|
|
|
Court: Can lawsuit against casino go forward?
Legal Career News |
2011/12/12 10:56
|
The Supreme Court will decide whether a lawsuit attempting to shut down a new tribal casino in southwestern Michigan can move forward.
The justices on Monday agreed to hear from the government and the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians, also known as the Gun Lake Tribe.
The tribe opened a casino earlier this year in Wayland Township, 20 miles south of Grand Rapids. But casino foe David Patchak sued to close the casino down, challenging how the government placed the land in trust for the tribe. A federal judge threw out his lawsuit, but the U.S. Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit said it could move forward. The justices will hear arguments next year. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court halts new Texas electoral maps
U.S. Legal News |
2011/12/11 18:11
|
Texas' March primary will likely be delayed after the Supreme Court on Friday blocked the use of state legislative and congressional district maps that were drawn by federal judges.
The court issued a brief order late Friday that applies to electoral maps drawn by federal judges in San Antonio for the Texas Legislature and Congress that would have ensured minorities made up the majority in three additional Texas congressional districts. The justices said they will hear arguments on Jan. 9.
The judges issued the new maps for the 2012 election in Texas after a lawsuit was filed in San Antonio over redistricting maps drawn by the GOP-led Legislature. The maps were to remain in place until the lawsuit was resolved.
The Supreme Court's order brings to a halt filing for legislative and congressional primary elections that began Nov. 28. The primaries had been scheduled to take place in March, but the Supreme Court's decision means those elections almost certainly will be delayed, possibly until May. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appeals court affirms Petters conviction, sentence
Lawyer Blog News |
2011/12/09 21:11
|
A federal appeals court Friday upheld the 2009 conviction and 50-year prison sentence of Minnesota businessman Tom Petters, who was found guilty of orchestrating a $3.7 billion Ponzi scheme.
The Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Petters got a fair trial.
A three-judge panel rejected defense claims that the U.S. District Judge Richard Kyle prevented his attorneys from presenting a complete defense by restricting their ability to question a key prosecution witness, Larry Reynolds, a convicted felon and disbarred lawyer who was in the witness protection program, about his links to organized crime.
The panel also said the judge acted properly when he rejected proposed jury instructions that would have highlighted Petters' claims that he was an unwitting participant in a fraud conceived by others, and that he acted in good faith on advice from his attorney.
It ruled that the judge did not err by denying a change in venue due to the extensive media coverage the case generated. The panel also rejected defense claims of procedural errors in Petters' sentencing.
A jury found Petters guilty of 20 counts of wire fraud, mail fraud, money laundering and conspiracy.
According to testimony and documents presented at trial, Petters Co. Inc. used fake purchase orders and phony bank records to dupe investors into financing what they were told would be purchases of electronics such as big-screen televisions that PCI would resell to discount retailers such as Sam's Club and Costco. In reality, the prosecution contended, the merchandise never existed and the sales never took place. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ark. court affirms $50M verdict for rice farmers
Legal Career News |
2011/12/09 18:10
|
The Arkansas Supreme Court on Thursday affirmed a nearly $50 million verdict for farmers who say they lost money because a company's genetically altered rice seeds contaminated the food supply and drove down crop prices.
Bayer, the German conglomerate whose Bayer CropScience subsidiary produced the seeds, had argued that Arkansas tort laws set a limit on punitive damages and that courts should set aside jury awards that "shock the conscience." In the April 2010 verdict, a Lonoke County jury awarded $42 million in punitive damages and $5.9 million in actual damages.
The company said a lower court erred last year in ruling that a cap on punitive damages is unconstitutional.
But in its 24-page opinion released Thursday, the state Supreme Court agreed with the lower court that the cap on punitive damages was unconstitutional. Associate Justice Courtney Hudson Goodson wrote that the cap "limits the amount of recovery outside the employment relationship," while the Arkansas constitution only allows limits on compensation paid by employers to employees. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
CA same-sex marriage ban gets another day in court
U.S. Legal News |
2011/12/09 11:10
|
The sponsors of California's gay marriage ban renewed their effort Thursday to disqualify a federal judge because of his same-sex relationship, but they met a skeptical audience in an appeals court panel.
It's the first time an American jurist's sexual orientation has been cited as grounds for overturning a court decision.
Lawyers for a coalition of religious conservative groups told a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker should have revealed he had a long-term male partner before he presided over a trial on the measure's constitutionality. He also should have stated whether he had any interest in getting married, the lawyers said.
Because he did not, Walker's impartiality stands in doubt and the decision he ultimately made to strike down Proposition 8 as a violation of Californians' civil rights must be reversed, said Charles Cooper, an attorney for the ban's backers.
"In May 2009, when Judge Walker read the allegations of the complaint, he knew something the litigants and the public did not know: He knew that he, too, like the plaintiffs, was a gay resident of California who was involved in a long-term, serious relationship with an individual of the same sex," Cooper said. "The litigants did not have any knowledge of these facts, and it appears that Judge Walker made the deliberate decision not to disclose these facts." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court upholds landmark California water pact
Legal Career News |
2011/12/08 16:57
|
A state appeals court on Wednesday upheld a landmark agreement on how Southern California gets its water, overruling a judge who called the method unconstitutional.
The decision by California's 3rd Appellate District Court is a major victory for backers of the accord that created the nation's largest farm-to-city water transfer and set new rules for how the state divides its share of the Colorado River.
The case is being closely watched in six other western states and Mexico, which share water from the 1,450-mile river that runs from the Rocky Mountains to the Sea of Cortez.
A three-judge panel in Sacramento disagreed with a lower court judge who found the state violated its Constitution by essentially writing a blank check to save the Salton Sea in rural Imperial Valley. California's largest lake is rapidly shrinking, and the transfer of water from Imperial Valley to San Diego threatens to accelerate its decline. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recent Lawyer News Updates |
|
|
Lawyer News RSS
