Today's Date: Add To Favorites   
Md. man's leave lawsuit lands in Supreme Court
Topics in Legal News | 2012/01/12 09:33
A man who sued the state of Maryland after allegedly being fired for trying to take a 10-day medical leave from his state job will have his case heard Wednesday by the U.S. Supreme Court, and the outcome could affect whether state workers nationwide can sue in similar situations.

Daniel Coleman was fired from his job overseeing contracts for the Maryland court system in 2007. He says he was fired after asking for time off for doctor-ordered bed rest to deal with hypertension and diabetes. Under a law passed by Congress and enacted in 1993, the Family and Medical Leave Act, employees can take up to three months of unpaid leave for certain reasons, including a serious health issue. After being fired, Coleman sued, claiming a violation of the leave law and discrimination, a claim that was later thrown out by a lower court. He asked Maryland to pay him a reported $1.1 million in compensatory and punitive damages.

But lawyers for Maryland argue Congress was wrong to give employees like Coleman the ability to sue state employers for money damages. Unlike private employers, states are generally exempt from such lawsuits. Two lower courts have agreed with Maryland that Congress overstepped its authority, and 26 other states are also supporting the state's arguments.


Supreme court won't let man appeal murder conviction
Topics in Legal News | 2012/01/10 09:50
The Supreme Court won't let a man sentenced to prison for murder appeal his conviction despite his complaints that his window for further consideration was unfairly closed.

The high court on Tuesday upheld the ruling by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Rafael Arriaza Gonzalez.

Gonzalez appealed his conviction for murder and his 30-year sentence in 2006 but missed one of the state lower court appeals deadlines. The federal courts since then have refused to hear his appeal, saying he filed in federal court one month after the required one-year deadline.

The courts started counting from the day Gonzalez missed the state court deadline, but the inmate said they should have started counting after the Texas courts officially declared his case over.

The high court said that the lower courts had correctly calculated the deadline for Gonzalez to file. Justice Sonya Sotomayor wrote that Gonzalez's one-year deadline to appeal to the federal court began when he missed the state court filing date. Since Gonzalez filed one month after that one-year cutoff, the judgment against him became final, she said.


Nevada Supreme Court takes up foreclosure case
Topics in Legal News | 2012/01/05 09:37
The Nevada Supreme Court weighed arguments Wednesday on whether U.S. Bank can foreclose on a Douglas County couple's home despite findings by a mediator that not all required documents were presented during mediation.

Lawyers involved in the case said the court's ruling could have wide repercussions on foreclosures in a state hard-hit by the collapse of the housing market.

Attorneys for Andrew and Lauretta Davis want justices to send the case back to Washoe County District Court for a hearing on whether documents handled by Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, or MERS, were signed by an authorized officer and whether they properly conveyed the Davis' mortgage from the now-defunct Ownit Mortgage Solutions to U.S. Bank.

The couple's attorneys claim MERS lacked the authority to assign the loan to the bank.

"The certification for this assignment was not produced," attorney Mark Mausert argued before six of the high court's seven justices. Chief Justice Nancy Saitta missed the session but is expected to listen to arguments before a ruling is handed down at a later date.

A lawyer for the lender countered that the arguments raised by the Davis' attorneys go beyond the scope of Nevada's Foreclosure Mediation program, and that disputes over the validity of documents should be addressed in a separate lawsuit.


Court delays border-crossing pollution rule
Topics in Legal News | 2012/01/02 15:22
A federal court Friday put on hold a controversial Obama administration regulation aimed at reducing power plant pollution in 27 states that contributes to unhealthy air downwind.

More than a dozen electric power companies, municipal power plant operators and states had sought to delay the rules until the litigation plays out. A federal appeals court in Washington approved their request Friday.

The EPA, in a statement, said it was confident that the rule would ultimately be upheld on its merits. But the agency said it was "disappointing" the regulation's health benefits would be delayed, even if temporarily.

Republicans in Congress have attempted to block the rule using legislation, saying it would shutter some older, coal-fired power plants and kill jobs. While those efforts succeeded in the Republican-controlled House, the Senate — with the help of six Republicans — in November rejected an attempt to stay the regulation. And the White House had threatened to veto it.

The rule, finalized by the Environmental Protection Agency in July, replaces a 2005 Bush administration proposal that was rejected by a federal court.


Court OKs immunity for telecoms in wiretap case
Topics in Legal News | 2011/12/31 13:17
A federal appeals court has ruled as constitutional a law giving telecommunications companies legal immunity for helping the government with its email and telephone eavesdropping program.

Thursday's unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court decision regarding the 2008 law.

The appeal concerned a case that consolidated 33 different lawsuits filed against various telecom companies, including AT&T, Sprint Nextel, Verizon Communications Inc. and BellSouth Corp. on behalf of these companies' customers.

The court noted comments made by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence regarding the legal immunity's role in helping the government gather intelligence.

The case stemmed from new surveillance rules passed by Congress in 2008 that included protection from legal liability for telecommunications companies that allegedly helped the U.S. spy on Americans without warrants.



[PREV] [1] ..[23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31].. [54] [NEXT]
All
Securities Class Action
Headline Legal News
Stock Market News
Court News
Court Watch
Legal Interview
Securities Lawyers
Securities Law Firm
Topics in Legal News
Attorney News
Legal Focuses
Opinions
Legal Marketing
Law Firm News
Investment Fraud Litigation
Trump says Russia and Ukrain..
Supreme Court rejects Roy Mo..
Bolsonaro and Lula head to a..
Attorney says woman will ple..
Supreme Court lets quick dep..
Maduro ally Alex Saab pleads..
Jury convicts Vermont man of..
Trump’s ‘grand conspiracy..
House approves sweeping Russ..
Supreme Court rejects Trump ..
Court rejects Trump's emerge..
Jerry Sandusky appears remot..
Former New Mexico lawmaker p..
Court lets White House conti..
Influencer pleads guilty to ..
Man convicted in murder-for-..


   Lawyer & Law Firm Links
New York Adoption Lawyers
New York Foster Care Lawyers
Adoption Pre-Certification
www.lawrsm.com
Car Accident Lawyers
Sunnyvale, CA Personal Injury Attorney
www.esrajunglaw.com
Lane County, OR DUI Law Attorney
Eugene DUI Lawyer. Criminal Defense Law
www.mjmlawoffice.com
Family Law in East Greenwich, RI
Divorce Lawyer - Erica S. Janton
Post-Divorce Issues Attorney
   Legal Resource Links
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