|
|
|
Ohio plans first execution since moratorium
Lawyer Blog News |
2008/07/11 10:35
|
Ohio is planning its first execution since a U.S. Supreme Court decision ended a national pause on killing inmates. The Ohio Supreme Court on Friday set an execution date of Oct. 14 for Richard Cooey, who was convicted of raping and murdering two University of Akron students in 1986. Executions had been put on hold nationally for several months until the U.S. Supreme Court decided in April to allow Kentucky's lethal injection process, which is similar to the one used in Ohio. Opponents argued the procedure is unconstitutionally cruel. |
|
|
|
|
|
US war crimes court to resume at Guantanamo
Lawyer Blog News |
2008/07/09 11:41
|
U.S. military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay resume this week even as new legal challenges could throw the system into further turmoil. Five men charged in the Sept. 11 attacks, including alleged mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, are to appear Wednesday and Thursday for pretrial hearings in the Bush administration's special tribunal for terrorism suspects. Their trials have not yet been scheduled. The suspects could get the death penalty if convicted of charges that include murder. A judge is expected to hold hearings to explore defense allegations that Mohammed intimidated his co-defendants into refusing military lawyers. Meanwhile, a judge in Washington is considering a challenge that could disrupt the first scheduled war crimes trial, on July 21, of Salim Hamdan, a former driver for Osama bin Laden. Hamdan's lawyers say a recent Supreme Court decision has raised new legal issues that require U.S. District Judge James Robertson to delay the trial. The government says it wants to move forward. Robertson has scheduled a July 17 hearing in Washington on the issue, just four days before Hamdan is to go on trial in a specially built courtroom on a former airstrip at the U.S. Navy base in Cuba. A ruling in favor of the prisoner could also delay the trials for other men held at Guantanamo, and perhaps force the military to devise a whole new way to prosecute alleged terrorists. |
|
|
|
|
|
R.I. lead paint loss gives industry huge win
Lawyer Blog News |
2008/07/07 15:47
|
Communities and child health advocates around the country had pinned their hopes on Rhode Island prevailing in its landmark lawsuit against the lead paint industry. Now, after the state Supreme Court threw out the first-ever jury verdict finding former lead paint companies liable for creating a public nuisance, at least one city says it's rethinking a similar lawsuit against the industry, and one of the lawyers in the Rhode Island case predicted the decision would have a "devastating" effect on national efforts to hold the manufacturers accountable for their products. Still, other lawyers with pending cases say they're not deterred. "There's no question about it, that the Supreme Court of Rhode Island has stopped any progress nationally to get justice for lead-poisoned kids," said Jack McConnell, a lawyer who represented the state and is involved in other lawsuits over lead paint. "It has a devastating effect on progress nationwide." The 2006 verdict against Sherwin-Williams Co., NL Industries Inc. and Millennium Holdings LLC had been the only victory against the industry. It gave advocates hope for future success even though courts around the country have more recently rejected similar suits against the companies. But the Supreme Court's opinion last week seemed to underscore the difficulty in successfully suing the industry, and other states and communities tracking Rhode Island's case could be less inclined to take up a costly court fight with uncertain prospects of victory. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sperm Donor Fights For Rights In Court
Lawyer Blog News |
2008/07/07 15:47
|
Both the Alliance Defense Fund & Keys for Networking, Inc. filed Amicus Briefs in the United States Supreme Court in support of attorney Jeffery M. Leving’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari. Leving filed the Petition for Writ of Certiorari on behalf of Daryl Hendrix, a Topeka sperm donor, to protect Daryl’s constitutional rights to parent his twin children.
Mr. Hendrix donated his genetic material to attorney Samantha Harrington, who conceived their twins who are now three years-old. The case explores vast uncharted territory in the law where there have been inconsistent rulings on the rights and obligations of sperm donors from one court to another in this nation. “This case will have significant ramifications on the future of fathers’ rights and reproductive technology. When we reach a point in society when a father has been reduced to nothing more than a genetic vending machine, then we have reached a point of hopelessness for our children. We should be encouraging fathers to be constant figures in their children’s lives instead of legally baring their fundamental human right to parent,” states Leving, “we must not forget that any man’s loss of his children diminishes mankind,” he added.
Mr. Hendrix initially petitioned the Shawnee County District Court in Kansas to afford him parental rights and provide for his son and daughter financially. Ms. Harrington countered by filing a paternity action. Mr. Hendrix maintains that he and the mother, Ms. Harrington, had an oral agreement to co-parent their children together. Both of those cases were dismissed by a district court judge, prompting Hendrix to appeal the decision in the Kansas Supreme Court. The Kansas Supreme Court decided, 4-2, that a sperm donor must have a written agreement with the mother in order to exercise any parental rights. That decision annihilated Daryl’s inherent rights as a father and treads dangerously on redefining fatherhood.
On Monday, March 17, 2008, attorneys for Hendrix appealed to the United States Supreme Court, asking for the ruling of the Kansas Supreme Court to be overturned. This appeal will clearly be a landmark case that will determine the future of reproductive technology, alternative child conception, and advancement of fathers’ rights. “Mr. Hendrix’s case deserves to be heard in our nation’s highest court and their decision can guide the future of reproductive technology. We want to make sure that Mr. Hendrix’s children know that they have a father who loves them, who will support them emotionally and financially. We want the children to know that they have a father who will spend time with them and help to raise them and that they did not just spring out of a test tube,” states Andrey Filipowicz, co-counsel with Jeffery M. Leving.
In a similar case in Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the verbal agreement between the sperm donor and the mother was “valid on its face” and that ‘Biological parents cannot waive the interests of a child — a third party — who has an independent "right" to support from each one of them.’ The Court ordered the sperm donor to pay over $1500 a month in child support, even though he was not named as the father on the birth certificate of the children. A British Court had a similar finding in the case of a man who donated his sperm to a lesbian couple.
Attorney Jeffery M. Leving states, “The legal system has not kept current with science and reproduction technology and its effects on the changing American family. The U.S. Supreme court now has the opportunity to correct this flaw in our judicial system and protect an important relationship between a loving father and his children”. Leving is a nationally renowned litigator, advocate of fathers’ rights and founder of dadsrights.com.
For more information on the case and all media inquiries, please contact Carrie Klepzig at 312-807-3990, ext. 255 or 312-730-5864 (mobile). |
|
|
|
|
|
Court orders YouTube to give Viacom video logs
Lawyer Blog News |
2008/07/05 15:50
|
Dismissing privacy concerns, a federal judge overseeing a $1 billion copyright-infringement lawsuit against YouTube has ordered the popular online video-sharing service to disclose who watches which video clips and when. U.S. District Judge Louis L. Stanton authorized full access to the YouTube logs after Viacom Inc. and other copyright holders argued that they needed the data to show whether their copyright-protected videos are more heavily watched than amateur clips. The data would not be publicly released but disclosed only to the plaintiffs, and it would include less specific identifiers than a user's real name or e-mail address. Lawyers for Google Inc., which owns YouTube, said producing 12 terabytes of data — equivalent to the text of roughly 12 million books — would be expensive, time-consuming and a threat to users' privacy. The database includes information on when each video gets played, which can be used to determine how often a clip is viewed. Attached to each entry is each viewer's unique login ID and the Internet Protocol, or IP, address for that viewer's computer. Stanton ruled this week that the plaintiffs had a legitimate need for the information and that the privacy concerns are speculative. Stanton rejected a request from the plaintiffs for Google to disclose the source code — the technical secret sauce — powering its market-leading search engine, saying there's no evidence Google manipulated its search algorithms to treat copyright-infringing videos differently. |
|
|
|
|
|
Florida Supreme Court nixes Indian casino pact
Lawyer Blog News |
2008/07/03 14:22
|
The Florida Supreme Court is overturning the agreement Gov. Charlie Crist signed with the Seminole Tribe to expand gambling at its casinos. The court ruled Thursday that Crist doesn't have the constitutional authority to enter into the agreement that allows Las Vegas-style slot machines, black jack and other card games at facilities such as the Hard Rock Casinos in Tampa and Hollywood. House Speaker Marco Rubio challenged the agreement after Crist signed it in November. The tribe has already given the state $50 million as part of the deal that was expected to generate at least $100 million a year for the state. |
|
|
|
|
Recent Lawyer News Updates |
|
|