|
|
|
Court: California can force inmates to submit DNA
Court Watch |
2012/02/25 09:46
|
A divided federal appeals court ruled Thursday that California law enforcement officials can keep collecting DNA samples from people arrested for felonies.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said law enforcement’s interest in solving cold cases, identifying crime suspects and even exonerating the wrongly accused outweigh any privacy concerns raised by the forced DNA collections.
The 2-1 ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by four Californians who were arrested on felony charges but never convicted.
The arrestees sought a court order barring collection of DNA from people who are arrested but not convicted, arguing the process is an unconstitutional search and seizure since some suspects will later be exonerated.
The DNA samples are obtained with a swab of the cheek and stored in the state’s DNA database, which contains 1.9 million profiles. Arrestees who are never charged with a felony can apply to have their samples expunged from the database.
The state Department of Justice said it has had roughly 20,000 “hits’’ connecting suspects with previous crimes since it began collecting the DNA profiles.
Judge Mylan Smith Jr., writing for the two-judge majority, said the useful law enforcement tool wasn’t any more intrusive than fingerprinting. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Costner sculpture dispute heads to SD high court
Topics |
2012/02/24 09:47
|
The South Dakota Supreme Court will hear a case involving Hollywood actor Kevin Costner and some bronze sculptures of bison and American Indians.
Justices will review a judge's decision last summer that Costner did not breach a contract with South Dakota artist Peggy Detmers by placing the sculptures at his Tatanka attraction near Deadwood in 2006. Detmers challenged the ruling, and oral arguments are set for March 19 in Vermillion, the Rapid City Journal reported.
Costner filmed much of his Academy-Award-winning movie Dances with Wolves in South Dakota. He commissioned the sculptures in the early 1990s for his planned Dunbar resort in South Dakota's Black Hills that still has not been built.
Costner paid Detmers $300,000 for the 17 sculptures. Detmers said she spent more than six years creating the artwork and gave Costner a price break because she anticipated selling smaller sculptures at the resort.
Circuit Judge Randall Macy ruled last July that Detmers indicated her approval of the Tatanka location by participating in the development of the site, the placing of the sculptures there and the opening ceremony. The Tatanka site houses the sculptures and a visitor center. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Rosen Law Firm Announces Class Action
Legal Focuses |
2012/02/24 09:46
|
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. today announced that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased the common stock of SAIC, Inc. during the period between April 11, 2007 and September 1, 2011, and is seeking to recover investors' damages from violations of federal securities laws.
To join the SAIC class action, visit the Rosen Law Firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com, or call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Jon Horne, toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also email or pkim@rosenlegal.com or jhorne@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY CHOOSE TO DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT AND REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER.
The Complaint asserts violations of the federal securities laws against SAIC and its officers and directors for issuing false and misleading information to investors about the Company's true financial and business condition. Specifically, the Complaint alleges defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: (1) over a multi-year period, SAIC had overbilled New York City hundreds of millions of dollars on the CityTime project -- an initiative associated with the modernization of New York City's employee payroll system; (2) as a result of these overbilling practices, its operating results during the Class Period were materially misstated; (3) SAIC's overbilling practices subjected the Company to numerous undisclosed risks, including monetary risks and risks to the Company's reputation; (4) as a result of the foregoing, SAIC violated applicable accounting standards associated with the recognition of revenue and the disclosure and accounting for loss contingencies; and (5) the Company's financial statements were not fairly presented in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles and were materially false and misleading.
When the truth concerning SAIC's financial condition was disclosed publicly, its share price dropped, damaging investors.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 23, 2012. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm, toll-free, at 866-767-3653, or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com. You may also visit the firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com.
The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation.
www.rosenlegal.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indianapolis Business Corporate Law Firm
Law Firm News |
2012/02/24 09:46
|
span style=font-weight: boldEntity Selection amp; Formation/span
There are many important decisions to be made by an emerging business, each of which come with potential pitfalls that be damaging to the business and its owners in the absence of proper legal guidance. Our attorneys can help you with these issues, steering you clear of the problems while helping you select the type of entity which best serves your business interests and goals. From drafting the formation documents to stock issuance to agreements between co-owners, our Firm’s skilled business attorneys can help you establish a solid legal foundation for your business’s future.
span style=font-weight: boldContract Drafting amp; Negotiation/span
Beyond the formation of business entities, our Firm acts as a corporate counsel for many of its business clients, including the negotiation, drafting and review of our client’s contracts, ranging in size from a few thousand dollars to millions of dollars. With just a few hours’ time, our review of contracts before they are signed can help our clients avoid paying for hundreds of hours of attorney time in litigation once a contract dispute arises.
Riley Bennett amp; Egloff Law is a Business amp; Corporate law firm that offers an all-inclusive range of legal services for their business clients and is capable of handling the various issues any business can face. Based in Indianapolis, their attorneys have expertise in entity selection and formation, contract drafting and negotiation, and mergers and acquisitions. Their experience can help you establish a solid legal foundation for your business's future. See a href=http://www.rbelaw.comwww.rbelaw.com/a. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court seems split on double jeopardy question
Topics |
2012/02/23 09:44
|
The Supreme Court seemed divided Wednesday on whether to allow an Arkansas man to be retried on murder charges even though a jury forewoman said in open court that they were unanimously against finding him guilty.
Alex Blueford of Jacksonville, Ark., was charged in July 2008 in the death of 20-month-old Matthew McFadden Jr. Blueford testified at trial that he elbowed the boy in the head by accident. Authorities say the child was beaten to death.
Blueford's murder trial ended in a hung jury. The jury forewoman told the judge before he declared a mistrial that the jury voted unanimously against capital murder and first-degree murder. The jury deadlocked on a lesser charge, manslaughter, which caused the mistrial.
The Arkansas Supreme Court ruled last year that Blueford should be retried on the original charges. But Blueford's lawyers want justices to bar a second trial on capital and first-degree murder charges, saying that would violate Fifth Amendment protections preventing someone from being tried twice for the same crime. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Class Action Has Been Filed Against GNC
Law Firm News |
2012/02/22 09:45
|
Abbey Spanier Rodd amp; Abrams, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against General Nutrition Centers, Inc. (GNC), Cellucor Sports Nutrition, Woodbolt Distribution, Ltd, Woodbolt Management LLC and Woodbolt International for, among other things, violations of the California Consumer Leal Remedies Act, the California False Advertising Law, and the California Unfair Competition Act.nbsp; This action, filed in the United States District Court, Central District of California (Civil Action No. 12-1336), has been brought as a class action on behalf of all persons in the United States who purchased Cellucor's C-4 Extreme at any time during the four years prior to the filing of this lawsuit (the Class Period).
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants engaged in an illegal and deceptive practice of promoting, marketing, distributing and/or selling C-4 Extreme as a natural dietary supplement when, in fact, C-4 Extreme contains a dangerous substance known by many names, including 1,3 Dimethylamylamine, 1,3 Dimethylhexaneamine HCl, 1,3 Dimethylhexaneamine, Methylhexaneamine, and Geranamine (known as DMAA).nbsp; Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to disclose that the DMAA contained in C-4 Extreme is wholly synthetic, manufactured and not derived from the geranium plant.
At the time Plaintiff and the class of consumers purchased and used C-4 Extreme, they were unaware that C-4 Extreme contained the synthetic and dangerous stimulant DMAA and that DMAA was not derived from the geranium plant or any other natural source.nbsp; Plaintiff alleges that the DMAA contained in C-4 Extreme is a synthetic product that is illegal and dangerous and has dangerous side effects.nbsp; The safety concerns associated with DMAA have been well-documented, including concerns that DMAA is a dangerous and addictive substance that can cause headache, nausea and stroke.nbsp; Experts have noted that DMAA has a chemical structure similar to amphetamines and ephedrine and can cause increases in heart rate and blood pressure and even death.
www.abbeyspanier.com |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
