|
|
|
Court rules against long-distance companies
Headline News |
2008/06/23 15:45
|
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a collection agency with no financial stake in a case can sue on behalf of its customers. The 5-4 decision addresses a basic legal point, that courts can only hear cases when plaintiffs suffer actual injuries that are traceable to a defendant's conduct. In the case before the court, APCC Services Inc. is trying to collect from Sprint Communications Co. and AT&T Inc. for coinless long-distance calls over the networks of Sprint and AT&T. APCC provides billing and collection services on behalf of pay-phone service providers. Writing for the majority, Justice Stephen Breyer said APCC may pursue the claim, even though it has promised to turn over any money from the lawsuit to pay-phone service providers. A federal appeals court said the case could go forward because the pay-phone providers transferred the compensation claims to the collection agency and agreed to finance APCC's lawsuit. Breyer agreed, saying that for centuries, courts have found ways to allow those to whom compensation claims are assigned to bring suit. In dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts said APCC has "nothing to gain from their lawsuit" and that under settled legal principles, that fact required dismissal of their complaint. Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito joined the dissent. Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that pay-phone companies that complained they hadn't been adequately compensated could sue long-distance carriers. |
|
|
|
|
|
High court rejects case on fast track for border fence
Court Feed News |
2008/06/23 15:44
|
The Supreme Court on Monday turned down a plea by environmental groups to rein in the Bush administration's power to waive laws and regulations to speed construction of a fence along the U.S.-Mexican border. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has used authority given to him by Congress in 2005 to ignore environmental and other laws and regulations to move forward with hundreds of miles of fencing in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas. The case rejected by the court involved a two-mile section of fence in the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area near Naco, Ariz. The section has since been built. "I am extremely disappointed in the court's decision," Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said. "This waiver will only prolong the department from addressing the real issue: their lack of a comprehensive border security plan." Thompson chairs the House Homeland Security Committee. He and 13 other House democrats — including six other committee chairs — filed a brief in support of the environmentalists' appeal. Earlier this year, Chertoff waived more than 30 laws and regulations in an effort to finish building 670 miles of fence along the southwest border. Administration officials have said that invoking the legal waivers — which Congress authorized in 1996 and 2005 laws — will cut through bureaucratic red tape and sidestep environmental laws that currently stand in the way of fence construction. |
|
|
|
|
|
Court will hear appeal by Tenn. death row inmate
Lawyer Blog News |
2008/06/23 15:44
|
The Supreme Court is stepping into the case of a convicted murderer who claims authorities concealed evidence that might have spared him a death sentence. The justices have twice before reinstated the death sentence for Gary Bradford Cone, who was convicted of beating an elderly couple to death in Memphis during a robbery. Cone acknowledged that he killed the couple, but said he was temporarily insane because of drugs and the stress of his wartime Vietnam experiences. He argued that state and federal courts never considered his claims that the state withheld evidence of his drug use. A panel of the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that Cone's plea had no merit. The dissenting judge said Cone's claims were never fairly considered by either state or federal courts. The appeals court had twice before issued rulings favorable to Cone, but was overruled each time by the Supreme Court. |
|
|
|
|
|
SF court protects privacy of work communications
Lawyer Blog News |
2008/06/20 17:21
|
A federal appeals court has made it more difficult for employers to legally snoop on their workers' e-mails and text messages sent on company accounts. Under a Wednesday ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, employers that contract an outside business to transmit text messages can't read them unless the worker agrees. Users of text messaging services "have a reasonable expectation of privacy" in their messages stored on the service provider's network, Judge Kim Wardlaw wrote in the three-judge panel's unanimous opinion. The ruling also lets employers access employee e-mails only if they are kept on an internal server. The text message part of the ruling will affect more employers. According to analysts, the majority of U.S. companies pay outside parties to transmit their workers' text messages but most keep their workers' e-mail on internal servers. |
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court voids California union law
Court Feed News |
2008/06/20 17:21
|
In a defeat for the union movement, the Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a first-in-the-nation law adopted in California that would have barred companies from speaking out against unions if they received state funds.
The justices in a 7-2 decision said the state measure conflicts with the free-speech zone created by federal labor law.
The ruling is likely to benefit especially companies in the healthcare industries, such as nursing homes, that receive some state funds and have low-level employees who are not unionized. It is a sharp setback for unions seeking to organize janitors, nurses, clerical workers and other employees in those areas.
Labor organizers may encourage workers to join unions, the high court said, but the employers also are free to try to persuade them against unionizing. Employers do not lose this right simply because they take the government's money, the justices said.
The California law was triggered by a campaign to organize janitors in the Los Angeles area. Mike Garcia, a union leader, complained to lawmakers that some companies were using state money "to pay for aggressive anti-union tactics."
State lawmakers, led by Sen. Gil Cedillo (D-Los Angeles), won approval of a bill to stop this practice. The measure, known as AB 1889, said state contractors and other private employers may not use state money "to assist, promote or deter union organizing."
The sponsors described this as the "nation's first state neutrality law" on labor organizing. |
|
|
|
|
|
Italy's high court says US soldier can't be tried
Legal World News |
2008/06/20 15:21
|
Italy's top criminal court ruled Thursday that a U.S. soldier cannot be tried for the 2005 slaying of an Italian intelligence agent in Iraq. Spc. Mario Lozano was accused in connection with the fatal shooting of Italian military intelligence agent Nicola Calipari, who had been driving to Baghdad airport after securing the release of kidnapped Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena. The journalist was wounded in the shooting at a checkpoint near Baghdad. Lozano was being tried in absentia on charges of murder and attempted murder. But the Court of Cassation in Rome on Thursday confirmed a lower court ruling last year that said Italy has no jurisdiction in the case, according to lawyers for the victim and for an Italian who was wounded in the shooting. Sgrena lawyer Alessandro Gamberini did not rule out the possibility of taking the case to an international body, such as the International Court of Justice. But he said there probably "isn't much that can be done." Calipari family lawyer Franco Coppi said the latest court ruling "leaves a bitter taste in the mouth" as it denied "the possibility of better understanding the dynamics of what happened, the how and the why of this death," according to the Italian news agency ANSA. |
|
|
|
|
Recent Lawyer News Updates |
|
|