|
|
|
High court avoids dispute over highway crosses
Areas of Focus |
2011/10/31 15:48
|
The Supreme Court won't hear an appeal of a ruling that 12-foot-high crosses along Utah highways in honor of dead state troopers violate the Constitution.
The justices voted 8-1 Monday to reject an appeal from Utah and a state troopers' group that wanted the court to throw out the ruling and take a more permissive view of religious symbols on public land.
Since 1998, the private Utah Highway Patrol Association has paid for and erected more than a dozen memorial crosses, most of them on state land. Texas-based American Atheists Inc. and three of its Utah members sued the state in 2005.
The federal appeals court in Denver said the crosses were an unconstitutional endorsement of Christianity by the Utah state government.
Justice Clarence Thomas issued a 19-page opinion dissenting from Monday's order. Thomas said the case offered the court the opportunity to clear up confusion over its approach to disputes over the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, the prohibition against governmental endorsement of religion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court sidesteps Connecticut student speech case
Legal Topics |
2011/10/31 15:47
|
The Supreme Court is refusing to disturb a court ruling that Connecticut school officials acted reasonably in disciplining a student for an Internet posting she wrote outside of school.
The justices on Monday turned down an appeal from Avery Doninger, who was a high school junior in Burlington, Conn., when she took to the Internet to criticize administrators for canceling a popular school activity.
Doninger sued school officials after they punished her by preventing her from serving as class secretary as a senior.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York sided with the school officials. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alabama immigration fight recalls civil rights era
Headline Legal News |
2011/10/31 15:47
|
The epicenter of the fight over the patchwork of immigration laws in the United States is not Arizona, which shares a border with Mexico and became a common site for boycotts. Nor was it any of the four states that were next to pass their own crackdowns.
No, the case that's likely to be the first sorted out by the U.S. Supreme Court comes from the Deep South state of Alabama, where the nation's strictest immigration law has resurrected ugly images from the state's days as the nation's battleground for civil rights a half-century ago.
And Alabama's jump to the forefront says as much about the country's evolving demographics as it does the nation's collective memory of the state's sometimes violent path to desegregation.
With the failure of Congress in recent years to pass comprehensive federal immigration legislation, Arizona, Georgia, Utah, South Carolina and Indiana have passed their own. But supporters and opponents alike agree none contained provisions as strict as those passed in Alabama, among them one that required schools to check students' immigration status. That provision, which has been temporarily blocked, would allow the Supreme Court to reconsider a decision that said a kindergarten to high school education must be provided to illegal immigrants. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Navy ship commander to face general court-martial
Areas of Focus |
2011/10/28 16:47
|
A Navy ship commander is facing a military court hearing in San Diego Friday on accusations of sexually assaulting two women on his crew.
Cmdr. Jay Wylie will undergo a general court-martial, the military court reserved for the most serious offenses, according to the San Diego Union-Tribune.
Wylie is the former skipper of the Everett, Wash.-based destroyer USS Momsen.
Wylie's attorney, Jeremiah Sullivan, wouldn't say Thursday what kind of plea his client will enter but told the newspaper that Wylie will "take full responsibility for his actions."
According to the Navy, Wylie got drunk on two occasions and sexually assaulted the women.
The first incident alleges that on New Year's Eve, Wylie pinned a junior female officer, tried to kiss her and assaulted her with his hand up her skirt. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Man pleads guilty to Picasso theft at SF gallery
Areas of Focus |
2011/10/28 16:47
|
A New Jersey man who walked out of a San Francisco gallery with a pencil sketch by Pablo Picasso worth $275,000 pleaded guilty to grand theft Thursday.
Workers at the Weinstein Gallery said Mark Lugo brazenly snatched the drawing, called "Tete de Femme" (Head of a Woman), from a wall of their gallery on July 5. Lugo then walked down the street and got into a cab with the sketch under his arm.
But quick police work, video surveillance cameras and an alert taxi driver led to his arrest within 24 hours.
When investigators searched Lugo's apartment in Hoboken, N.J., they uncovered a treasure trove of stolen art worth some $430,000.
Lugo, 30, pleaded guilty to grand theft in the San Francisco case. Under terms of a plea deal, prosecutors agreed to drop other charges, including burglary. The deal calls allows for Lugo to be released on his sentencing date, Nov. 21, after getting credit for the time he has already served.
His attorney, Douglas Horngrad, said Lugo would then be extradited to New York to face similar charges in art heists there. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appeals court overturns key Cape Wind clearance
Headline Legal News |
2011/10/28 16:47
|
A federal appeals court has rejected the Federal Aviation Administration's ruling that the Cape Wind project's turbines present "no hazard" to aviation, overturning a vital clearance for the nation's first offshore wind farm.
A decision Friday from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said the FAA didn't adequately determine whether the planned 130 turbines, each 440 feet tall, would pose a danger to pilots flying by visual flight rules.
The court ordered the "no hazard" determinations vacated and remanded back to the FAA.
It also ruled that if the FAA found the project posed aviation risks, the U.S. Interior Department would likely revoke or modify the lease granted Cape Wind — the first granted to a U.S. offshore wind project.
The decision signals further delays for the project, which has struggled to find financing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dyer & Berens LLP Files Class Action Lawsuit
Attorney News |
2011/10/26 16:42
|
Dyer & Berens LLP announced that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of AgFeed Industries, Inc. between March 16, 2009 and August 2, 2011, inclusive. AgFeed is engaged in the animal nutrition and commercial hog producing businesses in China and maintains its principal executive offices in Colorado.
What actions may I take at this time?
If you purchased or acquired shares during the Class Period and wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must request appointment by the court no later than December 19, 2011. A "lead plaintiff" works with counsel to direct the litigation and participates in important decisions, including the amount of compensation to accept in settlement of the class action. The lead plaintiffs here will be selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from their investment in the Company during the Class Period.
What are the allegations in the complaint?
The complaint contains allegations that, during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business. Specifically, the defendants misrepresented and concealed from the investing public that, among other things: (i) AgFeed's formula-based analysis for determining accounts receivable and calculating reserves for doubtful accounts did not take into consideration the individual repayment abilities of its customers; (ii) the Company's accounts receivable were materially overvalued and its allowances for doubtful accounts were significantly under-reserved; and (iii) the Company exaggerated its market edge as the combination of overstated assets and understated expenses resulted in an illusion of heightened profitability and Company value. Based upon the foregoing, the complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
About Dyer & Berens LLP.
The plaintiffs are represented by Dyer & Berens LLP. The firm's extensive experience in securities litigation, particularly in cases brought under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, has contributed to the recovery of hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved investors. For more information about the firm, please visit www.dyerberens.com. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
