenders from parks and beaches unless they had written permission from the sheriff.
But in 2012, a county court overturned the misdemeanor conviction of a sex offender, Hugo Godinez, for going to a company picnic at a Fountain Valley park and asked the appeals court to rule on the case and the legality of the regulations.
The appeals judges found that the rule conflicts with laws passed by the state that already provide a "comprehensive statutory scheme regulating the daily life of sex offenders." It struck down a similar ordinance in the city of Irvine. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appeals court reinstates BP shareholders' lawsuit
Legal Blog News |
2014/02/18 15:30
|
A federal appeals court on Thursday reinstated a shareholders lawsuit filed against BP Alaska in the wake of two oil spills in 2006 on the North Slope that exposed problems with the company's pipeline maintenance program.
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the U.S. District Court of Western Washington on several claims.
Shareholders sued BP in 2008, claiming management made misleading statements about the conditions of the company's pipelines, and its maintenance and leak detection program after the first spill of 200,000 gallons onto the North Slope tundra two years earlier. The lawsuit claims BP made the statements knowingly or with deliberate recklessness.
The shareholders claim BP's share price fell 4 percent after the second spill five months later and the subsequent field shutdown for maintenance.
The Associated Press left messages seeking comment for attorneys on both sides of the case.
BP spokeswoman Dawn Patience said in an emailed statement that the company had not had an opportunity to study the decision, so "it would not be appropriate to comment."
BP Exploration Alaska Inc. was fined $20 million in 2007 after pleading guilty to a federal environmental crime for failing to prevent the crude spill, the largest ever at Prudhoe Bay.
The problems became known after the March 2006 spill prompted the FBI and the Environmental Protection Agency to open an investigation into maintenance practices at the 30-year-old field.
They found that thick sludge caked along the bottom of the leaky pipe was protecting colonies of bacteria that produce a corrosive acid. The acid had eaten an almond-sized hole in the steel over the course of several years, and that's where the spill occurred. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court denies execution stay for Fla. killer.
Legal Blog News |
2014/01/10 15:49
|
The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to block Tuesday's scheduled execution of an inmate convicted of fatally stabbing a prison guard while already on Florida's death row.
Askari Abdullah Muhammad, previously known as Thomas Knight, was set to die by lethal injection Tuesday evening.
The 62-year-old Muhammad was first condemned to die for the 1974 abduction and killings of Sydney and Lillian Gans, a Miami couple. He was sentenced to die again for killing corrections officer Richard Burke in 1980 using a sharpened spoon.
His execution has been delayed for so long because of numerous appeals and rulings, including a 1987 federal appeals court tossing out his death sentence because he hadn't been allowed to put character and background witnesses on the stand during the penalty phase. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Va. court: Hookah lounge exempt from smoking ban
Legal Blog News |
2013/12/20 11:09
|
A divided Virginia Court of Appeals has ruled that a Blacksburg hookah lounge is exempt from the state's restaurant smoking ban.
In a 6-3 ruling Tuesday, the court said the She-Sha Cafe and Hookah Lounge is not subject to the ban because it's a retail tobacco store as well as a restaurant. She-Sha says most of its revenue comes from customers' use of hookahs - tall water pipes that are used to smoke flavored tobacco.
The state law regulating indoor public smoking covers restaurants but specifically exempts tobacco retailers. The court's majority cited that exemption in ruling in She-Sha's favor.
The decision reverses a three-judge panel's ruling that She-Sha is covered by the ban because it also serves food. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court Will Take up New Health Law Dispute
Legal Blog News |
2013/11/29 10:40
|
The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to referee another dispute over President Barack Obama's health care law, whether businesses can use religious objections to escape a requirement to cover birth control for employees.
The justices said they will take up an issue that has divided the lower courts in the face of roughly 40 lawsuits from for-profit companies asking to be spared from having to cover some or all forms of contraception.
The court will consider two cases. One involves Hobby Lobby Inc., an Oklahoma City-based arts and crafts chain with 13,000 full-time employees. Hobby Lobby won in the lower courts.
The other case is an appeal from Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp., a Pennsylvania company that employs 950 people in making wood cabinets. Lower courts rejected the company's claims.
The court said the cases will be combined for arguments, probably in late March. A decision should come by late June.
The cases center on a provision of the health care law that requires most employers that offer health insurance to their workers to provide a range of preventive health benefits, including contraception.
In both instances, the Christian families that own the companies say that insuring some forms of contraception violates their religious beliefs.
The key issue is whether profit-making corporations can assert religious beliefs under the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act or the First Amendment provision guaranteeing Americans the right to believe and worship as they choose. Nearly four years ago, the justices expanded the concept of corporate "personhood," saying in the Citizens United case that corporations have the right to participate in the political process the same way that individuals do.
"The government has no business forcing citizens to choose between making a living and living free," said David Cortman of the Alliance Defending Freedom, the Christian public interest law firm that is representing Conestoga Wood at the Supreme Court.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 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
