|
|
|
Supreme Court rejects blood transfusion case
Court Feed News |
2014/12/02 22:21
|
The Supreme Court won't hear an appeal from the estate of a Michigan woman who died following a kidney transplant after turning down a blood transfusion because of her religious beliefs.
The justices on Monday let stand a state appeals court ruling that said the estate of Gwendolyn Rozier could not sue her doctors for negligence.
Rozier received a kidney from her daughter in a 2007 surgery but doctors later found that her body was rejecting the organ. She refused a blood transfusion, in keeping with the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Rozier's estate accused the doctors of failing to timely recognize internal bleeding, among other allegations, which would have eliminated the need for a transfusion.
The Michigan appeals court said the transfusion was a necessary medical procedure under the circumstances. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appeals court rules against imprisoned American
Court Feed News |
2014/11/18 00:18
|
A federal appeals court has ruled against a government subcontractor imprisoned in Cuba who is seeking to sue the U.S. government for the destruction of his business.
Alan Gross was detained in December 2009 while setting up Internet access as a subcontractor for the U.S. government's Agency for International Development. It was his fifth trip to Cuba to work with Jewish communities on building Internet access that bypassed local censorship.
Cuba considers USAID programs illegal attempts by the U.S. to undermine the Cuban government. Gross was tried and sentenced to 15 years in prison in Cuba, where he remains. Gross and his wife sued for negligence.
In a 3-0 decision Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said the U.S. government is immune from any claim arising in a foreign country. It affirmed a lower court judge's dismissal of the case.
The Grosses said the government is cloaking itself in immunity after sending Gross into a situation it knew would be dangerous.
Scott Gilbet, a lawyer representing the Grosses, said he will be seeking further review in the courts and that "we are very disappointed in the decision."
The $60 million lawsuit blames the U.S. government and the contractor Gross was working for, Maryland-based Development Alternatives Inc., for failing to appropriately prepare him for his work in Cuba. The Gross family settled for an undisclosed amount with Development Alternatives. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court reaffirms BP is liable in Gulf oil spill
Court Feed News |
2014/11/07 21:02
|
A federal appeals court panel has reaffirmed its ruling that BP is liable for federal Clean Water Act damages stemming from the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill, the latest loss for the oil giant as it fights court decisions that could ultimately bring $18 billion in penalties.
The three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected arguments that there were errors in its June 4 ruling on BP's Clean Water Act liability. The ruling released Wednesday night is not the final say from the court. BP and its minority partner in the Macondo well, Anadarko Petroleum Corp., have a request pending for the full 15-member court to reconsider the issue.
The June order and Wednesday's follow-up were issued by Judges Fortunato Benavides, Carolyn Dineen King and James Dennis. They upheld U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier's ruling holding the well owners are liable.
BP and Anadarko had argued they were not liable because equipment failure on the leased rig Deepwater Horizon caused the April 2010 disaster. An explosion on the rig killed 11 workers and sent millions of gallons of oil spewing into the Gulf in what became the nation's worst offshore oil disaster.
Barbier has also ruled that BP was "grossly negligent" in the disaster. BP has asked Barbier to reconsider that finding, which, if it stands, would be a factor in whether the water act penalties for the company reach an estimated $18 billion.
Under the Clean Water Act, a polluter can be forced to pay from $1,100 to $4,300 per barrel of spilled oil. The higher limit applies if the company is found grossly negligent — as BP was in Barbier's ruling. But penalties can be assessed at lower amounts.
Government experts estimated that 4.2 million barrels spilled into the Gulf. BP has urged Barbier to use an estimate of 2.45 million barrels in calculating any Clean Water Act penalties.
Barbier has scheduled a trial in January to help decide how much BP owes in federal Clean Water Act penalties. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abortion-rights supporters welcomed the delay Tuesday.
Court Feed News |
2014/11/05 22:43
|
"Today the Oklahoma Supreme Court handed the women of Oklahoma a crucial victory by protecting their constitutional rights and restoring critical options for those seeking safe and legal abortion services," said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which is supporting efforts to fight the laws.
"Time and time again, courts are seeing that the true motive behind these underhanded and baseless restrictions is to push essential reproductive health care services out of reach for as many women as possible," she said.
A message seeking comment from Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt was not immediately returned. A spokesman for Gov. Mary Fallin said the governor was on the road on Election Day and was unsure if she could be reached for comment.
The New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights filed a lawsuit in October on behalf of an Oklahoma doctor who performs nearly half the state's abortions, seeking to block the law requiring admitting privileges law.
The physician, Dr. Larry Burns, said he had applied for admitting privileges at 16 nearby hospitals but had yet to get approval from any facility.
When Burns filed his lawsuit in October, Fallin — who signed the legislation into law in May— said she believed abortion was wrong and that she had been "proud to work with lawmakers in both parties to support legislation that protects the health and lives of both mothers and their unborn children." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court won't hear dispute over abortion clinic law
Court Feed News |
2014/11/05 00:00
|
The Supreme Court won't hear an appeal challenging the constitutionality of a Colorado law that prohibits people from obstructing entry to abortion clinics.
The justices on Monday left in place a lower court ruling that said the law does not restrict free speech or otherwise violate the rights of abortion protesters.
Protester Jo Ann Scott was convicted of violating the law after a jury found that she made physical contact with a woman trying to enter a Planned Parenthood clinic in Denver. An appeals court affirmed.
Scott argued that the law contains vague and overly broad terms that give police too much discretion to enforce it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Health overhaul's subsidies at Supreme Court
Court Feed News |
2014/10/30 18:25
|
Supreme Court justices have their first chance this week to decide whether they have the appetite for another major fight over President Barack Obama's health care law.
Some of the same players who mounted the first failed effort to kill the law altogether now want the justices to rule that subsidies that help millions of low- and middle-income people afford their premiums under the law are illegal.
The challengers are appealing a unanimous ruling of a three-judge panel of the federal appeals court in Richmond, Virginia, that upheld Internal Revenue Service regulations that allow health-insurance tax credits under the Affordable Care Act for consumers in all 50 states. The appeal is on the agenda for the justices' private conference on Friday, and word of their action could come as early as Monday.
The fight over subsidies is part of a long-running political and legal campaign to overturn Obama's signature domestic legislation by Republicans and other opponents of the law. Republican candidates have relentlessly attacked Democrats who voted for it, and the partisanship has continued on the federal bench. Every judge who has voted to strike down the subsidies was appointed by a Republican president.
The appeal has arrived at the Supreme Court at a curious time; there is no conflicting appeals court ruling that the justices often say is a virtual requirement for them to take on an issue. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg cited that practice, for example, as a reason she and her colleagues decided not to take on the same-sex marriage issue. And in the gay marriage cases, both sides were urging the court to step in. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recent Lawyer News Updates |
|
|
Lawyer News RSS
