|
|
|
Group seeks appellate action on gays in military
Lawyer Media News |
2011/09/01 09:48
|
The military's ban on openly gay troops will be lifted within weeks, but the policy can still be re-enacted in the future.
That's why a Republican gay rights organization that sued the Obama administration to stop enforcement of the policy says it will ask the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday to declare the nearly 18-year-old law unconstitutional, affirming a lower court's ruling last year.
With several Republican presidential candidates, including Rep. Michele Bachmann, indicating they would favor reinstating the ban if elected, such a ruling is needed, said Dan Woods, the attorney for the Log Cabin Republicans. Declaring the law unconstitutional would also provide a legal path for thousands discharged under the policy to seek reinstatement, back pay or other compensation for having their careers cut short, Woods said.
The repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell' doesn't say anything about the future, Woods said. It doesn't (explicitly) say homosexuals can serve. A new Congress or new president could come back and reinstitute it. We need our case to survive so there is a constraint on the government to prevent it from doing this again.
During her campaign stop in Iowa in August, Bachmann told interviewer Candy Crowley on CNN's State of The Union when asked whether she would reinstitute the law: It worked very well and I would be in consultation with our commanders, but I think, yes, I probably would.
Justice Department attorneys have filed a motion asking the appeals court to dismiss the case, arguing that the repeal process that will lift the ban Sept. 20 makes the lawsuit irrelevant.
The Log Cabin Republicans successfully won an injunction by U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips last year that halted enforcement of don't ask, don't tell briefly, before the 9th Circuit reinstated it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Court Cannot Exclude Evidence Because It Is Self-Serving
Lawyer Media News |
2011/08/31 08:47
|
In Reed v. City of Evansville, _ N.E.2d _ (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), Cause No. 82A05-1012-PL-768, Evansville sought to have some of the evidence the Reeds submitted in opposition to the City's motion for summary judgment because it was self-serving. Today, the Court of Appeals clearly stated that parties should not make this same objection in the future.
The Reeds filed a claim against Evansville and Evansville moved for summary judgment, arguing that the notice was not timely under the Tort Claims Act. The trial court granted that motion and the Reeds appealed.
On appeal, the Court held that the trial court erred when granting summary judgment to the City, because there were genuine issues of material fact. The court then addressed the City's cross-appeal, which challenged the trial court's denial of the City's motion to strike some of the Reeds' evidence. The City moved to strike some of that evidence because it was self-serving. The Court had none of it.
http://www.indianalawupdate.com/entry/A-Court-Cannot-Exclude-Evidence-Because-It-Is-Self-Serving |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 law firms in Louisiana and Mississippi to merge
Lawyer Media News |
2011/08/31 08:47
|
A New Orleans-based law firm is expanding into Mississippi as it merges with a firm based in Jackson.
The New Orleans firm is Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent, Carrere amp; Denegre L.L.P.
It is combining with Watkins Ludlam Winter amp; Stennis, P.A., a firm that includes former Mississippi Gov. William Winter.
The firms say in a news release Tuesday that the merger should be complete by Jan. 1, and the combined firm will have 375 attorneys.
It will go by the current name of the New Orleans firm, Jones Walker.
After the merger is complete, Jones Walker will have 15 offices in Louisiana, Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Mississippi, Texas and the District of Columbia. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shareholder Class Action Filed Against WebMD Health Corp.
Headline Legal News |
2011/08/30 09:36
|
The following statement was issued today by the law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer amp; Check, LLP:
Notice is hereby given that a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the securities of WebMD Health Corp., who purchased or otherwise acquired WebMD securities between February 23, 2011 and July 15, 2011, inclusive (the Class Period).nbsp; If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the Complaint or join this class action online at http://www.ktmc.com/cases/webmd/.
Members of the class may, not later than October 3, 2011, move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class.nbsp; A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.nbsp; In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class.nbsp; Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.nbsp; Any member of the purported class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. nbsp;
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer amp; Check, LLP (Darren J. Check, Esq. or David M. Promisloff, Esq.) toll free at 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706, or via e-mail at info@ktmc.com.nbsp; For additional information about this lawsuit, or to join the class action online, please visit http://www.ktmc.com/cases/webmd/. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court to hear appeal over medicating Loughner
Court Line News |
2011/08/30 09:34
|
An appeals court will hear arguments Tuesday over a request to permanently ban prison officials from forcibly medicating the Tucson shooting rampage suspect with psychotropic drugs.
At issue in Jared Loughner's appeal before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal is whether prison officials or a judge should decide whether a mentally ill person who poses a danger in prison should be forcibly medicated.
Prosecutors say the decision is for prison officials to make, while Loughner's lawyers say it's up to a judge.
Loughner pleaded not guilty to 49 charges in the Jan. 8 shooting that killed six people and wounded 13 others, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.
He has been at a Missouri prison facility since late May in a bid to make him mentally fit to stand trial. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wyoming Supreme Court rules for bar owners
Headline Legal News |
2011/08/30 09:34
|
The Wyoming Supreme Court has ruled that state law protects bar owners from lawsuits arising from the actions of their intoxicated patrons.
In a split decision Friday, the court upheld a lower court ruling against relatives of a Ten Sleep couple who died in a head-on crash in 2008. The couple's relatives had sued the owners of two Big Horn County saloons claiming they continued to serve the driver who plowed into the couple after he was drunk.
The court majority ruled state law from the 1980s holds bar owners can't be held liable for their patrons' actions.
Chief Justice Marilyn S. Kite and Justice William Hill filed a dissenting opinion saying they would allow lawsuits against bar owners if they violated local ordinances against serving alcohol to intoxicated persons. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
