|
|
|
Another blow for state's anti-eavesdropping law
Attorney News |
2012/12/20 23:51
|
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday delivered another blow to a 50-year-old anti-eavesdropping law in Illinois, choosing to let stand a lower court finding that key parts of the hotly debated law run counter to constitutional protections of free speech.
In that critical lower-court ruling in May, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the law — one of the toughest of its kind in the country — violates the First Amendment when used against those who record police officers doing their jobs in public.
Civil libertarians say the ability to record helps guard against police abuse. The law's proponents, however, say it protects the privacy rights of officers and civilians, as well as ensures that those wielding recording devices don't interfere with urgent police work.
The Illinois Eavesdropping Act, enacted in 1961, makes it a felony for someone to produce an audio recording of a conversation unless all the parties involved agree. It sets a maximum punishment of 15 years in prison if a law enforcement officer is recorded.
As it drew the ire of civil liberties groups, state legislators endeavored to soften the law earlier this year, but those efforts stalled. The high-court's decision could prompt a renewed push to overhaul it.
But state Rep. Elaine Nekritz, a vocal opponent of the law, said court decisions hitting at its constitutionality could effectively nullify the most contentious aspects of the law and make further legislative action unnecessary. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court grants appeals from 2 people without lawyers
Attorney News |
2012/09/29 16:43
|
Well-heeled clients pay tens of thousands of dollars to hit the legal jackpot — Supreme Court review of their appeals. But on Tuesday, the court decided to hear cases filed by two people who couldn't afford or didn't bother to hire an attorney.
One was written in pencil and submitted by an inmate at a federal prison in Pennsylvania. The other was filed by a man with no telephone living on Guam.
Neither case seems destined to join the ranks of Gideon v. Wainwright, the landmark 1960s case filed by a prisoner with no lawyer that established a criminal defendant's right to a lawyer. Both show, however, that when the court is looking to resolve finicky legal issues and the right case shows up, it doesn't matter whether the author of the appeal wears a natty suit or prison garb.
Longtime Supreme Court practitioner Tom Goldstein called the granting of two such lawyerless cases at the same time "unheard of." But both cases chosen by the justices will help resolve the ability of civilians to sue the government over claims of improper actions of federal and military employees on the job.
Kim Lee Millbrook, a prisoner at the federal prison in Lewisburg, Pa., sued the government after accusing prison guards at the Special Management Unit of sexually assaulting him in May 2010. Prison officials said Millbrook's claim was unsubstantiated. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Case dropped against NY lawyer in alleged attack
Attorney News |
2012/09/14 12:17
|
Charges have been dropped against a prominent New York lawyer who was accused of attacking a woman in a Connecticut restaurant.
The Advocate of Stamford reports that Albert J. Pirro's lawyer said the state indicated it would not prosecute. Charges were dropped in Stamford Superior Court on Tuesday.
A spokesman for the state's attorney's office did not immediately return a call Wednesday.
Police say Pirro grabbed and shook a woman in a Greenwich restaurant last June. He was charged with unlawful restraint and disorderly conduct.
Pirro, a Republican fundraiser, is the estranged husband of Jeanine Pirro, a former Westchester District Attorney who is now a legal analyst with Fox News.
Albert Pirro spent 17 months in prison after being convicted of fraud, tax evasion and other charges in 2000. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indianapolis Business Litigation Law Firm
Attorney News |
2012/03/02 10:18
|
Whether they be fast-moving injunction proceedings or complex partnership disputes, clients bring their high-stakes business disputes to us.
Contract Disputes
Contract disputes are perhaps the most common form of disputes in business litigation. Ideally, every contract would be in writing and well-drafted. However, not all contracts are in writing, and even those that are written may not be well-drafted, leaving some issues unclear or not addressed at all. Often contract disputes involve these and other complex factual and legal issues. That’s where our commercial litigation attorneys excel.
Riley Bennett & Egloff Law is an Indianapolis based Business Litigation Law Firm and has expertise in resolving hundreds of contract disputes through negotiation, mediation, and litigation. Whether your disputes are simple or complex, their experience consistently guides their approach to successfully help resolve the matter in the careful manner it deserves. Visit www.rbelaw.com for more information.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proof of a Negative Not Required for Summary Judgment
Attorney News |
2012/02/27 10:20
|
The Indiana Court of Appeals has issued a decision that may have a large impact on summary judgment practice in Indiana. In Commr. of the Indiana Dept. of Ins. v. Black, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), the Court essentially held that Indiana will apply the standard set forth in Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986), at least in some circumstances.
Tim Black alleged that Dr. Harris and others rendered negligent care to his wife after she complained of chest pain. The negligence allegedly resulted in severe cardiac arrest and resulted in the need for a heart transplant. The medical review panel unanimously concluded that Dr. Harris failed to comply with the applicable standard of care.
After the panel decision, Black filed a petition seeking payment of $1 million from the Patient's Compensation Fund and asserted that he had settled with Dr. Harris for $250,000, thereby satisfying the qualifying amount to get to the fund. The Commissioner sought discovery of the settlement agreement but Black refused to produce it, saying it was confidential. Black did produce a copy of an unauthenticated check in the amount $250,000 from the Medical Assurance Co., made payable to Black and his counsel. Black also produced some correspondence between counsel that discussed a prospective settlement.
The Commissioner moved to dismiss the petition claiming that he needed the settlement agreement in order to make payment. It was not clear from the check whether the payment was for settlement with Dr. Harris or other defendants. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss and after conducting a hearing on damages, ordered the Commissioner to pay Black $1 million. The Commissioner appealed.
In considering the motion to dismiss, the Court of Appeals observed that matters outside the pleadings were submitted in support of the motion to dismiss and were relied on by the trial court. In light of this fact, the Court of Appeals, pursuant to T.R. 12(B), treated the motion as one for summary judgment. In a footnote, the court recognized that T.R. 12(B) requires that "all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such motion by Rule 56." Although no such "opportunity" was given, the court found there was "no prejudice" and proceeded to consider the appeal as a summary judgment case.
The court noted that the Commissioner's position on the motion required him to prove a negative?-that there was no settlement with Harris for $250,000. In Jarboe v. Landmark Cmty. Newspapers of Indiana, Inc., 644 N.E.2d 118 (Ind. 1994), the Indiana Supreme Court rejected the view that a party seeking summary judgment could simply point to the opponent’s burden of proof at trial and prevail unless the non-movant produced evidence supporting its claim or defense. This ruling has for many years been perceived as being at odds with Celotex, in which the U.S. Supreme Court reached a different conclusion under the federal rules. In 2000, Justice Boehm, in dissenting from a denial of transfer in Lenhart Tool & Die, Inc. v. Lumpe, 722 N.E.2d 824 (Ind. 2000), expressed the view that a party who puts forward evidence that a non-movant will be unable to present evidence to prove an essential element of its claim or defense, should be entitled to summary judgment if the non-movant fails to present such evidence. In Black, the Court of Appeals held: "Today, we accept Justice Boehm's views on this subject expressed in his dissent."
Having adopted this new standard, however, the Court of Appeals found that in this case, based on the unauthenticated check and the settlement correspondence, there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether a $250,000 settlement on Black’s claim against Harris had been accomplished. So, the Commissioner was not entitled to summary judgment. Black was also not entitled to a judgment on his claim since it was not clear that the required settlement with Harris for $250,000 had been consummated.
The Court held that the Commissioner is entitled to discovery of the settlement agreement and that the confidentiality term in the settlement agreement would not trump the Commissioner's right to such discovery. The case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
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
