|
|
|
Sparks Justice Court to be open four days a week
Headline News |
2011/07/25 09:03
|
Sparks Justice Court is planning to go to four-day work weeks because of budget cuts.
Justice of the Peace Kevin Higgins says court staff will work from 7:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Tuesdays through Fridays, and take only a half-hour lunch. Public access will be 8-5 on those days.
He says the court like other agencies is under a mandate to cuts wages and benefits by 7 percent, and the compact work week was the only option allowing the court to continue services without losing more staff.
He says judges will still be available for emergency matters, such as processing search warrants and protective orders.
The change needs confirmation from the Washoe County Commission, but is expected to take effect Aug. 15 and last the rest of the fiscal year. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Edwards' former mistress seeks contempt order
Headline News |
2011/07/22 13:41
|
The former mistress of John Edwards wants a North Carolina judge to issue a contempt order against a one-time Edwards campaign aide in a case involving a purported sex tape. Lawyers for Rielle Hunter filed a motion Wednesday in Orange County Superior Court asking for a contempt-of-court finding against Andrew and Cheri Young and their lawyer. Hunter's motion claims the Youngs have shared information with federal prosecutors in a separate criminal case involving Edwards. Her lawyers say that violates protective orders in the civil case. Hunter is suing the Youngs for the return of various items, including a purported sex tape featuring Edwards, the former North Carolina senator and 2004 Democratic vice-presidential nominee. Young has said he helped cover up Edwards' affair during his 2008 presidential bid and worked to keep Hunter in hiding. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
When is a Person an Employee of Another?
Headline News |
2011/07/20 08:16
|
On July 19, 2011, the Indiana Court of Appeals issued a decision which I found surprising in McCann v. City of Anderson, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), Cause No. 48A02-1009-PL-1060. At issue was whether a trial court had properly granted summary judgment on the question of whether a warrant officer was an employee of the Anderson City Court. Despite the procedural posture of the case and factors that weighed in favor of finding an employer-employee relationship, the Court affirmed a decision granting summary judgment to the defendants.
In this case, McCann was a police officer, who eventually became warrant officer for the Anderson City Court in 1998. He held that post until 2005, when the judge asked that McCann be reassigned. As a result of this dismissal, McCann filed suit based on the Indiana Wage Statute, arguing that he had been an employee of the Court and was entitled to funds that had been allocated to the position of warrant officer by that court. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment and the trial court granted the defendants' motion.
On appeal, the Court quoted GKN Co. v. Magness, 744 N.E.2d 397, 402 (Ind. 2001), for the seven factors that a court should consider when determining whether an employer-employee relationship exists. The Court then analyzed each of these factors and determined that three weighed in favor of the existence an employer-employee relationship and four against, with the "most important" factor weighing against.
Thus, over all, four of the seven factors, including the most important, "Control over the Means Used," indicate McCann was not an employee of the City Court. Because the City Court was not McCann's employer, he cannot be due any "unpaid wages" from the City Court. Therefore, he cannot assert a claim against the City Court under the Indiana Wage Statute.
The aspect of this decision that is most surprising is that the Court reached this conclusion despite the procedural posture of the case. It could have easily held that, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to McCann, the seven factors weighed both for and against a finding of an employer-employee relationship between McCann and the City Court created a genuine issue of material fact. This indicates that the factor the Court identified as being "most important", whether the purported employer exercised control over the means used by the purported employee to perform work, is very important indeed.
Lesson:
1.It will be exceedingly difficult to prove the existence of an employer-employee relationship if the purported employer did not exercise control over the means that the purported employee used to perform his work.
Brad A. Catlin
Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC
http://www.indianalawupdate.com/entry/When-is-a-Person-an-Employee-of-Another |
|
|
|
|
|
|
San Francisco to shutter courtrooms, lay off 200
Headline News |
2011/07/19 16:53
|
The San Francisco Superior Court announced Monday that it's laying off more than 40 percent of its staff and shuttering 25 courtrooms because of budget cuts. Presiding Judge Katherine Feinstein said the actions were necessary to close a $13.75 million budget deficit caused by state budget cuts. She said the cuts mean it will take many more hours to pay a traffic ticket in person, up to 18 months to finalize a divorce and five years for a lawsuit to go to trial. "The civil justice system in San Francisco is collapsing," Feinstein said. Some 200 of the court's 480 workers will be let go by Sept. 30, including 11 of 12 commissioners who preside over a variety of cases. And she said it could get worse if optimistic revenue projections don't materialize by January. "The future is very, very bleak for our courts," Feinstein said at a Monday press conference. Feinstein said criminal cases would remain largely unaffected because of constitutional guarantees of speedy trials. Every other type of court, though, is facing significant cutbacks. The San Francisco courts aren't the only courts facing cutbacks, only the most dramatic. The Judicial Council, which manages the judicial branch's budget, will decide Friday whether to cut funding of local courts by 8.8 percent or about $305 million. Other courts are considering unpaid furloughs for workers, shorter hours for clerks and other cost-cutting measures. None are going as far as San Francisco, but the budget woes have caused discord within the judiciary. The Alliance of California Judges was formed almost three years ago by judges unhappy with the Judicial Council's fiscal management. In particular, the Alliance is demanding administrators scrap plans for a new computer system projected to cost $2 billion to fully install state wide. Instead, court administrators are proposing delaying the project for a year, which would save $100 million. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court sets oral arguments in campaign lawsuit
Headline News |
2011/07/16 10:27
|
A conservative group fighting campaign finance rules in Montana says in a recent filing that it agrees disclosure laws can apply to corporate speech, but Western Tradition Partnership argues it isn't subject to current disclosure laws because its attack mailers fall outside the definition of "electioneering."
The Montana Supreme Court has set oral arguments for September in the state's challenge to a district court decision that tossed out the outright ban on corporate political spending.
Western Tradition Partnership first filed the lawsuit last year piggybacking on the high-profile Citizen's United case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. The group aims to undo Montana's century-old restriction on corporate political spending.
Western Tradition is separately fighting a decision that it failed to report campaign expenditures. The group argues its activities are not intended to influence elections.
In a brief filed earlier this month with the Supreme Court on the main case fighting the ban corporate campaign spending, WTP made it clear it believes campaign finance regulation is OK.
"If the State is truly concerned with accountability, the state has other means at its disposal, such as disclosure laws, to make sure that people know who is speaking," Western Tradition argued in the brief. "It is inappropriate, and indeed, unconstitutional, to completely outlaw corporate political speech." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anthony lawyer rises from obscurity to legal fame
Headline News |
2011/07/12 09:22
|
Three years ago, Jose Baez's name was barely a blip in the legal community.
This was a lawyer who made his way to the profession after dropping out of high school, getting a GED and going into the Navy. He tried several failed businesses — including two bikini companies — before he eventually enrolled at Florida State University and St. Thomas University School of Law. It took another eight years for him to be admitted to the bar.
Now he's arguably one of the most recognizable attorneys in the country after his client Casey Anthony was acquitted in the death of her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee, in a case marked by a captivated national audience and searing scrutiny of every legal twist.
For the last three years since, Baez faced questions from other attorneys and TV commentators about his lack of criminal law experience and tactics. Now he's a legal celebrity almost certain to be offered interviews, book offers and possibly movie deals that could bring hundreds of thousands of dollars.
"I think this is obviously life-altering for Jose Baez," said Terry Lenamon, a former member of Anthony's defense team, who left the case in 2008 after a disagreement over strategy.
Baez, 42, took Anthony's case pro bono in 2008, after getting a referral from a former client who shared a cell with Anthony following her initial arrest. He has handled the case since then, operating on state funds available to Anthony because of her indigent status, and from an early $200,000 she received from licensing photos and videos to ABC News. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recent Lawyer News Updates |
|
|
Lawyer News RSS
