|
|
|
Court orders Missouri abortion case revived
Headline News |
2007/04/24 08:04
|
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last week upholding a ban on an abortion procedure must be applied to a lawsuit in Missouri, the court ordered Monday. The two-sentence order threw out a 2005 ruling from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that struck down a Missouri ban on certain late-term abortions that lower courts had concluded lacked an exception for the health of pregnant women. The procedure is called “partial-birth abortion” by opponents and “intact dilation and extraction” by physician groups. In a 5-4 decision last week, the high court said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and President Bush signed in 2003 does not violate a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion. It was the first time the court had upheld a ban on a specific abortion procedure. The 1999 Missouri law sought to ban the procedure, generally performed in the second or third trimester, but the law was put on hold by a federal judge one day after the legislature enacted it by overriding a gubernatorial veto. The law created the crime of “infanticide,” defined as intentionally causing the death of a baby “when the infant is partially born or born.” Doctors violating the ban could have been charged with a felony similar to murder. Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon had appealed the 8th Circuit’s ruling. Nixon spokesman Scott Holste said Nixon planned to file a motion Monday asking the 8th Circuit to vacate its injunction against enforcing the Missouri law. That would allow the law to take effect immediately. Doctors who violate the federal law face up to two years in prison. The law had never taken effect, pending the outcome of the legal fight. Peter Brownlie, president of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri, said Monday that he was unaware of any doctors in Missouri who were performing the procedure or who had performed it in recent years. “On a practical level, the decision has very little bearing in terms of day-to-day medical care (in Missouri),” he said. He said he was concerned, though, about the Supreme Court decision’s future effect because the federal ban it upheld did not contain an exception for the health of the mother. Pam Fichter, president of Missouri Right to Life, said she was “very gratified that the courts have ruled that there are limits to what can be construed as the health of the mother.” The high court’s ruling is expected to spur efforts at the state level to place more restrictions on abortions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court looking at passenger rights
Lawyer Blog News |
2007/04/24 07:06
|
The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments Monday in Brendlin v. California, 06-8120, in which the Court must determine whether an automobile passenger, convicted on drug charges resulting from an illegal traffic stop, may contest the legality of the stop under the Fourth Amendment. In 2001, Bruce Edward Brendlin was convicted in California of manufacturing methamphetamine based on evidence found in a car during a stop which the state later conceded was baseless. Brendlin moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures should be extended to protect passengers as well as drivers. California is one of only three states that does not allow passengers to assert such a defense. Justices Kennedy, Breyer and Scalia expressed concern regarding the implications of the state's argument that passengers are not seized during a stop. Justice Kennedy said, "I think indications from the bench are we just don't think passengers, a, are or, b, should feel free to leave when there's a traffic stop." The Court is expected to rule by the end of June. The Supreme Court of California ruled against Brendlin in 2006, holding that passengers are not automatically seized during a traffic stop, and allowed the evidence to be used in the trial. Brendlin is now backed by the American Civil Liberties Union and NAACP, which fear that a judgment for the state would give police broad power to stop vehicles to search passengers. Brendlin's conviction may stand regardless of the Court's ruling, as at the time of arrest he was wanted for an unrelated parole violation, which itself may have justified the state's search. AP has more. The Supreme Court also heard oral arguments in two other cases Monday. In United States v. Atlantic Research Corp, 06-562, the Court must decide whether owners of areas contaminated by hazardous materials that must be cleaned up under Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) can recover contribution from other responsible parties before they are subject to a government enforcement action. In Hinck v. United States, 06-376, the Court will decide whether tax courts have exclusive jurisdiction to review an IRS decision to deny a taxpayer’s request for interest abatement or whether district courts and Federal Claims Court also have such jurisdiction. |
|
|
|
|
|
Foley & Lardner Chosen For 2007 Special Olympics
Law Firm News |
2007/04/23 22:42
|
Foley & Lardner LLP announced today that the firm has been retained by the 2007 Special Olympics World Summer Games Executive Committee (GEC) to serve as international legal counsel for the Games' Opening Ceremony. The GEC is an organization sponsored by the Chinese government that manages marketing and large events for the Games. The Games will be held in Shanghai, People's Republic of China on October 2-11. Because the Games are a major event for China and Shanghai, the GEC is planning a world-class Opening Ceremony on October 2 to be broadcast throughout China and made available worldwide. “China is the first Asian country to host the Summer Games, and we are honored to be chosen to represent the 2007 Special Olympics World Summer Games Executive Committee for such an important event in China celebrating humanity, culture and human nature,” said Catherine Sun, chair of the firm's Asia Practice. “We are committed to assisting GEC with making the Games a great success.” Sun, who recently joined Foley from Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, will oversee the firm's relationship with the GEC. She will work with attorneys on the firm's Entertainment & Media Industry Team such as Ken Suddleson and James Nguyen, who will provide entertainment law, new media and intellectual property counseling, and transaction services. “We are happy to collaborate with Foley and appreciate Foley's commitment and support to the 2007 Special Olympics World Summer Games. The Games Opening Ceremony promises to be a grand gathering where people with intellectual disabilities from all over the world unite for friendship and a joyful stage where people of different ethnic groups and cultural backgrounds celebrate and communicate,” said Dr. Derong Shi, CEO of the GEC. The Foley team will draft and help negotiate all agreements for international talent who will perform or appear at the Opening Ceremony, the creative and production team for the Opening Ceremony, and international vendors and suppliers. The Foley team also will advise on international broadcast and new media deals, and any additional legal issues the GEC may encounter related to the Opening Ceremony. The engagement with the GEC follows Foley's announcement that it filed an application with the Ministry of Justice of the People's Republic of China requesting approval to open a representative office in Shanghai. The 2007 Special Olympics World Summer Games will mark the first time the World Summer Games will be held in Asia and only the second time they will be held outside the United States. In addition to 7,000 athletes, Special Olympics expects the 2007 World Summer Games to draw 40,000 volunteers, 3,500 event officials and thousands of families, volunteers, spectators and journalists from every continent. More information on the Games can be found by accessing the event's Web site at: http://www.2007specialolympics.com. Please click “English” on the top right hand corner for an English version. Foley & Lardner LLP provides the full range of corporate legal counsel. Our attorneys understand today's most complex business issues, including corporate governance, securities enforcement, litigation, mergers and acquisitions, intellectual property counseling and litigation, outsourcing and information technology, labor and employment, and tax. The firm offers total solutions in the automotive, emerging technologies, energy, entertainment and media, financial services, food, golf and resort services, insurance, health care, life sciences, nanotechnology, and sports industries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baker & McKenzie Partner Presents on Swedish Law
Law Firm News |
2007/04/23 18:33
|
Baker & McKenzie Partner Carl Svernlöv will present his doctoral dissertation on 27 April 2007 for the LL.D. degree at the University of Stockholm, which examines the Swedish law concept of discharge from liability in the Swedish limited liability company.
Under Ch. 7 § 11 of the Swedish Companies Act 2005, the shareholders shall at the annual general meeting resolve on whether to grant discharge from liability to the board members and managing director. The principal effect of a decision to grant discharge from liability is (with some exceptions, see below) to bar any action by the company against the board members and the managing director in relation to the period that the decision covers, i.e., the financial year covered by the annual accounts presented at the shareholders’ meeting where the discharge resolution is passed.
A failure to grant discharge from liability has no immediate effect on the liability of the board members and the managing director. It merely leaves the possibility open for the company (through the board or by way of a derivate lawsuit by a minority shareholder) to initiate an action for liability within a year after the annual accounts were presented. Consequently, a resolution not to grant discharge from liability does not necessarily mean that an action will be brought against the person subject to such resolution, and sometimes a refusal to grant discharge is merely used to express the shareholders’ disapproval with one or more functionaries of the company.
Furthermore, granted discharge from liability is subject to a number of exceptions. The most notable of the exceptions is the one in Ch. 29 § 11 of the Companies Act which applies where, in the annual report or the auditor’s report or otherwise, materially correct and complete information was not provided to the general meeting regarding the resolution or the action on which the liability proceedings are based. Exceptions also apply to criminal actions of the board members and the managing director and under certain circumstances to actions brought after the company has entered into bankruptcy.
The discharge resolution under the Companies Act is fairly unique in an international perspective, and is governed by a few, briefly worded provisions in the Act. Moreover, there are few precedent cases on the topic, which means that a great number of issues and questions remain unclear in the Act. This dissertation is intended to shed some light on a number of these ambiguities. |
|
|
|
|
|
Hinson Not Guilty In Dungeon Rape Case
Lawyer Blog News |
2007/04/23 15:21
|
A South Carolina jury has found a convicted sex offender not guilty of raping two teenage girls in an underground room he built behind his house. Kenneth Hinson had been charged with kidnapping, sex crimes and assault with intent to kill. Hinson appeared to cry after the verdict was read. Jurors had deliberated for about four hours over two days. Prosecutors alleged he took two girls to an underground room, bound them with duct tape, raped them and left them to die because the room had no air supply. The girls said they managed to free themselves and escape. Hinson said the sex was consensual and that he hid in the bunker because he thought police wanted him on drug charges. He testified that he built the room to package marijuana. Had he been found guilty, Hinson would have faced a mandatory life sentence without parole because he was convicted of raping a 12-year-old girl in 1991. |
|
|
|
|
|
Woman pleads guilty to murder of husband
Court Feed News |
2007/04/23 15:18
|
Following a guilty plea to first-degree murder a Nowata County woman was sentenced to life without parole. Rhonda Jane Robirds, 40, was sentenced by Nowata-Washington County District Judge Curtis Delap following her guilty plea. In accepting the plea, Delap granted the request of Assistant District Attorney Scott Julian to withdraw the bill of particulars thus removing the possibility of a death sentence. According to the statement of facts to which Robirds pleaded, on Feb. 12, 2006, Robirds instructed Joshua Hill, then 21, of Coffeyville, to shoot her husband, Steven Means, 49, at the family home east of Lenapah. Following this act, Robirds enlisted her teenage children to assist in removing Means’ body to a location in rural Labette County, where the body was weighted down with cement blocks and dumped into a creek. Robirds and her children then attempted to remove evidence of the crime with home cleaning products. Robirds waived her right to remain in the county jail for an additional 10 days and asked to be delivered to the custody of the Department of Corrections as soon as possible. She will be held by Nowata County Sheriff Jim Hallett until that time. According to District Attorney Rick Esser, Hill is scheduled to also plead to murder on May 11.
|
|
|
|
|
Recent Lawyer News Updates |
|
|