|
|
|
Court upholds approval of BP oil spill settlement
Legal Focuses |
2014/01/13 14:19
|
Over BP's objections, a federal appeals court on Friday upheld a judge's approval of the company's multibillion-dollar settlement with lawyers for businesses and residents who claim the massive 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico cost them money.
BP has argued that U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier and court-appointed claims administrator Patrick Juneau have misinterpreted settlement terms in ways that would force the London-based oil giant to pay for billions of dollars in inflated or bogus claims by businesses.
During a hearing in November before a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a BP lawyer argued that Barbier's December 2012 approval of the deal shouldn't stand unless the company ultimately prevails in its ongoing dispute over business payments.
But the divided panel ruled Friday that Barbier did not err by failing to determine more than a year ago whether the class of eligible claimants included individuals who haven't actually suffered any injury related to the spill.
Affirming Barbier's initial ruling in 2012, the court said in its 48-page majority opinion that it can't agree with arguments raised by BP and others who separately objected to the settlement. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chile's top court rules against coal-fired complex
Headline News |
2014/01/13 14:19
|
Chile's Supreme Court sided with local fishermen who contend a coal-fired power complex harms ocean life and pollutes their community, but the judges stopped short of ordering a suspension and left it to environmental authorities to decide if operations can continue.
The ruling on the Bocamina complex released Friday was another in a series of blows to big power projects in energy-strapped Chile, where concerns over environmental issues have been rising.
In December, an appeals court halted the 350-megawatt Bocamina II part of the complex owned by Endesa Chile in the southern Bio Bio region, citing harm to fishermen's livelihood.
The 128-megawatt Bocamina I plant was allowed to keep running. But the Supreme Court said the whole complex should shut down unless officials determine the water-cooling system doesn't threaten or hurt marine life.
The company can only operate the Bocamina I and II thermoelectric plants if they don't put harm marine life or put it at risk, the high court said in a ruling made Thursday.
The court ordered Chile's environmental authorities to take all measures required, including "a halt of operations" if needed, until the problem is fixed.
Environmental groups and fishermen say the complex's use of huge amounts of seawater to cool its equipment damages the area. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Defamatory online posts revisited by Texas court
Headline News |
2014/01/10 14:52
|
They say nothing on the Internet ever really goes away, but the Texas Supreme Court is considering whether defamatory postings might be worth the effort to try.
Justices on the state's highest civil court on Thursday weighed broader questions about cyberbullying, hate speech and the First Amendment while hearing a case with far lower stakes. At issue is whether a company can be forced to remove from its website damaging personal comments about a fired Austin businessman.
Lower courts already have ruled that Robert Kinney's former company, Los Angeles-based BCG Attorney Search, can't be forced to remove the comments, even if a judge or jury eventually finds it defamed Kinney on the company's website by accusing him of running a kickback scheme. That's because defamatory speech still has protections under the law.
But Kinney's attorneys told the nine-member court that it's time for Texas law to catch up with technology.
"It was a little harder to defame someone before the Internet. Now, on my cellphone, I can walk out of here and in five minutes I can say something defamatory about somebody and hit a button, and it's there worldwide," said Martin Siegel, Kinney's attorney. "And it's potentially there for perpetuity."
Anthony Ricciardelli, an attorney for BCG, said forcing the comments to be removed would "set a dangerous precedent that will have a chilling effect on speech and may lead to a slippery slope."
The court isn't expected to make a ruling for several months.
Justices asked both sides to consider more divisive cases involving cyberbullying or hate speech _ whether a court should be able to issue orders to stop online antagonists from harassing others, for instance, even if no defamation was present. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court: Lawmakers must expedite education funding
Legal Focuses |
2014/01/10 14:52
|
The Washington Supreme Court on Thursday ordered lawmakers to submit a complete plan by the end of April to detail how the state will fully pay for basic education.
The 8-1 ruling said that while the state made progress in last year's budget to increase funding for K-12 education, it was "not on target" to hit the constitutionally required funding level by the 2017-18 school year.
"We have no wish to be forced into entering specific funding directives to the State, or, as some state high courts have done, holding the legislature in contempt of court," read the majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Barbara Madsen. "But, it is incumbent upon the State to demonstrate, through immediate, concrete action, that it is making real and measureable progress, not simply promises."
Joining Madsen were Justices Charles Johnson, Debra Stephens, Susan Owens, Charles Wiggins, Mary Fairhurst, Steven Gonzalez and Sheryl Gordon McCloud. Justice Jim Johnson wrote a separate dissent, which was to be released at a later date.
In 2012, the high court ruled that the state is not meeting its constitutional obligation concerning education funding. That ruling was the result of a lawsuit brought by a coalition of school districts, parents and education groups, known as the McCleary case for the family named in the suit. The court has required yearly progress reports from the Legislature on its efforts. Those reports are then critiqued by the group that brought the lawsuit, and by the Supreme Court. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
California appeals court upholds plastic bag ban
Legal Focuses |
2014/01/06 10:59
|
A California appeals court has upheld San Francisco's ban on single-use plastic bags that can serve as a precedent for other cases.
The San Francisco Chronicle reports the 1st District Court of Appeal issued its ruling last month and published it Friday as precedent binding on lower courts. The ordinance was passed in February 2012 and prohibits plastic bags that can be used only once and requires stores to charge 10 cents for recyclable plastic or paper bags.
A lawsuit by Save the Plastic Bag Coalition said plastic bags took more energy to produce than plastic and take up more space in landfills.
Similar measures have been adopted in about 50 cities and counties in California and have survived legal challenges. The state Supreme Court upheld a plastic-bag ban in 2011. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ohio courts must report mental health info
Legal Focuses |
2014/01/06 10:59
|
Courts in Ohio must now report certain mental health information about people convicted of violent crimes for inclusion in a law enforcement database.
A rule approved by the Ohio Supreme Court requiring that notification took effect Jan. 1. The court devised the form to be submitted to law enforcement after legislation was approved last year.
The law requires judges to report ordering mental-health evaluations or treatment for people convicted of a violent crime or approving conditional release for people found incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of insanity.
The legislation was introduced after a Clark County sheriff's deputy was fatally shot in 2011 by a man with a criminal history who was conditionally released from a mental health institution. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
