|
|
|
Warrant needed for GPS tracking, high court says
Legal Career News |
2012/01/24 14:14
|
In a rare defeat for law enforcement, the Supreme Court unanimously agreed on Monday to bar police from installing GPS technology to track suspects without first getting a judge's approval. The justices made clear it wouldn't be their final word on increasingly advanced high-tech surveillance of Americans.
Indicating they will be monitoring the growing use of such technology, five justices said they could see constitutional and privacy problems with police using many kinds of electronic surveillance for long-term tracking of citizens' movements without warrants.
While the justices differed on legal rationales, their unanimous outcome was an unusual setback for government and police agencies grown accustomed to being given leeway in investigations in post-Sept. 11 America, including by the Supreme Court. The views of at least the five justices raised the possibility of new hurdles down the road for police who want to use high-tech surveillance of suspects, including various types of GPS technology. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court overturns Calif. slaughterhouse law
Lawyer Blog News |
2012/01/23 18:03
|
The Supreme Court on Monday blocked a California law that would require euthanizing downed livestock at federally inspected slaughterhouses to keep the meat out of the nation's food system.
The high court ruled that the state's 2009 state law was blocked from going into effect by federal law administered by the Agriculture Department's Food Safety and Inspection Service. .
Federal law "precludes California's effort ... to impose new rules, beyond any the FSIS has chosen to adopt, on what a slaughterhouse must do with a pig that becomes non-ambulatory during the production process," said Justice Elena Kagan, who wrote the court's unanimous opinion.
California strengthened regulations against slaughtering so-called "downer" animals after the 2008 release of an undercover Humane Society video showing workers abusing cows at a Southern California slaughterhouse. Under California law, the ban on buying, selling and slaughter of "downer" cattle also extends to pigs, sheep and goats.
But pork producers sued to stop the law, saying the new law interfered with federal laws that require inspections of downed livestock before determining whether they can be used for meat. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heitman Law Firm, PL. - Florida Construction Law Attorney
Law Firm News |
2012/01/21 18:04
|
Palm Beach Construction Law AttorneyHigh Quality Legal Representation
By quality, we mean degree of excellence. Heitman Law Firm practices construction law. Mr. Heitman is an expert in construction law, board certified by the Florida Bar. He is a member of an elite group of board certified construction attorneys. In addition, Mr. Heitman is a Florida Licensed Professional Engineer, with years of experience building real world construction projects. As such, the Firm is extremely well qualified to render its clients high quality legal representation.
Client Service
Heitman Law Firm serves its clients by first comprehending the specific issues our clients face and then tailoring our representation to those specific needs. Construction law cases often involve legal, technical, engineering, design, constructability and scheduling issues. We speak the language of construction. We understand your business. We know how to read a set of plans. Our client service is based on the idea that the client should not be required to pay to bring us up to speed on the construction issues. Instead, we make it our business to be ahead of the learning curve. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hausfeld LLP Files Class Action Suit
Class Action News |
2012/01/20 18:06
|
Hausfeld LLP has filed a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of those who sold HearUSA common stock between January 18, 2011 and July 31, 2011, inclusive. The lawsuit, filed January 18, 2012, seeks to pursue remedies against Siemens Hearing Instruments, Inc. (“Siemens”) for violations of Sections 10(b), 9(a)(2) and 18(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 [15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b), 78i(a)(2), and 78r(a)] and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5]. Siemens is engaged, in part, in the manufacture of hearing products, and HearUSA was involved in the distribution of Siemens’ hearing products. The complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and is captioned MTB Investment Partners, LP vs. Siemens Hearing Instruments, Inc.
The complaint alleges that Siemens engaged in a fraudulent scheme to drive down the price of HearUSA common stock in an attempt to acquire HearUSA’s assets for less than their fair market value by, in part, filing false and misleading statements with the SEC. The result of Siemens’ false and misleading statements, according to the complaint, was to drive down the market price of HearUSA common stock from 90¢/share on January 18, 2011 to 35¢/share on July 28, 2011.
According to the complaint, Siemens made a number of false and/or misleading statements in its public filings which caused HearUSA stock to plummet. These public filings stated that Siemens at no point had the intention to acquire HearUSA, despite the fact that it had been in the advanced stages of a negotiated buyout process for HearUSA. The public filings further stated that Siemens, if it wanted to acquire HearUSA, could do so at no consideration to shareholders because of debts owed to Siemens by HearUSA. The complaint alleges that this assertion misrepresented the status and extent of the debt owed to Siemens by HearUSA and Siemens’ ability to acquire HearUSA pursuant to the credit agreement entered into between the two companies. The complaint alleges that, in making these statements, Siemens effectively told the market that HearUSA stock was worthless, and that the market responded accordingly.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff’s counsel, William Butterfield of Hausfeld LLP at (202)540-7200 or via email at wbutterfield@hausfeldllp.com. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Judge rules against NYC court protest organizers
Court Feed News |
2012/01/20 15:05
|
A judge has ruled demonstrators don't have a First Amendment right to protest Friday afternoon in front of a New York City federal courthouse that has hosted several major terrorism trials.
Judge Lewis Kaplan said Thursday he wouldn't order the federal government to let an Occupy the Courts demonstration occur outside the lower Manhattan courthouse. He says the space isn't a public forum and the government acted reasonably in denying a permit.
A government lawyer says the courthouse poses unique security concerns in part because of terrorism fears.
Protest organizers had asked the judge to overturn the General Services Administration's rejection of their permit application. Their lawsuit said their First Amendment rights were violated.
The nationwide protest marks the second anniversary of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling against limits on spending by independent organizations. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recent Lawyer News Updates |
|
|
Lawyer News RSS
