The Nevada Supreme Court on Tuesday denied a request to block a judge's hearings into the health risks of a mentally impaired woman's pregnancy.
The court's unanimous ruling allowed Washoe County District Judge Egan Walker to resume the evidentiary hearings Tuesday morning in a case that has drawn the attention of national anti-abortion groups.
The 32-year-old woman's parental guardians asked the court Friday to halt the hearings, saying Walker lacks the authority to terminate the pregnancy of their daughter, who has the mental capacity of a 6-year-old.
They claim they have exclusive authority over her health care decisions, and they want their daughter to carry the baby to term in line with their Catholic religious beliefs.
But the high court sided with Walker, saying he has the authority to monitor the woman's welfare and hold the hearings.
Justices noted the guardians failed to file an annual report regarding their daughter's condition and their performance of duties as required by state law. They also said the court obtained information about concerns over the woman's medical condition.
"The purpose of the evidentiary hearings at this time is merely to obtain information in order to make well-reasoned and informed decisions regarding the ward's medical care," justices wrote. "Under these circumstances, we conclude that the district court has not exceeded its jurisdiction or arbitrarily or capriciously exercised its discretion."
Attorney Jason Guinasso, who represents the guardians, was tied up in Tuesday's hearing and unavailable for immediate comment, according to his secretary.
Guinasso has said he's aware of only one similar case in the country. It involved a Massachusetts judge who ordered a mentally ill 31-year-old woman to have an abortion and to be sterilized against her wishes. The state Appeals Court overturned the decision Jan. 17.
The Nevada couple said that while the pregnancy poses health risks to their daughter and the baby, medical experts back them in their decision to continue the pregnancy. The woman suffers from epilepsy and is on medication.
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
Maine high court upholds hypnotist sex charge
Maine's high court has upheld the conviction of a Jay man who sexually assaulted a girl he hypnotized.
The Supreme Judicial Court last week rejected the defense arguments of 39-year-old Aaron Patton, who was sentenced to six years in prison last year after being found guilty of charges including gross sexual assault.
Authorities say the victim began hypnotism treatments with Patton when she was 8 to help her break a fingernail-biting habit. The girl testified Patton began touching her inappropriately when she was 12 and had sex with her starting when she was 14.
After each sexual encounter, she said he hypnotized her so she would keep the relationship secret.
The Supreme Judicial Court last week rejected the defense arguments of 39-year-old Aaron Patton, who was sentenced to six years in prison last year after being found guilty of charges including gross sexual assault.
Authorities say the victim began hypnotism treatments with Patton when she was 8 to help her break a fingernail-biting habit. The girl testified Patton began touching her inappropriately when she was 12 and had sex with her starting when she was 14.
After each sexual encounter, she said he hypnotized her so she would keep the relationship secret.
Monday, June 18, 2012
New York Foster Care Lawyers - Rosin Steinhagen Mendel
Rosin Steinhagen Mendel is a law firm dedicated to serving our clients in New York City, and the surrounding counties in southern New York State and in New Jersey.
We represent our clients in all types of proceedings that include termination of parental rights, permanency hearings, custody hearings, guardianship, administrative proceedings, and adoption. Our goal is to provide each of our clients with the best possible representation in all aspects of their cases, and clients appreciate our careful analysis of individual cases, through preparation and attention to detail.
Rosin Steinhagen Mendel is here to provide their clients with the highest level of representation in family matters. Visit us on the web at http://www.lawrsm.com/ for more information regarding your adoption and foster care concerns.
We represent our clients in all types of proceedings that include termination of parental rights, permanency hearings, custody hearings, guardianship, administrative proceedings, and adoption. Our goal is to provide each of our clients with the best possible representation in all aspects of their cases, and clients appreciate our careful analysis of individual cases, through preparation and attention to detail.
Rosin Steinhagen Mendel is here to provide their clients with the highest level of representation in family matters. Visit us on the web at http://www.lawrsm.com/ for more information regarding your adoption and foster care concerns.
Dangerous Dog Lawyers
More dangerous dog cases have occurred over the years and Dangerous Dog Declarations and Dog Attack prosecutions can have a devastating effect on dog owners and their beloved pets. For over a decade, our lawyers have experience in dealing with dangerous dog attack cases and have developed techniques that have proven successful in defences to these prosecutions. We can refer you to the most respected 'temperamant assessors' in NSW; including assessors who train Council Rangers. We can draft the
'letter of objection' and 'undertakings' on your behalf; which can include a promise to always keep your dog on a leash when in public, to ensure your backyard is secure and to only allow adults to walk your dog.
At Sydney Criminal Lawyers, we understand how devastating it is for owners to have to turn in their dogs for a dangerous dog notice. Our experience in the field has given us extensive experience to persuade Councils to withdraw prosecutions and to influence councils not to issue dangerous dog declarations to owners. Our team is able to revoke dangerous dog declarations and can issue a nuisance dog order instead. Call us today if your family is in need of protecting your beloved pet at (02) 9261 8881 or visit us on the
web for more http://www.criminallaw.com.au/dangerous-dog-lawyers
'letter of objection' and 'undertakings' on your behalf; which can include a promise to always keep your dog on a leash when in public, to ensure your backyard is secure and to only allow adults to walk your dog.
At Sydney Criminal Lawyers, we understand how devastating it is for owners to have to turn in their dogs for a dangerous dog notice. Our experience in the field has given us extensive experience to persuade Councils to withdraw prosecutions and to influence councils not to issue dangerous dog declarations to owners. Our team is able to revoke dangerous dog declarations and can issue a nuisance dog order instead. Call us today if your family is in need of protecting your beloved pet at (02) 9261 8881 or visit us on the
web for more http://www.criminallaw.com.au/dangerous-dog-lawyers
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Court says judges can't decide draft complaint
The Supreme Court says federal employees cannot go to trial judges to complain about their firing for not signing up for the U.S. draft.
The high court ruled Monday that the Civil Service Reform Act took U.S. district courts' jurisdiction away from from judging these types of claims.
Several men lost their jobs in the executive branch for not signing up for Selective Service between the ages of 18 and 26. They sued, but at least two federal appeals courts ruled that they couldn't bring lawsuits straight to court because lawmakers had stripped trial judges of their jurisdiction.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a 6-3 decision saying the Merit Selection Protection Board must hear the case. Justices Samuel Alito, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan dissented.
The high court ruled Monday that the Civil Service Reform Act took U.S. district courts' jurisdiction away from from judging these types of claims.
Several men lost their jobs in the executive branch for not signing up for Selective Service between the ages of 18 and 26. They sued, but at least two federal appeals courts ruled that they couldn't bring lawsuits straight to court because lawmakers had stripped trial judges of their jurisdiction.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a 6-3 decision saying the Merit Selection Protection Board must hear the case. Justices Samuel Alito, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan dissented.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Md. high court to hear same-sex divorce case
Maryland's highest court is poised to hear arguments in a precedent-setting case involving two women who married in California but were denied a divorce in Maryland, a state that does not currently allow same-sex weddings.
The Court of Appeals of Maryland in Annapolis is set to hear arguments Friday from lawyers for the lesbian couple seeking to end their marriage. A Maryland judge declined to grant their divorce in 2010, concluding that the women's marriage isn't valid under Maryland law.
But lawyers for the women disagree, saying the state should recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere even though it doesn't allow same-sex weddings at this time. They say that as a result, the state should allow the couple to divorce.
The high court's ultimate decision may have limited effect since same-sex weddings, and by extension divorces, are set to start in the state in January 2013 under a law passed this year. But opponents of the new law are seeking to overturn it in a potential voter referendum.
Meanwhile, judges in Maryland are inconsistent about granting divorces for gay couples who married in another state. Lawyers involved in Friday's case say they believe judges have granted about a half a dozen divorces for gay couples, but their clients, Jessica Port and Virginia Anne Cowan, and at least one other couple were recently denied that.
The Court of Appeals of Maryland in Annapolis is set to hear arguments Friday from lawyers for the lesbian couple seeking to end their marriage. A Maryland judge declined to grant their divorce in 2010, concluding that the women's marriage isn't valid under Maryland law.
But lawyers for the women disagree, saying the state should recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere even though it doesn't allow same-sex weddings at this time. They say that as a result, the state should allow the couple to divorce.
The high court's ultimate decision may have limited effect since same-sex weddings, and by extension divorces, are set to start in the state in January 2013 under a law passed this year. But opponents of the new law are seeking to overturn it in a potential voter referendum.
Meanwhile, judges in Maryland are inconsistent about granting divorces for gay couples who married in another state. Lawyers involved in Friday's case say they believe judges have granted about a half a dozen divorces for gay couples, but their clients, Jessica Port and Virginia Anne Cowan, and at least one other couple were recently denied that.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
'Holland's Next Top Model' wins agency lawsuit
A former winner of the television show "Holland's Next Top Model" has
won a lawsuit against Elite Model Management after she was dropped for
having hips the agency considered too large.
The Amsterdam District Court ruled Wednesday that Ananda Marchildon, now 25, was entitled to the main prize she won in the 2008 production of the show, a three-year contract worth $98,500.
Marchildon argued she was dismissed after only $13,000 worth of work because she didn't lose enough weight to please the agency.
According to the written ruling, though Marchildon had gained weight since getting the contract, she had a hip measurement of 92 centimeters (about 36.2 inches) when she won, and Elite could not demand that she go down to 90 centimeters — about 35.4 inches. That is far smaller than the average woman's hips but not unusual in the modeling world.
The Amsterdam District Court ruled Wednesday that Ananda Marchildon, now 25, was entitled to the main prize she won in the 2008 production of the show, a three-year contract worth $98,500.
Marchildon argued she was dismissed after only $13,000 worth of work because she didn't lose enough weight to please the agency.
According to the written ruling, though Marchildon had gained weight since getting the contract, she had a hip measurement of 92 centimeters (about 36.2 inches) when she won, and Elite could not demand that she go down to 90 centimeters — about 35.4 inches. That is far smaller than the average woman's hips but not unusual in the modeling world.
Mo. court denies tax break for convenience stores
Missouri's highest court says convenience stores cannot claim a tax break on the electricity used to prepare food.
The Supreme Court's decision Tuesday hinged on whether the act of warming or cooking food qualified as "processing" a product. If so, then the electricity used for food preparation could qualify for a state sales tax exemption.
In a 5-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that food preparation was not "processing" and the tax break could not be claimed.
Casey's General Stores had sought the tax break for one month of electricity used at stores in Grain Valley and Greenwood.
The Missouri Department of Revenue said it did not have a specific figure for what might have been owed to Casey's, or to other companies that might have made similar claims.
The Supreme Court's decision Tuesday hinged on whether the act of warming or cooking food qualified as "processing" a product. If so, then the electricity used for food preparation could qualify for a state sales tax exemption.
In a 5-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that food preparation was not "processing" and the tax break could not be claimed.
Casey's General Stores had sought the tax break for one month of electricity used at stores in Grain Valley and Greenwood.
The Missouri Department of Revenue said it did not have a specific figure for what might have been owed to Casey's, or to other companies that might have made similar claims.
Monday, March 5, 2012
Riley Bennett & Egloff, LLP - Construction Law Firm
As part of our experience representing owners, contractors and design professionals throughout the industry, we have written and negotiated contracts based on industry standard forms (such as the AIA forms) and have also developed custom contract documents for specific clients and projects. Based upon our experience drafting and negotiating contract documents, as well as our advice and representation of clients in construction disputes, we know what works in a contract and what does not.
* We know contracts: We routinely draft and negotiate design and construction contracts for large, complex projects.
* We know construction: We know the industry, the terminology, the technology and procedures, the economics and accounting, as well as the law and the potential pitfalls for disputes.
* We know contractors: Having represented contractors of all sizes and specialties for decades, we know how they work; we know how they plan, estimate and schedule jobs; we know their management, accounting and claims procedures; and we know what is important to them and what is not in contract negotiations and in the resolution of claims and disputes.
Riley Bennett & Egloff Law has expertise in all areas of construction law and their construction attorneys are dedicated to finding the best solution their construction industry clients. With much experience working with small, family-owned contractors, to some of the biggest general contractors in the Indianapolis area, Riley Bennett & Egloff Law knows what works.
Indianapolis Construction Law Firm
* We know contracts: We routinely draft and negotiate design and construction contracts for large, complex projects.
* We know construction: We know the industry, the terminology, the technology and procedures, the economics and accounting, as well as the law and the potential pitfalls for disputes.
* We know contractors: Having represented contractors of all sizes and specialties for decades, we know how they work; we know how they plan, estimate and schedule jobs; we know their management, accounting and claims procedures; and we know what is important to them and what is not in contract negotiations and in the resolution of claims and disputes.
Riley Bennett & Egloff Law has expertise in all areas of construction law and their construction attorneys are dedicated to finding the best solution their construction industry clients. With much experience working with small, family-owned contractors, to some of the biggest general contractors in the Indianapolis area, Riley Bennett & Egloff Law knows what works.
Indianapolis Construction Law Firm
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP Announces Class Action
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 purchasers of CNOOC Limited American Depositary Shares between January 27, 2011 and September 16, 2011, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. CNOOC, through its subsidiaries, engages in the exploration, development, production and sale of crude oil, natural gas and other petroleum products. The Company owns oil and natural gas properties in Asia, Oceania, Africa, the Americas and offshore China – including the Penglai 19-3 (“PL19-3”) oilfield situated in northern China’s Bohai Bay.
The Complaint alleges that defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business and financial results, including that: (i) the Company was not in compliance with environmental laws and regulations; (ii) the Company concealed the extent and severity of oil spills that occurred at the PL19-3 oilfield in June 2011; (iii) as news of the oil spills emerged, the Company downplayed its responsibility to effect the cleanup of the oil spills, portrayed itself as being the “non-operator” of the oilfield and, moreover, hindered the cleanup by requiring the operator of the oilfield to use a CNOOC-affiliated company for the cleanup; (iv) the Company improperly accounted for its contingent liabilities in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”); and (v), based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company’s operations and its expected oil production.
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 the ADSs of CNOOC between January 27, 2011 and September 16, 2011, you have certain rights, and have until April 29, 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.
The Complaint alleges that defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business and financial results, including that: (i) the Company was not in compliance with environmental laws and regulations; (ii) the Company concealed the extent and severity of oil spills that occurred at the PL19-3 oilfield in June 2011; (iii) as news of the oil spills emerged, the Company downplayed its responsibility to effect the cleanup of the oil spills, portrayed itself as being the “non-operator” of the oilfield and, moreover, hindered the cleanup by requiring the operator of the oilfield to use a CNOOC-affiliated company for the cleanup; (iv) the Company improperly accounted for its contingent liabilities in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”); and (v), based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company’s operations and its expected oil production.
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 the ADSs of CNOOC between January 27, 2011 and September 16, 2011, you have certain rights, and have until April 29, 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.
US Court rules against Helm in suit over ad
A New York court says Levon Helm long ago signed away rights that let an advertising agency use the song "The Weight" in a cellphone commercial.
The Band's former drummer and singer sued ad agency BBDO Worldwide Inc. in 2004. An appeals court ruled against him Thursday.
Helm sued after the 1968 classic cropped up in an ad for what was then Cingular Wireless. He said he didn't approve that use.
But the appeals court says the recording contract surrounding the song gave a record label permission to license it to the agency.
Helm lawyer John O'Neill says the contract only gave the label permission to promote the music itself. BBDO's lawyer didn't immediately return a call seeking comment.
The Band's former drummer and singer sued ad agency BBDO Worldwide Inc. in 2004. An appeals court ruled against him Thursday.
Helm sued after the 1968 classic cropped up in an ad for what was then Cingular Wireless. He said he didn't approve that use.
But the appeals court says the recording contract surrounding the song gave a record label permission to license it to the agency.
Helm lawyer John O'Neill says the contract only gave the label permission to promote the music itself. BBDO's lawyer didn't immediately return a call seeking comment.
Bankruptcy threat to iPad trademark challenger
A major creditor of Proview Electronics, which is challenging Apple Inc.'s use of the iPad trademark, has moved to have the ailing computer monitor maker liquidated, reports said Monday.
Taiwan-based Fubon Insurance is seeking $8.68 million in debts and has filed an application to have Proview declared bankrupt, the reports by the Xinhua News Agency and other mainland media said.
Proview's mainland Chinese subsidiary is based in the southern export zone of Shenzhen, where an official at the city's Intermediate Court said he expected an announcement regarding the case soon.
"It's a sensitive case in a sensitive period of time, so we won't comment or release information while we will have an announcement in the near future," said the official who gave only his surname, Zhu.
Proview lawyer Ma Dongxiao said the company believes its financial problems won't affect the handling of a court case in which Apple is appealing a ruling against its claim to the iPad trademark in China.
Taiwan-based Fubon Insurance is seeking $8.68 million in debts and has filed an application to have Proview declared bankrupt, the reports by the Xinhua News Agency and other mainland media said.
Proview's mainland Chinese subsidiary is based in the southern export zone of Shenzhen, where an official at the city's Intermediate Court said he expected an announcement regarding the case soon.
"It's a sensitive case in a sensitive period of time, so we won't comment or release information while we will have an announcement in the near future," said the official who gave only his surname, Zhu.
Proview lawyer Ma Dongxiao said the company believes its financial problems won't affect the handling of a court case in which Apple is appealing a ruling against its claim to the iPad trademark in China.
Supreme Court: Inmate cannot change court-appointed lawyer
The Supreme Court says a death row inmate can't change his court-appointed appeals lawyer because he didn't like the lawyer's defense tactics.
The justices on Monday turned away the appeal from Kenneth Clair, who was sentenced to death in California in 1987 for burglary and murder.
Clair wanted to change his federal public defender in 2005 because he says they were trying to stop his execution instead of trying to prove his innocence. A federal judge denied his request but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that decision.
The justices ruled unanimously that the appeals court's decision was incorrect
Justice Elena Kagan wrote that Clair's request came just as a judge was about to make a final ruling so any change would have been too late.
The justices on Monday turned away the appeal from Kenneth Clair, who was sentenced to death in California in 1987 for burglary and murder.
Clair wanted to change his federal public defender in 2005 because he says they were trying to stop his execution instead of trying to prove his innocence. A federal judge denied his request but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that decision.
The justices ruled unanimously that the appeals court's decision was incorrect
Justice Elena Kagan wrote that Clair's request came just as a judge was about to make a final ruling so any change would have been too late.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)