|
|
|
High court appears to favor Ala. death row inmate
Topics |
2011/10/03 11:03
|
The Supreme Court appeared likely Tuesday to order a new court hearing for an Alabama death row inmate who lost the chance to appeal his death sentence because of a mailroom mix-up at a venerable New York law firm.
Both conservative and liberal justices indicated they would throw out a federal appeals court ruling that relied on the missed deadline to refuse to consider Cory Maples' claims that he received inadequate legal representation, dating back to his trial on charges he gunned down two friends in 1995.
Justice Samuel Alito, a former federal prosecutor, said he did not understand why Alabama fought so hard to deny Maples the right to appeal when the deadline passed though no fault of his own.
Justice Antonin Scalia was the only member of the court who appeared to agree with the state's argument that Maples' protests are overblown because he was never left without a lawyer. The state also says the role of Maples' lawyers in missing the deadline is unfortunate but nothing the court should correct under its earlier rulings.
Gregory Garre, a former solicitor general who is representing Maples in the Supreme Court, said the earlier legal work for Maples was so bad that it violated the Constitution.
Whatever the shortcomings of Maples' trial lawyers, he appeared to win the lottery when two lawyers at Sullivan and Cromwell agreed to represent him for free in his appeals, Garre said. The New York-based firm has 800 lawyers and offices in a dozen cities. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court refuses to hear Maryland gun case
Topics |
2011/10/03 11:02
|
The Supreme Court won't hear a Maryland man's argument that the Second Amendment allows him to carry a gun outside of his home for self-defense.
The high court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from Charles F. Williams Jr., who was arrested in 2007 for having his legally-purchased handgun outside his home without a state permit.
The high court has ruled there is a right to keep a gun in the home for protection. But gun advocates say people also have the constitutional right to carry their guns outside the house for self-protection.
Maryland courts say if the Supreme Court agrees with that theory it will need to say so more plainly. The high court refused the opportunity on Monday. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rentech Announces Final Court Approvals of Settlements
Law Center |
2011/09/28 10:36
|
Rentech, Inc. announced today that it has received final court approvals for the settlements of the securities class action and shareholder derivative lawsuits against the Company and a number of its current and former directors and officers. The lawsuits related to the Company’s restatement in December 2009 of certain of its financial statements for fiscal year 2008 and the first three quarters of fiscal year 2009. The Company believed that it was in the best interests of its stockholders to settle the matters at a reasonable cost to avoid potentially protracted and expensive litigation. The Company and the individual defendants have denied any liability or wrongdoing in connection with the allegations contained in these lawsuits.
The settlement for the consolidated class action lawsuits in United States District Court for the Central District of California (In re Rentech Securities Litigation, Lead Case No. 2:09-cv-09495-GHK-PJW) provides for a settlement fund of $1.8 million, from which plaintiffs' counsel will receive an award of attorneys fees and expenses. The settlements for the consolidated shareholder derivative lawsuits in United States District Court for the Central District of California (In re Rentech Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. 2:10-cv-0485-GHK-PJW) and the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles (Andrew L. Tarr v. Dennis L. Yakobson, et al., LASC Master File No. BC430553) provide that the Company adopt certain governance practices, and pay (or cause its insurance carrier to pay) plaintiffs' attorneys fees and expenses of $300,000. Over 90% of the aggregate securities class action and shareholder derivative settlement payments are covered by Rentech’s insurance carriers. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ex-workers at Fla. foreclose firm get class action
Law Center |
2011/09/28 10:35
|
Hundreds of former employees at a shuttered South Florida foreclosure law firm have been permitted by a judge to pursue a class action lawsuit involving labor law violations.
A Miami federal judge this week approved class action status for the case against attorney David J. Stern. Stern's firm was one of the biggest handling foreclosures in Florida, but it collapsed amid investigations into so-called robo-signing of documents and other alleged irregularities.
Hundreds of Stern's employees were laid off. The lawsuit contends the firm did not follow federal labor laws when it began mass firings.
The case involves at least 700 of Stern's former workers. They are seeking back pay, benefit reimbursements and other damages.
Stern's lawyers say the layoffs were done properly because of unforeseen circumstances. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court to decide lawyer immunity question
Headline News |
2011/09/27 08:44
|
The Supreme Court will decide whether private lawyers hired as outside counsels for governments can be sued.
The high court on Tuesday agreed to hear lawyer Steve Filarsky's appeal. He was hired by the city of Rialto, Calif., to investigate the possible misuse of sick leave.
Nicholas B. Delia, a firefighter suspected of working on his house while on sick leave, sued Filarsky after the investigation. Delia had said he had bought material to work on his house but never opened it. The fire chief then ordered Delia to bring the unopened material out of his house for inspection or face disciplinary action.
Delia said that order was an unconstitutional warrantless search and sued the city, the fire department and Filarsky.
A federal judge threw it all of Delia's lawsuits out, including the one against Filarsky. The judge ruled that Filarsky had the same immunity as the city's employees.
But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, saying its rulings had never extended to a nongovernment worker the same immunity government workers enjoy. A separate appeals court — the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals — has extended immunity to nongovernment employees. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wis. Supreme Court takes payday loan case
Law Center |
2011/09/26 09:34
|
The state Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether Wisconsin law permits judges to determine when payday loan interest rates are too high.
The court will consider whether state statutes block judges from determining if a particular interest rate is unconscionable and, if they don't, what evidence would prove rates are too high.
The case stems from loans Jesica Mount of Onalaska secured from Payday Loan Stores of Wisconsin Inc. in 2008. According to court documents, annual interest rates on the loans varied from 446 percent to 1,338 percent.
The loan company filed a lawsuit against Mount after she failed to make her payments. Mount filed a counterclaim alleging the loans violated the Wisconsin Consumer Act because the rates were unconscionable. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
