|
|
|
Landowners to court: Exxon Mobil pipeline breaches contract
Headline Legal News |
2016/10/20 03:00
|
Attorneys for landowners along a crude oil pipeline that ruptured in Arkansas in 2013 say Exxon Mobil Pipeline Co. breached its contract because the pipeline interferes with their ability to enjoy their property.
Attorneys for the landowners and Exxon Mobil appeared Wednesday before judges from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Minnesota.
The landowners asked the appeals court to reinstate their case, which was dismissed last year, and have it re-certified as a class-action suit. Attorney Phillip Duncan says it's an issue of honoring easements.
Exxon Mobil attorney Gary Marts said the case was properly dismissed. He says landowners are essentially trying to regulate pipeline safety through a lawsuit - but that's the job of a federal agency.
The Pegasus Pipeline runs through Arkansas, Missouri, Illinois and Texas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rights group criticizes Polish law of weakening top court
Headline Legal News |
2016/10/14 18:38
|
the law "gives excessive power to parliament and the executive over the judiciary."
The Venice Commission, a group of constitutional law experts with the Council of Europe, the continent's top human rights watchdog, issued its opinion during a meeting in Venice, Italy.
The Polish government refused to send representatives to the meeting, accusing the commisison of political bias and of refusing to take Warsaw's position into account.
It is the latest development in a long-running crisis in Poland surrounding the Constitutional Tribunal, which is charged with evaluating the constitutionality of disputed legislation. The court therefore plays a key role in Poland's system of democratic checks and balances.
The European Union, United States and many Poles also have expressed concerns about the Polish government's attempts to change how the court works. The changes have effectively weakened the court's ability to strike down disputed new laws governing other matters, including police surveillance and government control of public media.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court enters default judgment in Kansas voting rights case
Headline Legal News |
2016/10/14 04:53
|
A federal court clerk entered a default judgment Tuesday against Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach for failing to file a timely response to a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a state law requiring prospective voters to prove they are U.S. citizens.
It remains unclear whether U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson will give Kobach more time to respond. If the judgment stands it would apply to all voters in all federal, state and local elections — effectively ending the state's proof-of-citizenship requirement.
Kobach did not immediately return a cellphone message, but spokeswoman Desiree Taliaferro said he would comment.
Kobach faces four separate lawsuits challenging various aspects of Kansas' voter registration law. The law, which went into effect in January 2013, requires prospective voters to submit documentary proof of citizenship such as a birth certificate, U.S. passport or naturalization papers.
Kobach, a conservative Republican, has championed the proof-of-citizenship requirement as an anti-fraud measure that keeps non-citizens from voting, including immigrants living in the U.S. illegally. Critics say such requirements suppress voter turnout, particularly among young and minority voters, and that there have been few cases of fraud in the past.
"Oftentimes judges will give an attorney who has not filed something in a timely manner another chance," said Paul Davis, an attorney for the voter who brought the lawsuit. "We will have to see whether Judge Robinson is willing to do that in this case."
Kobach could ask the judge to set aside the clerk's action, possibly on grounds that include "excusable neglect," said Mark Johnson, another attorney for the voter.
But if the clerk's action stands, it means the proof-of-citizenship requirement can't be enforced, Johnson said.
The lawsuit contends the requirement violates voters' constitutional right to right to due legal process and the right to freely travel from state to state by infringing on people's ability to vote and to sign petitions. It also contends the actions Kobach has taken to verify citizenship status discriminates against people who were born or got married in other states.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court rejects Whitey Bulger appeal
Headline Legal News |
2016/10/03 19:05
|
The Supreme Court has turned away James "Whitey" Bulger's appeal of his racketeering convictions and life sentence.
The justices did not comment Monday in leaving in place Bulger's convictions for playing a role in 11 murders and many other crimes.
The 87-year-old Bulger was a fugitive for 17 years until his arrest in 2011. A jury convicted him in 2013.
Bulger argued that the judge at his trial should have let him tell the jury that a now-dead federal prosecutor had granted him immunity from prosecution. The judge said Bulger hadn't offered hard evidence that such an agreement existed.
Bulger also contended that federal prosecutors failed to disclose "promises, rewards and inducements" made to John Martorano, a hit man who testified against the Boston gangster at his trial.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court in holding pattern, awaiting ninth justice
Headline Legal News |
2016/10/01 17:39
|
The Supreme Court is set to begin its new term as it ended the last one — down one justice and ideologically deadlocked on a range of issues.
The absence of a ninth justice since Antonin Scalia's death in February has hamstrung the court in several cases. It's forced the justices to look for less contentious issues on which they're less likely to divide by 4-4.
It could be several months, at least, before the nation's highest court is again operating at full strength.
How the presidential election turns out will go a long way toward determining the judicial outlook of the ninth justice, the direction of the court and the outcome of several cases already being heard and others that probably will be at the court soon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
California Supreme Court to consider suit over Yelp review
Headline Legal News |
2016/09/23 22:23
|
The California Supreme Court agreed Wednesday to consider a lawsuit that Yelp.com warns could lead to the removal of negative reviews on the popular website.
The seven-member court voted unanimously Wednesday to take up an appeal by Yelp of a lower court ruling upholding an order requiring Yelp to remove posts against a San Francisco law firm.
Yelp wants the Supreme Court to overturn the ruling, saying that if it's allowed to stand, it will open the door for businesses to force the company to remove critical reviews.
Dawn Hassell, the law firm's managing attorney, says the business review website is exaggerating the stakes of her legal effort. She says it aims only to remove from Yelp lies by a former client that a judge determined were defamatory, not just negative.
Hassell referred comment Wednesday to her attorney, Monique Olivier, who said in a statement she was not surprised the Supreme Court has taken up the case given the "amount of attention" it has received.
"This case is not one of a 'bad review' " she said. "It is a case where a court adjudicated statements to be defamatory after receiving and reviewing evidence about the falsity of those statements."
Aaron Schur, Yelp's senior director of litigation, said the company looked forward to explaining to the court "how the lower court's decision is ripe for abuse, contradicts longstanding legal principles, and restricts the ability of websites to provide a balanced spectrum of views online."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DC gun law gets hearing before Washington appeals court
Headline Legal News |
2016/09/20 22:22
|
An appeals court will hear challenges to a District of Columbia law that places tough requirements for gun owners to get concealed carry permits.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is hearing arguments Tuesday in two cases involving the law, which requires people who want to carry a gun in public to show a "good reason to fear injury" or another "proper reason" to carry the weapon. Reasons might include a personal threat, or a job that requires a person to carry or protect cash or valuables. Lower court judges have disagreed on whether the law is constitutional.
The hearing is the latest in a long-running tussle over the city's gun laws. Eight years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the city's ban on handguns, leading the city to rewrite its gun laws. City law now requires residents to register guns kept at their homes or businesses; more than 16,500 guns have been registered, according to police.
Anyone who wants to carry a weapon outside the home needs a separate concealed carry license. The police department said last week that 89 people have been granted concealed carry permits and 374 have been denied.
In March, U.S. District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly sided with the city and declined to issue a preliminary injunction halting the enforcement of the law requiring a "good reason" or "proper reason" for anyone who wants to carry a gun in public. Kollar-Kotelly said opponents had not shown that their lawsuit was likely to be successful. She noted that appeals courts in other parts of the country had approved of laws in New York, New Jersey and Maryland that are similar to the District of Columbia's. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
