|
|
|
Court Imposes Strict Deadline in Lawsuit
Court Feed News |
2008/01/08 10:54
|
The Supreme Court on Tuesday imposed a six-year deadline for suing the federal government in property disputes. The justices ruled 7-2 that a company waited too long to complain in court that the government took the firm's property. The decision came in a suit by the John R. Sand & Gravel Co. of Lapeer County, Mich., which sought compensation for the loss of some of the land it had leased from the property owners. Justice Stephen Breyer said a federal appeals court was correct in raising the deadline question without being asked to do so, and to rule that the company had missed the deadline. In some instances such as lawsuits against the government, the Supreme Court "has often read the time limits ... as more absolute," Breyer wrote. Justice John Paul Stevens dissented, saying the majority's decision "has a hollow ring" because the court previously had overturned a precedent that it relied on for Tuesday's decision. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined Stevens in dissent. In the 1990s, the Environmental Protection Agency began blocking access to portions of the property because the agency was overseeing the cleanup of a landfill under the federal Superfund law. The owners of the 158-acre site in Metamora Township, Mich., had used part of the property for a landfill for tens of thousands of drums of toxic industrial waste. The dispute is among several recent cases regarding whether filing deadlines under various laws prohibit courts from hearing a case or merely lay down rules on how and when to file a claim. At issue in the current case is the power of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims under the Tucker Act. The act allows lawsuits against the government for claims involving federal contracts and the taking of private property without fair compensation. In the suit involving John R. Sand & Gravel Co., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said it had no jurisdiction to hear the lawsuit because of the six-year deadline. |
|
|
|
|
|
Minnesota Supreme Court denies Blom's third appeal
Court Feed News |
2008/01/03 16:12
|
For the third time, an appeal by convicted killer Donald Blom has been turned back by the Minnesota Supreme Court. Blom was convicted in the 1999 kidnapping and killing of 19-year-old Moose Lake convenience store clerk Katie Poirier, a case that sparked new sex offender laws in Minnesota. On Thursday, the Supreme Court rejected Blom's attempt to gain a new trial, saying his arguments didn't meet a procedural threshold. In his appeal, Blom appears to make five different claims: that the district court did not apply the appropriate standard when reviewing his petition for postconviction relief; that his confession was coerced and, therefore, its admission into evidence violated his constitutional rights; that the district court improperly asserted subject matter jurisdiction over federal charges by leading him to believe that his confession would result in resolution of federal firearm charges and by issuing orders interfering with Blom's access to his federal public defender; that he has been improperly denied the opportunity to develop evidence demonstrating his actual innocence; and that he is being improperly held out of state to prevent him from perfecting his appeal. Carlton County Attorney Thom Pertler prosecuted Blom. "He was tried and convicted by the jury," Pertler said last Thursday night. "I think the Supreme Court recognizes that you give deference to the jury and what they decide on the merits of the case. The issues that he was raising — although difficult to ascertain what they were — were looked at by the Supreme Court and it was determined that the claims he was asserting had been previously asserted so he wasn't entitled to any relief." Blom is serving a life sentence. Now 58, and formerly of Richfield, Minn., Blom was convicted of abducting Poirier from the Moose Lake convenience store where she worked May 26, 1999, strangling her on his nearby vacation property and then burning the body. After his arrest, Blom confessed to strangling the woman. He later recanted the confession, but it was used in his trial. He was convicted of first-degree murder on Aug. 16, 2000, at the conclusion of a 10-week trial in Virginia. The conviction was automatically appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court and affirmed. He filed another appeal last January, which led to Thursday's decision. Blom is serving a life prison sentence without parole for Poirier's murder and a 19-year, seven-month sentence on a federal gun charge. He is being held in a Pennsylvania prison, where his anonymity among inmates can help protect his safety.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Former Ski.com employee expected to plead guilty
Court Feed News |
2007/12/31 18:54
|
A former Ski.com salesman plans to plead guilty to reduced counts in a case in which he was accused of tampering with company computers, according to court documents. James M. DiBlasio, 38, of Carmel, Ind., worked for Aspen-based Ski.com from September 2004 to November 2006, court documents said. The company is a travel agency that specializes in ski vacations. An indictment accused him of accessing a Ski.com server in Denver to delete airline reservations and other information. Ski.com's losses were estimated at $5,000. He originally was charged with two counts of unlawful access to protected computers and seven counts of intentional damage to protected computers. A statement filed in U.S. District Court in Denver said DiBlasio planned to plead guilty to one count of each charge. A change of plea hearing was scheduled for Thursday.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Man Convicted in Parents' Death Set Free
Court Feed News |
2007/12/28 19:43
|
Martin Tankleff walked out of court a free man for the first time in the 17 years since he was convicted of murdering his parents. But his next step was less clear. Prosecutors have not said whether they will retry Tankleff, who was released on $1 million bail Thursday, days after an appeals court overturned his 1990 conviction and ordered a new trial because of new evidence. Relatives paid the bail. "My arrest and conviction was a nightmare, and this is a dream come true," the 36-year-old Tankleff told reporters after a hearing in Riverhead, 75 miles east of Manhattan. Tankleff's attorney, Bruce Barket, said he was awaiting Suffolk County District Attorney Thomas Spota's decision on whether to retry the case. In throwing out Tankleff's 1990 conviction last week, an appeals court said new evidence suggested someone else might have killed Seymour and Arlene Tankleff in their Long Island home. Tankleff had been sentenced to 50 years to life in prison after being convicted in one of the nation's first televised trials. The case raised questions about police interrogation tactics and drew the support of the Innocence Project, an organization dedicated to exonerating wrongfully convicted people. Innocence Project executive director Barry Scheck said the district attorney should ask for an independent special prosecutor or state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to evaluate whether the case should be reprosecuted. |
|
|
|
|
|
Court ruling spurs Genesco shares higher
Court Feed News |
2007/12/28 18:38
|
Shoe and hat retailer Genesco Inc on Friday said a Tennessee court has ordered The Finish Line Inc to complete its acquisition of the company for $54.50 a share, or $1.5 billion, sending Genesco shares up as much as 16 percent. Finish Line, whose stock fell as much as 25 percent, has been trying to walk away from its June agreement to buy Genesco. Genesco, based in Nashville, Tennessee, said the court ruled that Finish Line had breached their merger agreement. "We look forward to working with The Finish Line to consummate the merger expeditiously," Genesco Chief Executive Hal Pennington said in a statement. Swiss bank UBS sued both companies last month in federal court in New York in a bid to be relieved of its obligation to fund the deal. Genesco, meanwhile, separately sued Finish Line and UBS in Tennessee in an attempt to force completion of the agreement. "The only hurdle at this point is insolvency, and whether or not UBS can prove the combined entities would in fact be insolvent and not able to make interest payments and therefore possibly file for bankruptcy," Susquehanna Financial analyst Christopher Svezia told Reuters. "That's part of the reason why you're seeing Genesco move, but you're not seeing it trade up to $50. There's a lot that needs to get settled here," said Svezia, whose firm has "neutral" ratings on both stocks. The Tennessee court reserved judgment on whether the combined company would be solvent, saying it would await a ruling in the suit filed by UBS, Genesco said. |
|
|
|
|
|
America's Cup syndicates continue court fight
Court Feed News |
2007/12/27 19:42
|
The legal skirmish over the America's Cup showed no sign of ending, with the champion Swiss syndicate asking a judge to reconsider his decision to declare the Golden Gate Yacht Club the main challenger for the next race. Alinghi's lawyers contended that the San Francisco club's July challenge on behalf of BMW Oracle Racing was invalid because it failed to properly describe the yachts in which the race would be sailed. The challenge letter described a boat that would measure 27 metres long by 27 metres wide - a dimension that could apply only to a multihulled vessel like the catamaran that American Dennis Connor used to defend the cup in 1988. The challenge, however, also called the boat a "keel yacht," a term traditionally used to describe a boat with one hull. Alinghi argued in court papers, filed in state court in New York on Thursday, that BMW Oracle's bid should be tossed because it proposes a boat that doesn't exist, or would be so misshapen because of its bargelike dimensions that it would be unfit for racing. The Golden Gate Yacht Club said Alinghi's new claim lacks merit. "If these arguments were valid they would have been presented months ago," BMW Oracle spokesman Tom Ehman said. In November, a New York judge disqualified Alinghi's favored Spanish challenger, Desafio Espanol, of Club Nautico Espanol de Vela, on the grounds that the new club hadn't previously held a major regatta, as required by the cup's deed of gift. The two sides are due back in court in January. |
|
|
|
|
Recent Lawyer News Updates |
|
|