|
|
|
SC Supreme Court to rule on public autopsy reports
Attorney News |
2014/02/03 16:21
|
South Carolina's Supreme Court will begin grappling with that question Wednesday, when it hears a lawsuit by a Sumter County newspaper against the county's coroner.
The Item newspaper wants the high court to toss out a lower court's ruling that said autopsies do not have to be made public because they do not fall under the state's Freedom of Information Act.
The coroner says autopsies should be considered medical records that are exempt from public view. The newspaper says autopsy reports are investigative tools, not medical records.
Open records advocates say the Sumter County case is an example of government officials making it harder to get public documents.
It's a debate that is far from settled nationally. About 15 states across the U.S. allow the public release of an autopsy report. About a half-dozen other states allow the release of reports not being used as part of a criminal investigation. The rest severely restrict what's released or don't give any information from the reports, according to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
Keeping autopsy records secret closes off an important tool to make sure police agencies do the right thing when they investigate deaths, especially people shot and killed by officials or who die in custody, said Frank LoMonte, executive director of the Student Press Law Center.
"There is any number of cases over the years where journalist watchdogs have been able to shed light on suspicious circumstances only by having access on those records," LoMonte said. "And those records don't just show culpability, they can clear someone, too." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pakistan court dismisses Musharraf medical request
Legal Focuses |
2014/02/03 16:21
|
A Pakistani court hearing the case against former military ruler Pervez Musharraf on charges of high treason rejected Friday a request that he be allowed to go abroad for treatment, his lawyer and a court official said.
Instead, they said, it issued an arrest warrant for the retired general. But the warrant is "bailable" — meaning he can avoid jail by applying for bail and depositing a bond of 2.5 million rupees (about $20,000). The court said it didn't have the authority to remove his name from the exit control list which restricts him from going abroad.
While Musharraf can't leave the country, it's unlikely he would actually end up in handcuffs immediately and still unclear whether he will ever appear in court — a scene that could be humiliating not just to Musharraf, but to the country's politically powerful military.
The judges' decision is the latest in the legal battles that Musharraf has faced ever since returning to his homeland in March 2013 to take part in the country's elections. Instead of returning to a hero's welcome, he was almost immediately hit with a barrage of cases, threats from the Pakistani Taliban and was disbarred from running in the election.
A lawyer for Musharraf, Mohammed Ali Saif, said the judges ruled that Musharraf must appear in court on Feb. 7.
"We are of the view that no reasonable excuse has been offered to justify the failure of the accused to appear before the court, there is no alternate except to issue a bailable warrant of arrest for the accused," said the court registrar Abdul Ghani Soomro, reading from the court's decision.
Musharraf seized power in a 1999 coup, but became deeply unpopular and was forced to step down in 2008. He later left the country. The high treason case stems from his 2007 decision to impose a state of emergency and detain judges. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Viacom, Fox want to run anti-smoking ads too
Legal Focuses |
2014/01/30 15:49
|
More TV networks want to gain from tobacco companies' mandate to run anti-smoking ads that will cost tens of millions of dollars.
Fox Broadcasting and the company behind MTV, Comedy Central and BET argue that a court-ordered plan to air anti-tobacco ads on ABC, CBS and NBC won't do a good job reaching young adult and black viewers. Those populations were aggressively targeted by the tobacco industry and are areas of concern for the public health community.
Fox, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch's Twenty-First Century Fox Inc., and Viacom Inc. are asking the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., to include its channels in the anti-smoking ad purchase.
The required ads stem from a 2006 ruling that the nation's largest cigarette makers concealed the dangers of smoking for decades. A judge ordered the tobacco companies to pay for corrective statements related to issues such as the adverse health effects of smoking, the addictiveness of smoking and nicotine and the negative health effects of secondhand smoke. The companies involved in the case include Richmond, Va.-based Altria Group Inc., owner of the biggest U.S. tobacco company, Philip Morris USA; No. 2 cigarette maker, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., owned by Winston-Salem, N.C.-based Reynolds American Inc.; and No. 3 cigarette maker Lorillard Inc., based in Greensboro, N.C.
Along with the TV ads, the tobacco companies are also meant to publish statements in newspapers, websites and on cigarette packs.
The tobacco companies and the federal government last month agreed on how to publish the statements. The court must still approve the deal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court: Disgraced ex-journalist can't practice law
Headline Legal News |
2014/01/30 15:49
|
The California Supreme Court on Monday denied a law license to a disgraced former journalist who was caught fabricating dozens of stories for major national magazines.
The unanimous seven-judge court ruled that Stephen Glass had insufficiently rehabilitated himself in the years since his misdeeds, saying he "failed to carry his heavy burden of establishing his rehabilitation and current fitness."
Glass' misdeeds stunned the profession when they were uncovered in 1998. His widely publicized fall from grace earned the rising star a prominent place in the pantheon of journalistic cheats and scoundrels such as Janet Cooke and Jayson Blair — two prominent reporters caught fabricating quotes, sources and entire stories.
Glass' ethical missteps were turned into the Hollywood movie "Shattered Glass" and recounted in his novel "The Fabulist," for which he earned $190,000. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lawmakers push back against Washington high court
Court Watch |
2014/01/27 14:45
|
Washington state's highest court has exercised an unusual amount of power on education funding, and it's prompted some lawmakers to raise constitutional concerns.
Before last year's legislative session, the court ruled that the state wasn't meeting its obligation to amply pay for basic education. In response, the Legislature added about $1 billion in school-related spending, and lawmakers widely agree they'll add more funding in coming years.
Earlier this month, the court went a step further, analyzing specific funding targets while telling lawmakers to come back with a new plan by the end of April.
Those specific demands have irked budget writers in the Legislature.
"They are way out of their lane," said Republican Sen. Michael Baumgartner.
Baumgartner expects lawmakers will continue adding "substantially new resources" to the state education system, but he said the court's position could erode the proper balance of power in Olympia. Baumgartner hopes lawmakers will ignore the court's latest demands, or he fears justices may exercise more power going forward. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Investment Fraud Litigation |
|
|
|
|
Securities fraud, also known as stock fraud and investment fraud, is a practice that induces investors to make purchase or sale decisions on the basis of false information, frequently resulting in losses, in violation of the securities laws. Securities Arbitration. Generally speaking, securities fraud consists of deceptive practices in the stock and commodity markets, and occurs when investors are enticed to part with their money based on untrue statements.
|
|
|
| |
| |
| |
|
The content contained on the web site has been prepared by Securities Law News as a service to the internet community and is not intended to constitute legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case. | Affordable Law Firm Website Design by Law Promo |
|
Legal News RSS Feed
