|
|
|
Court date reset in Vegas Strip bird death case
Headline Legal News |
2014/04/15 21:32
|
A court appearance was postponed Monday in Nevada for a University of California, Berkeley, law school graduate completing prison boot camp for beheading an exotic bird during a drunken chase at a Las Vegas Strip resort.
Prosecutor Frank Coumou says Justin Alexander Teixeira's court date was rescheduled to May 5.
Teixeira is facing three to five years' probation before he can ask to have his felony conviction reduced to a misdemeanor.
Whether Teixeira is admitted to practice law in California could on depend on whether a felony remains on his record.
He pleaded guilty last May to killing another person's animal in the October 2012 death of a helmeted guineafowl at the Flamingo hotel-casino.
Two other Berkeley students entered pleas to reduced misdemeanor charges, paid fines and served community service. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
SC Supreme Court hears appeal in fatal dog attack
Legal Business |
2014/04/15 21:31
|
Prosecutors want South Carolina's highest court to reinstate the conviction of a Dillon County man whose dogs attacked and killed a 10-year-old boy in 2006.
The state Supreme Court on Tuesday hears an appeal in the case of Bentley Collins. In 2012, the state Court of Appeals overturned Collins' involuntary manslaughter conviction and prison sentence, ruling a judge shouldn't have allowed prosecutors to show pictures of the boy taken before his autopsy.
The photographs showed the extent of the boy's injuries, including how the dogs mauled him so badly his bones were exposed and his ears and nose were eaten.
The judges said the pathologist testified to the injuries, so the photographs did nothing more than rile the jury's emotions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court OKs $57M verdict for WA home-care workers
Headline Legal News |
2014/04/08 18:58
|
Washington's Supreme Court on Thursday narrowly upheld a $57 million verdict against the state in a case brought by workers who care for severely disabled people. But the justices declined to give the workers pre-judgment interest — throwing out an additional $39 million awarded by a lower-court judge.
The 22,000 workers claimed they were shortchanged by a 2003 rule from the Department of Social and Health Services that automatically cut their pay by 15 percent. The rule was based on the rationale that because the caregivers lived with their charges, then some of the work performed — cooking, for example — also benefited the caregiver, who shouldn't be paid for it.
The high court struck down the rule in 2007 as inconsistent with federal Medicaid requirements, and the workers sued to get the money they said they were owed. After tortuous litigation that included a detour into federal court, a Thurston County Superior Court jury sided with the workers in 2011 and awarded $57 million. The state appealed, but the high court sided with the workers 5-4 Thursday. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court rejects early appeal of surveillance ruling
Legal Topics |
2014/04/08 18:58
|
The Supreme Court has declined an early look at a constitutional challenge to the National Security Agency's bulk collection of millions of Americans' telephone records.
Conservative lawyer Larry Klayman persuaded a federal judge in December to rule that the agency's activities likely violate the Constitution's ban on unreasonable searches. The justices on Monday rejected Klayman's unusual request to bypass the traditional appeals process and hear the case immediately.
Klayman says the case is too important to wait for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to reach a decision. The district court judge granted an injunction against the NSA, but put it on hold pending a government appeal.
The Obama administration has defended the NSA program as a crucial tool against terrorism. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court Refuses To Overturn Arizona Marijuana Ruling
Headline Legal News |
2014/04/03 22:51
|
The Supreme Court has refused to overturn Arizona court rulings ordering the Yuma County sheriff to return marijuana that was seized from a woman with a California medical marijuana authorization honored by Arizona.
The justices' order was issued without comment Monday in the case of Valerie Okun, who had marijuana in her car when a Border Patrol agent stopped her and her husband in Yuma County, Ariz., in 2011. She was charged with marijuana possession crimes, but the charges were dropped when she provided proof she was authorized to possess marijuana under California's medical marijuana program. Arizona's medical marijuana law allows people with authorizations from other states to have marijuana in Arizona.
But the Yuma County sheriff refused to return Okun's marijuana, even after Arizona courts ruled in her favor. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court voids overall contribution limits
Legal Topics |
2014/04/03 22:51
|
The Supreme Court struck down limits Wednesday in federal law on the overall campaign contributions the biggest individual donors may make to candidates, political parties and political action committees.
The justices said in a 5-4 vote that Americans have a right to give the legal maximum to candidates for Congress and president, as well as to parties and PACs, without worrying that they will violate the law when they bump up against a limit on all contributions, set at $123,200 for 2013 and 2014. That includes a separate $48,600 cap on contributions to candidates.
But their decision does not undermine limits on individual contributions to candidates for president or Congress, now $2,600 an election.
Chief Justice John Roberts announced the decision, which split the court's liberal and conservative justices. Roberts said the aggregate limits do not act to prevent corruption, the rationale the court has upheld as justifying contribution limits.
The overall limits "intrude without justification on a citizen's ability to exercise 'the most fundamental First Amendment activities,'" Roberts said, quoting from the court's seminal 1976 campaign finance ruling in Buckley v. Valeo.
Justice Clarence Thomas agreed with the outcome of the case, but wrote separately to say that he would have gone further and wiped away all contribution limits. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another Apple-Samsung skirmish heads to court
Headline Legal News |
2014/03/31 23:19
|
The fiercest rivalry in the world of smartphones is heading back to court this week in the heart of the Silicon Valley, with Apple and Samsung accusing each other, once again, of ripping off designs and features.
The trial will mark the latest round in a long-running series of lawsuits between the two tech giants that underscore a much larger concern about what is allowed to be patented.
"There's a widespread suspicion that lots of the kinds of software patents at issue are written in ways that cover more ground than what Apple or any other tech firm actually invented," Notre Dame law professor Mark McKenna said. "Overly broad patents allow companies to block competition."
The latest Apple-Samsung case will be tried less than two years after a federal jury found Samsung was infringing on Apple patents. Samsung was ordered to pay about $900 million but is appealing and has been allowed to continue selling products using the technology.
Now, jury selection is scheduled to begin Monday in another round of litigation, with Apple Inc. accusing Samsung of infringing on five patents on newer devices, including Galaxy smartphones and tablets. In a counterclaim, Samsung says Apple stole two of its ideas to use on iPhones and iPads. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Headline Legal News for You to Reach America's Best Legal Professionals. The latest legal news and information - Law Firm, Lawyer and Legal Professional news in the Media. |
|
|
