|
|
|
Arizona sheriff could face civil contempt hearing in court
Court Watch News |
2015/01/19 14:39
|
An Arizona sheriff could face a civil contempt hearing in federal court for his office's repeated violations of orders issued in a racial-profiling case.
U.S. District Judge Murray Snow held a telephonic conference Thursday and told Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's attorneys that the six-term sheriff may face an April 21-24 hearing.
But a top lawyer with the Arizona chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union said Friday that Snow stopped short of officially ordering the hearing. The judge has given both sides until Jan. 23 to file additional paperwork.
At a Dec. 4 hearing, Snow sent strong signals that he intended to pursue contempt cases that could expose Arpaio to fines and perhaps jail time.
Lawyers for the sheriff didn't immediately return calls for comment on the possible civil contempt hearing.
Dan Pochoda, senior counsel for the Arizona ACLU, said Friday that Arpaio's office could face sanctions or fines for not following court orders and "fines to deter future bad acts and fines to compensate anyone permanently harmed" in the racial-profiling cases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court won't hear challenge to Vermont campaign law
Court Watch News |
2015/01/12 16:28
|
The Supreme Court won't hear a challenge to part of Vermont's campaign finance laws that impose contribution limits on political action committees.
The justices on Monday declined to hear an appeal from the Vermont Right to Life Committee, an anti-abortion group. The group argued that Vermont's campaign finance registration, reporting and disclosure requirements for PACs were too broad and unconstitutional.
The group argued that a subcommittee it created should not be subject to Vermont's $2,000 limit on contributions to PACs because the subcommittee does not give money directly to candidates and makes only independent expenditures.
But a federal judge rejected those arguments, finding that there was no clear accounting between the two committees. A federal appeals court agreed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Woman at center of 1961 Supreme Court case dies
Court Watch News |
2014/12/11 11:20
|
A woman who stood up to police trying to search her Ohio home in 1957 and ultimately won a landmark Supreme Court decision on searches and seizures has died.
Dollree Mapp died Oct. 31 in Conyers, Georgia. A relative and caretaker, Carolyn Mapp, confirmed her death Wednesday and said she died on the day after her birthday at the age of 91.
Mapp's Supreme Court case, Mapp v. Ohio, is a staple of law school textbooks and considered a milestone case on the Fourth Amendment, which requires law enforcement officers to get a warrant before conducting a search. The case curbed the power of police by saying evidence obtained by illegal searches and seizures could not be used in state court.
Mapp's path to the U.S. Supreme Court began on May 23, 1957, when three Cleveland police officers arrived at her home. There had just been a bombing at the home of Don King, who later became famous as a boxing promoter, and police believed that a person wanted for questioning was hiding in Mapp's home. The officers demanded to enter, but Mapp refused to let them in without a search warrant. More officers later arrived and police forced open a door, according to a summary of the case in the Supreme Court opinion.
When the officers confronted Mapp, one held up a piece of paper, claiming it was a warrant, and Mapp snatched it away. After a struggle an officer got the paper back, Mapp was handcuffed for being "belligerent," and officers searched her home. They didn't find the person they were looking for, but they did find some pornographic books and pictures. At the time, an Ohio law made having obscene material a crime, and Mapp was convicted, though she said the materials belonged to a former boarder. Prosecutors never produced a search warrant at trial.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court overturned Mapp's conviction in a 6-3 decision, ruling in 1961 that illegally obtained evidence could not be used in state court. The court had previously ruled that this was the case in federal court, but Mapp's case extended the "exclusionary rule" to states where the vast majority of criminal prosecutions take place, broadening the protection. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Securities Arbitration and Litigation
Court Watch News |
2014/11/21 16:15
|
The Law Offices of Place & Hanley, LLC is a nationally recognized
securities and commodities arbitration law firm which represents investors nationwide. At Place & Hanley we represent investors in claims against their brokers, broker dealers, investment advisors,financial advisors and insurance companies.
We have prosecuted claims against many Wall Street firms, such as Merrill Lynch, Wells Fargo, UBS, Oppenheimer, as well as some mid-sized broker dealers. Our securities lawyers advocate on behalf of their client's savings when their brokerage accounts were mishandled or when they have become victims of negligence, unsuitable investments, and financial fraud.
The staff and lawyers at the Law Offices of Place & Hanley are dedicated to representing wronged investors who have lost money from the willful or negligent acts of their broker or financial advisor. Our firm has experience recovering millions of dollars for both individuals and group claims, as well as class action litigation with securities related matters. In addition, we have fought on behalf of or clients for recovered punitive damages and attorney's fees.
Our firm has successfully brought negligent brokers to justice in many State and Federal Courts, in addition to Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Service (JAMS), the American Arbitration Association (AAA), the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), the National Futures Association(NFA), Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Service (JAMS), and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA f/k/a NASD). We firmly believe that the victims of these negligent firms deserve a chance at
financial recovery. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indian guru in deadly standoff due in court
Court Watch News |
2014/11/21 16:13
|
An Indian guru at the center of a deadly standoff with police was set to appear in court Friday after he was arrested at his sprawling ashram for refusing to answer murder charges.
Nearly 15,000 supporters of the 63-year-old Sant Rampal were evacuated from his compound in Haryana state before police took him away in an ambulance Wednesday. Previous attempts by riot police to enter the fortified estate, about 175 kilometers (110 miles) from New Delhi, had resulted in deaths and injuries as Rampal's followers, some of whom were armed, fought back.
The self-styled guru was taken to Chandigarh, the state capital, to appear before a court Friday.
He has repeatedly ignored orders to answer a 2006 murder charge against him. Police have filed additional charges against him and some of his supporters, including sedition, murder, criminal conspiracy and detaining people illegally in his fortress, said Jawahar Yadav, a Haryana state government spokesman.
More than 400 people have been arrested and about 200 others injured, including security forces, during the dayslong standoff.
The guru's followers on Wednesday handed over to police the bodies of four women who apparently died inside the 12-acre (5-hectare) complex. Another woman and an 18-month-old child died in a hospital after leaving the ashram.
The circumstances of the deaths were not clear and autopsies were being conducted. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
German court: church facilities can ban headscarf
Court Watch News |
2014/09/29 13:20
|
A German federal court has ruled that church-run institutions are within their rights to refuse to allow Muslim employees to wear headscarves at work.
The Federal Labor Court ruled Wednesday on a case brought by a former nurse at a Protestant church-linked hospital.
In 2010, the woman offered to return to work after maternity and sickness leave totaling four years and said she wanted to wear her headscarf at work. The hospital said no, and the woman went to court to seek compensation.
The federal court ruled that wearing a headscarf as a religious symbol isn't compatible with a contractual obligation to "neutral behavior" in a church-run facility. But it sent the woman's case back to a lower court, citing doubts over whether the hospital was technically a church institution. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Case of American jailed in Cuba back in US court
Court Watch News |
2014/09/22 14:54
|
A government subcontractor who has spent over four years imprisoned in Cuba should be allowed to sue the U.S. government over lost wages and legal fees, his attorney told an appeals court Friday.
Alan Gross was working in Cuba as a government subcontractor when he was arrested in 2009. He has since lost income and racked up legal fees, his attorney Barry Buchman told the three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. A lawyer for the government argued the claims are based on his detention in Cuba, making him ineligible to sue.
The panel is expected to issue a written ruling on the case at a later date.
A lower-court judge previously threw out Gross' lawsuit against the government in 2013, saying federal law bars lawsuits against the government based on injuries suffered in foreign countries. Gross' lawyers appealed.
Gross was detained in December 2009 while working to set up Internet access as a subcontractor for the U.S. government's U.S. Agency for International Development, which does work promoting democracy in the communist country. It was his fifth trip to Cuba to work with Jewish communities on setting up Internet access that bypassed local censorship. Cuba considers USAID's programs illegal attempts by the U.S. to undermine its government, and Gross was tried and sentenced to 15 years in prison.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
