|
|
|
Court: Feds can target California pot clinics
Legal Topics |
2014/01/16 23:01
|
An appeals court Wednesday affirmed the federal government's long-standing policy that California medical marijuana dispensaries have no protection under state law from drug prosecutions.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday that three California dispensaries, their customers and their landlords are barred from using a state law allowing marijuana use with a doctor's recommendation as a shield from criminal charges and government lawsuits. All uses of marijuana are illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act, also known as the CSA, even in states that have legalized pot.
The ruling upholds three lower court decisions and follows previous rulings by federal appeals courts and the U.S. Supreme Court.
The 9th Circuit panel conceded that medical marijuana use is more accepted now than several years ago when it made a similar ruling. But it said the new legal challenges didn't raise any new arguments that would trump federal law. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chile's top court rules against coal-fired complex
Legal Topics |
2014/01/13 23:05
|
Chile's Supreme Court sided with local fishermen who contend a coal-fired power complex harms ocean life and pollutes their community, but the judges stopped short of ordering a suspension and left it to environmental authorities to decide if operations can continue.
The ruling on the Bocamina complex released Friday was another in a series of blows to big power projects in energy-strapped Chile, where concerns over environmental issues have been rising.
In December, an appeals court halted the 350-megawatt Bocamina II part of the complex owned by Endesa Chile in the southern Bio Bio region, citing harm to fishermen's livelihood.
The 128-megawatt Bocamina I plant was allowed to keep running. But the Supreme Court said the whole complex should shut down unless officials determine the water-cooling system doesn't threaten or hurt marine life.
The company can only operate the Bocamina I and II thermoelectric plants if they don't put harm marine life or put it at risk, the high court said in a ruling made Thursday.
The court ordered Chile's environmental authorities to take all measures required, including "a halt of operations" if needed, until the problem is fixed.
Environmental groups and fishermen say the complex's use of huge amounts of seawater to cool its equipment damages the area. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court: Lawmakers must expedite education funding
Legal Topics |
2014/01/10 23:42
|
The Washington Supreme Court on Thursday ordered lawmakers to submit a complete plan by the end of April to detail how the state will fully pay for basic education.
The 8-1 ruling said that while the state made progress in last year's budget to increase funding for K-12 education, it was "not on target" to hit the constitutionally required funding level by the 2017-18 school year.
"We have no wish to be forced into entering specific funding directives to the State, or, as some state high courts have done, holding the legislature in contempt of court," read the majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Barbara Madsen. "But, it is incumbent upon the State to demonstrate, through immediate, concrete action, that it is making real and measureable progress, not simply promises."
Joining Madsen were Justices Charles Johnson, Debra Stephens, Susan Owens, Charles Wiggins, Mary Fairhurst, Steven Gonzalez and Sheryl Gordon McCloud. Justice Jim Johnson wrote a separate dissent, which was to be released at a later date.
In 2012, the high court ruled that the state is not meeting its constitutional obligation concerning education funding. That ruling was the result of a lawsuit brought by a coalition of school districts, parents and education groups, known as the McCleary case for the family named in the suit. The court has required yearly progress reports from the Legislature on its efforts. Those reports are then critiqued by the group that brought the lawsuit, and by the Supreme Court. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pa. monsignor due in court after leaving prison
Legal Topics |
2014/01/06 19:39
|
A Roman Catholic church official is due in court Monday for the first time since his conviction in the priest sex-abuse scandal was reversed.
Monsignor William Lynn is not quite a free man. He must remain under electronic monitoring while prosecutors try to restore the conviction.
Lynn served 18 months in prison for felony child-endangerment. He was the first U.S. church official ever convicted over his handling of abuse complaints.
Lynn says he tried to protect children as secretary for clergy in Philadelphia from 1992 to 2004, but prosecutors say he sought only to protect the church.
The 63-year-old Lynn will appear in court to review terms of his release from prison last week.
A judge says he must live in Philadelphia and report weekly to probation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Serial rapist Coe appeals confinement in US court
Legal Topics |
2014/01/02 22:46
|
Kevin Coe, who was arrested in 1981 after dozens of women were raped in Spokane, is appealing his confinement as a sexually violent predator to federal court.
Coe was suspected in the rapes, attributed to the "South Hill Rapist," but only one conviction stood against him. He served 25 years in prison, and was confined at the state's Special Commitment Center on McNeil Island in 2008, following a monthlong civil trial.
Coe argues that the jurors at his civil trial should not have been asked to determine that he suffered from a "personality disorder" without having that term defined for them. He also says the jury should not have heard evidence of the other cases linked to the South Hill rapist because he was never convicted of them and because he was not allowed to challenge some of the victims through cross-examination.
The state Supreme Court rejected those arguments in 2012.
On Monday, a federal magistrate judge recommended that Coe's request to proceed as an indigent plaintiff be rejected. The judge found that Coe can afford to pay the fee required to file the case. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hearing: Which court should hear coastal lawsuit?
Legal Topics |
2013/12/20 19:04
|
A legal tug-of-war continues in a state levee board's lawsuit against 97 oil, gas and pipeline companies over the erosion of wetlands.
The Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority-East wants U.S. District Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown to send the case back to Orleans Parish Civil District Court, where the board filed it in July.
Attorneys for Chevron USA Inc. got the lawsuit moved to federal court in August, arguing that federal laws govern many of its claims.
Since then, lawyers have filed hundreds of pages of arguments and exhibits just on the question of which court should hear the case.
Brown scheduled arguments Wednesday.
The lawsuit says oil and gas canal and pipeline work has contributed to the erosion of wetlands that protect New Orleans when hurricanes move ashore. Corrosive saltwater from a network of oil and gas access and pipeline canals has killed plants that anchored the wetlands, letting waves sweep away hundreds of thousands of coastal land, it says.
Gov. Bobby Jindal has blasted the lawsuit as a windfall for trial lawyers and his coastal protection chief, Garret Graves, said the suit would undermine Louisiana's work with the industry to rebuild wetlands. An association of state levee districts voted to oppose the suit.
Since then, however, two coastal parishes heavily dependent on the industry have filed lawsuits of their own raising similar issues.
Earlier this month, the Louisiana Oil and Gas Association sued the state's attorney general, accusing him of illegally approving the Southeast Louisiana board's contract with lawyers who filed its lawsuit.
The association contends that Buddy Caldwell had no authority to approve the contract and that the suit will have "a chilling effect on the exploration, production, development and transportation" of Louisiana's oil and gas. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$15 SeaTac minimum wage challenged in court
Legal Topics |
2013/12/16 19:15
|
A King County Superior Court judge declined Friday to immediately rule on a challenge to the voter-approved $15 an hour minimum wage requirement for airport workers in Seattle-Tacoma International Airport.
Judge Andrea Darvas said she'll issue a ruling with reasoning after Christmas Day but before January 1. Parties in the case had been expecting a ruling Friday.
The measure is scheduled to go into effect on January 1.
Last month voters in the city of SeaTac narrowly approved the measure, which would require a $15 minimum wage, a handful of paid sick days and other standards to around 6,000 workers at the airport and related industries, like hotels and rental car companies.
However, the legal fight over the measure is not expected to end with Darvas' ruling. An eventual appeal to the state Supreme Court could come from either side, depending on her ruling.
The challenge to the newly approved measure is being led by Alaska Airlines Group and other businesses. They say that an initiative approved by city residents doesn't have power over the airport, which is operated by the Port of Seattle. The Port of Seattle, a public entity, agrees.
Alaska Airlines Group also says state law prohibits initiatives from packaging laws. So they're arguing that the multiple requirements in the measure, such as the minimum wage and paid sick days, constitute packaging multiple laws into one initiative. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
