|
|
|
Supreme Court Refuses to Block Texas Abortion Law
Class Action News |
2013/11/22 18:23
|
A sharply divided Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed Texas to continue enforcing abortion restrictions that opponents say have led more than a third of the state's clinics to stop providing abortions.
The justices voted 5-4 to leave in effect a provision requiring doctors who perform abortions in clinics to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.
The court's conservative majority refused the plea of Planned Parenthood and several Texas abortion clinics to overturn a preliminary federal appeals court ruling that allowed the provision to take effect. The four liberal justices dissented.
The case remains on appeal to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. That court is expected to hear arguments in January, and the law will remain in effect at least until then.
Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the liberal justices, said he expects the issue to return to the Supreme Court once the appeals court issues its final ruling.
The Texas Legislature approved the requirement for admitting privileges in July.
In late October, days before the provision was to take effect, a trial judge blocked it, saying it probably is unconstitutional because it puts a "substantial obstacle" in front of a woman wanting an abortion.
But a three-judge appellate panel moved quickly to overrule the judge. The appeals court said the law was in line with Supreme Court rulings that have allowed for abortion restrictions so long as they do not impose an "undue burden" on a woman's ability to obtain an abortion. Writing for the appeals court, Judge Priscilla Owen noted that the Texas law would not end the procedure, only force women to drive a greater distance to obtain one.
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing in support of the high court order Tuesday, said the clinics could not overcome a heavy legal burden against overruling the appeals court. The justices may not do so "unless that court clearly and demonstrably erred," Scalia said in an opinion that was joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy did not write separately or join any opinion Tuesday, but because it takes five votes to overturn the appellate ruling, it is clear that they voted with their conservative colleagues. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court: Texas inmate's decades-old sentence invalid
Class Action News |
2013/06/14 06:49
|
The life sentence given to a Texas man who has remained in prison for 33 years since being pulled off of death row isn't valid, Texas' highest criminal court said Wednesday, possibly paving the way for a new trial or the inmate's release.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals said once it overturned Jerry Hartfield's murder conviction in 1980 for the killing of a bus station worker four years earlier, there was no longer a death sentence for then-Gov. Mark White to commute.
The opinion was given in response to a rare formal request by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to confirm the validity of its ruling overturning Hartfield's conviction, in light of the governor's 1983 commutation. The New Orleans-based federal court made the request, which upheld a lower state court's ruling that the sentence was invalid.
"The status of the judgment of conviction is that (Hartfield) is under no conviction or sentence," Judge Lawrence Meyers wrote in a decision supported by the court's other eight judges. "Because there was no longer a death sentence to commute, the governor's order had no effect."
Hartfield, now 57, was convicted and sentenced to death for the 1976 robbery and killing of a Southeast Texas bus station employee. The criminal appeals court overturned his murder conviction, ruling that a potential juror improperly was dismissed after expressing reservations about the death penalty.
White commuted Hartfield's sentence in 1983 at the recommendation of the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, and he has remained in prison since then, unaware until a few years ago that his case was in legal limbo. Court documents in his case described him as an illiterate 5th-grade dropout with in IQ of 51, although Hartfield says he's learned to read and write while in prison.
------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pomerantz Law Firm Has Filed a Class Action
Class Action News |
2012/08/24 19:23
|
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP has filed a securities class action lawsuit against Monster Beverage Corporation and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court, Central District of California, is on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Monster securities between February 23, 2012 and August 9, 2012, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). This securities class action seeks to recover damages caused by the Company's violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against the Company and certain of its top officials.
If you are a shareholder who purchased Monster securities during the Class Period, you have until October 22, 2012 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.
The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York and Chicago, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 75 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of defrauded investors.
www.pomerantzlaw.com. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appeals court upholds key voting rights provision
Class Action News |
2012/05/19 05:49
|
A federal appeals court on Friday upheld a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, rejecting an Alabama county's challenge to the landmark civil rights law.
The provision requires state, county and local governments with a history of discrimination to obtain advance approval from the Justice Department, or from a federal court in Washington, for any changes to election procedures. It now applies to all or parts of 16 states.
In a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said that Congress developed extensive evidence of continuing racial discrimination just six years ago and reached a reasonable conclusion when it reauthorized section 5 of the law at that time.
The appellate ruling could clear the way for the case to be appealed to the Supreme Court where Chief Justice John Roberts suggested in a 2009 opinion that the court's conservative majority might be receptive to a challenge to section 5.
Judge David Tatel wrote for the Court of Appeals majority that the court owes deference to Congress' judgment on the matter. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith Announces Class Action
Class Action News |
2012/03/16 16:05
|
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Nevsun Resources Ltd. between March 31, 2011 and February 6, 2012, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Nevsun mines and explores for gold and base metals, such as copper and zinc. The Complaint alleges that defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose that: (a) Nevsun’s mining activities at the Bisha mine in Eritrea, Africa, produced a material amount of waste rock, rather than gold ore; (b) gold and gold ore from Bisha were materially less than estimated, and defendants knew or had reason to know this, based on data routinely collected from the mine; (c) Nevsun was progressing through the ore body at Bisha more quickly than planned, to maintain production at a rate that would not reveal to investors that the amount of gold was materially less than the Company’s estimate; (d) the Company was aware its resource model was materially defective because actual amounts of gold mined at Bisha did not reconcile with the Company’s previously disseminated estimate; and (e) Nevsun materially overstated its gold reserves at the Bisha mine.
No class has yet been certified in the above action. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. If you purchased Nevsun common stock between March 31, 2011 and February 6, 2012, you have certain rights, and have 60 days from March 13, 2012 to move for lead plaintiff status. To be a member of the class you need not take any action at this time, and you may retain counsel of your choice.
www.howardsmithlaw.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP Announces Class Action
Class Action News |
2012/03/15 16:12
|
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the common stock of Nevsun Resources Ltd. between March 31, 2011 and February 6, 2012, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Nevsun, together with its subsidiaries, engages in the acquisition, exploration, development and production of mineral properties, including the Bisha Property, a gold, copper, silver and zinc mine in Eritrea, Africa.
The Complaint alleges that defendants issued materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (i) Nevsun’s mining activities at the Bisha mine produced a material amount of waste rock, rather than gold ore; (ii) the amounts of gold and gold ore recovered from the Bisha mine were materially less than estimated by the Company's reserve estimate, a situation which defendants knew or had reason to know based on data routinely collected throughout the Class Period from the Bisha mine; (iii) Nevsun was progressing through the ore body at the Bisha mine much more quickly than planned, in order to maintain gold production at a rate that would not reveal to investors that the amount of gold was materially less than the Company’s estimate; (iv) the Company was aware that its resource model was materially defective because the actual amounts of gold mined at Bisha did not reconcile with the Company's reserve estimate previously disseminated to the investing public; and (v), Nevsun materially overstated its gold reserves at the Bisha mine.
No class has yet been certified in the above action. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. If you purchased Nevsun common stock between March 31, 2011 and February 6, 2012, you have certain rights, and have 60 days from March 13, 2012 to move for lead plaintiff status. To be a member of the class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent class member.
www.glancylaw.com. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recent Lawyer News Updates |
|
|
Lawyer News RSS
