|
|
|
Court: Not disclosing HIV before sex is a misdemeanor
Court Feed News |
2015/02/25 19:32
|
An HIV-positive man who told a partner that they could safely have unprotected sex should face a misdemeanor reckless endangerment charge, not a felony, New York's highest court ruled Thursday.
The Court of Appeals said Terrance Williams didn't expose his partner "out of any malevolent desire" to give him the virus that causes AIDS, though he lied about having the infection and his partner did get sick. The court said the Syracuse man didn't show "depraved indifference," which is necessary to support the felony charge.
The judges declined to decide whether HIV infection no longer "creates a grave and unjustifiable risk of death" because of advances in medical treatment. Two lower courts had reached that conclusion while knocking down the felony indictment to the lesser charge.
The felony could have sent Williams to prison for seven years. He still faces the misdemeanor and a possible year in jail if convicted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court says Chuck Yeager can sue Utah gun safe company
Law & Politics |
2015/02/16 21:06
|
A federal appeals court says record-setting test pilot Chuck Yeager can sue a Utah gun safe company that named a line of safes after him.
The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver ruled Tuesday that the 91-year-old can sue Fort Knox Security Products over an oral agreement from the 1980s that allowed the use of his name and picture in exchange for free safes.
The decision says the arrangement ended around 2008, after Yeager's wife started asking questions about it.
The court dismissed some claims but ruled that Yeager can sue over claims that the company kept using his likeness after the agreement ended. The company disputes that accusation.
Yeager served during World War II and became the first person to break the sound barrier in 1947. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
NC Supreme Court considers status of private school vouchers
Law Firm Press |
2015/02/16 21:06
|
The state Supreme Court is about to decide whether millions of dollars in taxpayer money that started flowing this year to pay student tuition at private and religious schools continues for a second year.
The state's highest court hears arguments Tuesday on a ruling last summer that the Opportunity Scholarships program violates the state constitution because religious schools can discriminate based on faith. Wake County Superior Court Judge Robert Hobgood also said privately run K-12 schools are not required to meet state curriculum standards.
Supreme Court justices showed they're in a hurry to decide whether private school vouchers will continue by latching on to the case early. Parents are already looking ahead and the deadline for them to submit scholarship applications for the next academic year is March 1.
So far, more than $4.2 million has paid for 1,200 students to attend 216 private schools around the state, according to the State Education Assistance Authority. That's a fraction of the 5,500 students whose families sought one of the scholarships, said Darrell Allison, who heads a group that advocates for expanding the program. Three out of four applicants for the vouchers, which pay private schools up to $4,200 per child per year to schools that admit them, were minority students.
"There are literally thousands of families who are looking forward to their day in court — desperately hopeful for a favorable ruling," Allison, president of Parents for Educational Freedom in North Carolina, said in a statement.
The program opened this year to families whose income qualified their children for free or discounted school lunches, a ceiling of about $44,000 for a family of four. Eligibility increases for the year starting in August as the ceiling rises to nearly $59,000 per family.
Opponents of the voucher law complain that it violates the constitution because money from collected taxes goes to religious schools that have the option of ruling out students who don't follow their faith's beliefs, turning away the disabled or refusing the children of gay parents. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Two justices once open to cameras in court now reconsider
Headline News |
2015/02/04 18:50
|
Two Supreme Court justices who once seemed open to the idea of cameras in the courtroom said Monday they have reconsidered those views, dashing even faint hopes that April's historic arguments over gay marriage might be televised.
In separate appearances, Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor said allowing cameras might lead to grandstanding that could fundamentally change the nature of the high court.
Sotomayor told an audience in West Palm Beach, Florida, that cameras could change the behavior of both the justices and lawyers appearing at the court, who might succumb to "this temptation to use it as a stage rather than a courtroom."
"I am moving more closely to saying I think it might be a bad idea," she said.
During her confirmation hearings in 2009, Sotomayor told lawmakers she had a positive experience with cameras and would try to soften other justices' opposition to cameras.
Speaking at the University of Chicago's Institute of Politics, Kagan told an audience that she is "conflicted" over the issue and noted strong arguments on both sides.
Kagan said that when she used to argue cases before the court as Solicitor General, she wanted the public to see how well prepared the justices were for each case "and really look as though they are trying to get it right."
But Kagan said she is wary now of anything "that may upset the dynamic of the institution."
She pointed to Congress, which televises floor proceedings, saying lawmakers talk more in made-for-TV sound bites than to each other. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anxiety over Supreme Court's latest dive into health care
Court Feed News |
2015/02/04 18:49
|
Nearly five years after President Barack Obama signed his health care overhaul into law, its fate is yet again in the hands of the Supreme Court.
This time it's not just the White House and Democrats who have reason to be anxious. Republican lawmakers and governors won't escape the political fallout if the court invalidates insurance subsidies worth billions of dollars to people in more than 30 states.
Obama's law offers subsidized private insurance to people who don't have access to it on the job. Without financial assistance with their premiums, millions of those consumers would drop coverage.
And disruptions in the affected states don't end there. If droves of healthy people bail out of HealthCare.gov, residents buying individual policies outside the government market would face a jump in premiums. That's because self-pay customers are in the same insurance pool as the subsidized ones.
Health insurers spent millions to defeat the law as it was being debated. But the industry told the court last month that the subsidies are a key to making the insurance overhaul work. Withdrawing them would "make the situation worse than it was before" Congress passed the Affordable Care Act.
The debate over "Obamacare" was messy enough when just politics and ideology were involved. It gets really dicey with the well-being of millions of people in the balance. "It is not simply a function of law or ideology; there are practical impacts on high numbers of people," said Republican Mike Leavitt, a former federal health secretary.
The legal issues involve the leeway accorded to federal agencies in applying complex legislation. Opponents argue that the precise wording of the law only allows subsidies in states that have set up their own insurance markets, or exchanges. That would leave out most beneficiaries, who live in states where the federal government runs the exchanges. The administration and Democratic lawmakers who wrote the law say Congress' clear intent was to provide subsidies to people in every state.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Panama high court OKs corruption probe of ex-president
Legal Career News |
2015/01/30 21:06
|
Panama's Supreme Court voted Wednesday to open a corruption probe against former President Ricardo Martinelli, a move likely to rally popular support in a nation where the politically powerful rarely face justice for misdeeds.
A statement from the court said all nine judges voted to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Martinelli over allegations he inflated contracts worth $45 million to purchase dehydrated food for a government social program.
The accusation is based on the testimony of a political ally, Giacomo Tamburelli, the former head of the National Assistance Program who has said he was taking orders from the then president to inflate contracts. He is now under house arrest.
Martinelli, a billionaire supermarket magnate, has denied the charges and says he is the target of political persecution by his successor, Juan Carlos Varela, who broke with the government in 2011 while serving as Martinelli's vice president and foreign minister. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recent Lawyer News Updates |
|
|
Lawyer News RSS
