|
|
|
San Antonio, Texas - Texas Probate
Lawyer News |
2013/06/22 12:38
|
| In San Antonio, Texas, probate refers to the legal procedures that involves distribution of a person's assets after their death. Many times families are told by court officials that it is advised to seek a probate attorney. Our attorney at Aldrich Law Firm can assist you with the legal process needed to close out their deceased loved one’s affairs. Many times they may not know exactly what probate is and this is where we come in to help using our years of knowledge and expertise in this matter. In some cases it may be possible to avoid probate altogether. The best way to avoid probate is through the use of appropriate estate planning. We can assist in this as well. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court reverses verdict in Calif. baby-selling case
Headline Court News |
2013/06/19 10:50
|
A midlevel California appeals court has overturned the conviction of a Salinas man who allegedly tried to sell his 8-month-old baby in a Walmart parking lot.
The state's 6th District Court of Appeal ruled Friday that the judge who originally heard the case gave incomplete instructions to the jury that ultimately convicted 41-year-old Patrick Fousek of child endangerment, The Monterey Herald reports.
Both Fousek and his girlfriend, Samantha Tomasini, were arrested two years ago when two women reported that Fousek had approached them and asked if they wanted to buy his infant daughter for $25. Fousek's lawyers argued during his 2011 trial that the offer had not been serious, but the appeals court said Monterey County prosecutors had presented enough evidence to support a guilty verdict.
But the court, in its unpublished opinion, said Superior Court Judge Pamela Butler should have been told they needed to agree unanimously on the specific act or acts on which they based their verdict. In Fousek's case, that could have been the proposed sale of the baby, the squalid home in which she was being raised, or the fact that Tomasini allegedly breastfed the little girl while high on methamphetamine. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court: $1M coverage for Conn. fire victim families
Headline Topics |
2013/06/14 18:37
|
Families suing the operator of a Hartford nursing home where 16 patients died in a 2003 fire suffered a setback Monday, when the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that the home's insurance coverage was $1 million instead of the $10 million claimed by the victims' relatives.
The justices' 3-2 decision reversed a lower court judge's interpretation of Greenwood Health Center's insurance policy in favor of the families. The high court instead found in favor of Boston-based Lexington Insurance Co., a subsidiary of American International Group Inc.
"It just seems completely inadequate," Van Starkweather, an attorney for one victim's family, said about the lower coverage figure. "I'm disappointed. It was a close decision. Three justices went with AIG. Two justices went with the victims."
A lawyer for Lexington Insurance declined to comment Monday.
The fire at Greenwood Health Center on Feb. 26, 2003, broke out after psychiatric patient Leslie Andino set her bed on fire while flicking a cigarette lighter. Officials at the time said it was the 10th deadliest nursing home fire in U.S. history. Andino was charged with 16 counts of arson murder, but was found incompetent to stand trial and committed to a psychiatric hospital.
Relatives of 13 of the 16 victims sued the nursing home's operator for cash damages, saying it failed to adequately supervise Andino. Hartford Superior Court Judge Marshall K. Berger Jr. ruled in 2009 that Greenwood's insurance policy with Lexington provided $250,000 in coverage for each plaintiff and the policy's maximum coverage was $10 million
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maryland DWI (driving while impaired) as Maryland DUI
Court Watch News |
2013/06/10 10:06
|
Charges made against an individual for drinking and driving in Maryland have two common names: Maryland DUI and Maryland DWI. To be considered for a DUI charge, your blood alcohol level minimum is .08 or higher. All other alcohol levels, such as .07, could get you arrested for a DWI. These arrests are made depending on how impaired your driving abilities are due to alcohol consumption.
There are many consequences in getting charged with a DUI. These include but are not limited to 45 days of a suspended license, and a fine of up to $1,000.00 in addition to one year in jail for a first DUI conviction, and $2,000.00 and two years in jail for a second offense DUI. It is also extremely severe for your driving record because a DUI conviction will result in 12 points for the state of Maryland.
Maryland DWI (driving while impaired) is the lesser offense in comparison with a DUI; however, it still has very harsh punishments, including a driver's license suspension of up to 60 days, 8 points on the Maryland Driver's License record, up to $500 and two months in jail for a first offense, and up to $500.00 and one year in jail for a second offense.
It is crucial to act upon your DUI or DWI arrest in Maryland and to be sure a MVA administrative hearing is requested in writing within 10 days. The driving privileges are automatically suspended unless the hearing is requested. A refusal to take the breathalyzer test is admissible in court as evidence of guilt and also may result in 120 days of driving privileges being suspended.
With the help of a Maryland DUI/DWI attorney, you can outset to scrutinize the legality of the arrest, validity of the charges, and to assert all viable defenses in court. Our Maryland Criminal Lawyers have an extensive experience and expertise in litigating successfully a Maryland DUI or a Maryland DWI charge obtaining dismissals, diversions or probation before Judgment when appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court Upholds Rifle Sales Reporting Requirement
Network News |
2013/06/02 11:06
|
A federal appeals court panel has unanimously upheld an Obama administration requirement that dealers in southwestern border states report when customers buy multiple high-powered rifles.
The firearms industry trade group, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, and two Arizona gun sellers argued that the administration overstepped its legal authority in the 2011 regulation, which applies to gun sellers in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.
But the three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said that the requirement was "unambiguously" authorized under the Gun Control Act of 1968.
The challengers argued that the requirement unlawfully creates a national firearms registry, but the court said because it applies to a small percentage of gun dealers, it doesn't come close to creating one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court date set for case involving dress code
Legal Business |
2013/06/01 11:07
|
A federal judge has set a trial date for a case challenging how three school administrators enforced the dress code at a Sumter County middle school.
The Item of Sumter reports that U.S. District Judge Joseph Anderson has set the trial for March.
In the lawsuit, Charles Smith alleges the enforcement of the dress code at Furman Middle School was arbitrary and caused humiliation for students.
The lawsuit alleges Smith's son was targeted by administrators after Smith started a petition campaign to have the school's principal removed. The lawsuit says the boy, who now attends a private school, was suspended for wearing a jacket with a Columbia logo.
The suit names the principal and two assistants. The district says the dress code enforcement was proper.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wal-Mart pleads guilty in hazardous waste
Headline Topics |
2013/06/01 11:07
|
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. will pay $81.6 million after pleading guilty on Tuesday to criminal charges of improperly disposing of fertilizer, pesticides and other hazardous products that were pulled from stores in California and Missouri because of damaged packaging and other problems.
The retail giant entered the plea in federal court in San Francisco to misdemeanor counts of violating the Clean Water Act and another environmental law regulating pesticides. The fine also settled Environmental Protection Agency allegations.
In Kansas City, Mo., the company pleaded guilty to improperly handling pesticides.
The plea agreements ended a nearly decade-old investigation involving more than 20 prosecutors and 32 environmental groups that has cost Wal-Mart a total of $110 million.
Court documents show illegal dumping occurred in 16 California counties from Del Norte to Orange between 2003 and 2005. Federal prosecutors said the company didn't train its employees on how to handle and dispose hazardous materials at its stores.
The result, prosecutors say, was that waste was tossed into trash bins or poured into sewer systems. The waste also was improperly taken to one of several product return centers throughout the U.S. without proper safety documentation, authorities said. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
