Appeals courts agree on concealed weapons ban restrictions

A federal appeals court's decision upholding California's restrictions on carrying concealed weapons gives lawyers a fourth chance to try to get the U.S. Supreme Court's attention on a subject directly affecting eight states and the nation's capital.

Thursday's ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld a law requiring gun applicants to show good reason beyond mere safety. It was consistent with rulings since 2012 in three other circuits upholding similar restrictions in New York, Maryland and New Jersey. The Supreme Court did not take up the issue after those rulings. Alan Gura, an Alexandria, Virginia-based lawyer, has represented plaintiffs in each case. He did not immediately return a request for comment Friday.

UCLA Law School professor Eugene Volokh said he thinks there is less chance that the high court will hear the California case than the three that came before it because there are currently only eight justices.

The Supreme Court has never addressed directly whether an individual has the right to bear arms outside the home for the purpose of self-defense.

"It's an important question, the most important of the remaining questions on gun rights" that the Supreme Court has not addressed, Volokh said.

He predicted that the Supreme Court might eventually take up the subject if an appeals court in Washington, D.C., strikes down the city's strict gun law. Two lower court judges have issued conflicting opinions about the constitutionality of the district's law requiring that a firearm applicant demonstrate a "good reason to fear injury to his or her person or property" before being licensed to carry a pistol.

James B. Jacobs, a professor of constitutional law at New York University School of Law, noted the Supreme Court had decided two previous gun cases by a 5-4 vote. He said the court might be reluctant to tackle the issue until there are nine justices.

High Court won't hear dispute over birthright citizenship

The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from a group of American Samoans who say the United States should grant full citizenship to people born in the U.S. territory.

The justices on Monday let stand a lower court ruling that said the constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship does not extend to the islands that have been a part of the country since 1900.

Current law considers American Samoans to be "nationals," not full citizens like those born in Puerto Rico, Guam and other U.S. territories. Nationals are allowed to work and live anywhere in the United States, but unlike citizens, they can't vote or hold elective office.

The challengers said that the law violates the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to anyone born in the United States. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled last year that birthright citizenship does not automatically apply to the nation's unincorporated political territories.

The lawsuit was filed by a small group of American Samoans who did not have the support of the islands' government officials. The government of American Samoa has argued that automatic U.S. citizenship could undermine local traditions and practices, including rules that restrict land ownership to those of Samoan ancestry.

Court Vacates $1.8M Ventura Award in 'American Sniper' Case

A federal appeals court on Monday threw out a $1.8 million judgment awarded to former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura, who says he was defamed in the late author Chris Kyle's bestselling book "American Sniper."

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the jury's 2014 award of $500,000 for defamation and $1.3 million for unjust enrichment against Kyle's estate. Kyle, a former SEAL who was the deadliest sniper in U.S. military history with 160 confirmed kills, died in 2013.

The majority of the three-judge panel reversed the unjust-enrichment award, saying it fails as a matter of law. The majority also vacated the defamation award, but sent that portion of the case back to court for a new trial.

Messages left with Ventura's publicist and attorney were not immediately returned Monday. A message left with an attorney for Kyle's estate also did not immediately return a message seeking comment.

Kyle claimed in a subchapter called "Punching Out Scruff Face," to have decked a man, whom he later identified as Ventura, during a fallen SEAL's wake at a California bar in 2006. He wrote that "Scruff Face" had made offensive comments about the elite force, including a remark that the SEALs "deserve to lose a few" in Iraq.

Ventura, a former Underwater Demolition Teams/SEAL member and ex-pro wrestler, testified at trial that Kyle's story was a fabrication. Ventura said he never made the comments and that the altercation never happened. He said the book ruined his reputation in the tight-knit SEAL community.

Hawaii Supreme Court voids telescope construction permit

A long-awaited Hawaii Supreme Court ruling Wednesday invalidating a construction permit for what would be one of the world's largest telescopes represents a major setback for the $1.4 billion project on a mountain astronomers tout for having perfect star-gazing conditions.

The ruling is a victory for protesters who say they are fighting the project to curb development, preserve Native Hawaiian culture and protect the Big Island's Mauna Kea, a mountain many consider sacred.

The court ruled that the state Board of Land and Natural Resources should not have issued a permit for the telescope before a hearings officer reviewed a petition by a group challenging the project's approval.

"Quite simply, the board put the cart before the horse when it issued the permit before the request for a contested case hearing was resolved and the hearing was held," the court's 58-page opinion said. "Accordingly, the permit cannot stand."

The ruling sends the matter back for a new contested case hearing.

"Today's decision provides direction to a new land board and another opportunity for people to discuss Mauna Kea's future," state Attorney General Doug Chin said in a statement. "The attorney general's office will be advising the land board regarding next steps."

A group of universities in California and Canada plan to build the Thirty Meter Telescope with partners from China, India and Japan.

Alabama Supreme Court sets Jan. 21 execution for Brooks

The Alabama Supreme Court has set a Jan. 21 execution date for a man convicted of raping and murdering a woman more than 20 years ago.

If carried out, the death sentence against Christopher Brooks would mark Alabama's first execution in more than two years.

Justices handed down the order Monday setting the execution date. A federal judge on Monday also allowed Brooks to join a lawsuit filed by death row inmates challenging the state's new lethal injection drug combination as cruel and unusual punishment.

U.S. District Judge Keith Watkins said that Brooks has until Dec. 4 to file for a stay of execution.

Brooks was convicted for the 1993 murder and rape of Deann Campbell of Homewood.

Missouri execution on hold pending appeals court review

The U.S. Supreme Court put on hold the execution of a Missouri man at the last minute, sending the case back to an appeals court for further review.

Death row inmate Ernest Lee Johnson, who was convicted of beating three people to death with a claw hammer, was scheduled to die at 6 p.m. Tuesday at the Missouri state prison in Bonne Terre. But the Supreme Court on Tuesday night granted a stay while the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals considers whether a complaint from Johnson was properly dismissed.

Johnson, 55, claims that the execution drug Missouri uses could cause painful seizures because he still has part of a benign tumor in his brain, and surgery to remove the rest of the tumor in 2008 forced the removal of up to 20 percent of his brain tissue.

It wasn't immediately clear how quickly the appeals court might rule, but Mike O'Connell, a spokesman for the Missouri Department of Corrections, sent media witnesses who had already gathered Tuesday night for the execution home.

"There is no indication of any kind that this is going to be resolved tomorrow," O'Connell added.

In Missouri, the state has 24 hours — in this case, until 6 p.m. Wednesday — to fulfill the execution warrant or the execution has to be rescheduled.

A second appeal, to the Missouri Supreme Court, claims Johnson's life should be spared because he is mentally disabled.

The Missouri Attorney General's Office says both claims are without merit.

Houston Auto Accident Lawyer

Auto accidents account for the vast majority of personal injury claims in the US. After being involved in an auto accident most people aren’t sure what steps they should take immediately following the accident and in the days after.

The first thing to consider if you’ve been involved in an auto accident is the statute of limitations. This will vary among states and in Texas specifically, you have two years to file a case related to your accident. This two-year time limit begins the date of the accident, but it only applies to cases filed in court. For this reason it is important to file insurance claims as soon as possible – if negotiations or settlements break down along the way, you still have time to pursue damages through court. This two-year limitation doesn’t apply if a government entity was involved in the crash – for auto accidents which involve the government (say, an accident involving a public bus or unsafe public property) you have as little as 60-90 days to file an “administrative claim”. Even in a situation where a government entity was involved but didn’t seem to be at fault, it is important to file a claim as they might be more liable than you realize.

It’s important to consider who is at fault, as there are likely more parties involved than you realize. Perhaps there was a mechanical failure of the car which hit you; this would assume the automaker, and possibly auto part maker, are also at fault. Perhaps there was a large pothole which caused the other car to lose control; a situation like this might determine the government partially at fault for not maintaining road safety. It’s difficult to know who’s involved if you don’t have extensive knowledge of personal injury cases involving auto accidents and seeing the outcomes; this is why it’s always wise to consult with an attorney immediately following an accident.

The way fault is determined in Texas is also important to understand, as each state’s Comparative Fault laws will differ. Texas uses a modified comparative fault rule to determine how damages are awarded to injured parties, assuming that there isn’t only one party who is 100% responsible. For example, if you are seeking $100,000 in damages but the court determined the accident was 10% your fault, you will be awarded $90,000 (damages- %fault =award). Texas’s modified comparative fault law doesn’t apply if you are found to be 50% or more at fault, however; if you are 50% or more at fault, you won’t receive any award at all. This is why it is a “modified” comparative fault rule, as opposed to a “pure” comparative fault rule.

There is a lot to consider if you’ve been involved in an auto accident. Knowing when to file certain types of claims, how to file them, who all the involved parties are, and everything to include in your case can be very confusing, and is often done wrong. For example, administrative claims filed against the government are often dropped because the claimant didn’t include some necessary information. For these reasons it is always wise to consult with an experienced attorney. Contact The Salazar Law Firm for a free case evaluation if you or someone you know has been involved in an auto accident.