|
|
|
Paralyzed Calif. man loses high court appeal
Court Watch News |
2008/11/17 18:50
|
| A paralyzed man who has sued hundreds of businesses over accommodations for the disabled lost his Supreme Court appeal Monday to get out from under a court order requiring special permission to file new lawsuits.pJarek Molski has been labeled a vexatious litigant by federal courts in California because he has filed roughly 400 lawsuits alleging that restaurants and other businesses are in violation of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act. Molski is paralyzed from the chest down and uses a wheelchair./ppThe justices rejected his case without comment./ppMolski frequently complains about the lack of handicapped van parking, counters that are too high, narrow doorways and grab-bars installed too high or low in bathrooms. In addition, he often says he was injured in the course of his visit. Targeted business owners often have settled out of court rather than pay attorneys and take the time to fight the lawsuits./ppA federal judge in Los Angeles described the lawsuits as extortion. The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ruling that Molski was an abusive litigant, although it noted that many of the establishments he sued probably were violating federal law./ppOn the other hand, the district court had ample basis to conclude that Molski trumped up his claims of injury, the appeals court said./ppThe case is Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 08-38. /p |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court wrestles with TV profanity case
Court Watch News |
2008/11/04 14:07
|
| The Supreme Court spent an hour on Tuesday talking about dirty words on television without once using any or making plain how it would decide whether the government could ban them.pThe dispute between the broadcast networks and the Federal Communications Commission is the court's first major broadcast indecency case in 30 years./ppAt issue is the FCC's policy, adopted in 2004, that even a one-time use of profanity on live television is indecent because some words are so offensive that they always evoke sexual or excretory images. So-called fleeting expletives were not treated as indecent before then./ppThe words in question begin with the letters F and S. The Associated Press typically does not use them./ppChief Justice John Roberts, the only justice with young children at home, suggested that the commission's policy is reasonable. The use of either word, Roberts said, is associated with sexual or excretory activity. That's what gives it its force./ppJustice John Paul Stevens, who appeared skeptical of the policy, doubted that the f-word always conveys a sexual image./p |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chicago torture victims face uphill legal battle
Court Watch News |
2008/10/27 19:42
|
| Melvin Jones says he screamed and begged for mercy as Chicago police touched metal clips to his feet and thighs, churned a hand-cranked device and sent shock waves of electricity through his body more than 25 years ago.pHe says he was told the torture would stop when he confessed to murder./ppJones is among the dozens of alleged torture victims who have little hope of winning compensation, despite the arrest this week of a former police commander who officials say lied about the abuse./ppSome have already completed prison terms for crimes they claim they confessed to only after police beat or electrocuted them. More than 20 remain in prison./ppBut the indictment of former police Lt. Jon Burge — while a moral victory — is unlikely to spring anyone from prison soon or prompt any quick settlement of claims for damages, lawyers for alleged torture victims say./ppThe state attorney general's office hasn't agreed to new trials for those claiming coerced confessions and the city opposes paying damages to alleged victims, they say./p |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ohio top court mulls Planned Parenthood files
Court Watch News |
2008/10/08 07:19
|
| Ohio Supreme Court justices appeared skeptical Tuesday that an abortion clinic's medical records on other patients are relevant to a lawsuit brought by parents of a 14-year-old girl who had an abortion without their consent.pLawyers for the girl's family argued that the information they seek is necessary to prove that Planned Parenthood of Cincinnati had a pattern of violating Ohio's parental consent law and failing to report abuse. The unusual case pits a single plaintiff against the privacy interests of a decade's worth of patients./ppPlanned Parenthood attorney Daniel Buckley says the clinic has a legal obligation to protect the privacy of its clients' records./ppCharles Miller, an attorney for the parents, told the justices the plaintiffs seek only three facts about other minors treated at the clinic: the girl's age, whether she had a sexually transmitted disease, and whether she entered the clinic pregnant. He said about 200 cases a year would be involved./ppChief Justice Thomas Moyer questioned how any of those three details would advance the family's case for damages./ppWhere's the linkage? he asked./ppThe court did not indicate when it would rule./ppThe case involves a girl who was 14 at the time of her abortion in 2004, when the state's parental consent law had not been completely settled by the courts. She had been impregnated by her 21-year-old youth soccer coach, John Haller./ppThe family's lawsuit accuses the Planned Parenthood clinic of failing to get parental consent, report suspected abuse or to inform the girl of risks and alternatives. It seeks unspecified damages./ppCourt records say the girl gave Haller's cell phone number as her father's, and clinic officials thought they had reached the father when they called inquiring about parental consent. Haller was later convicted on seven counts of sexual battery./ppAn appeals court ruled last year that records on other patients weren't necessary for the family's lawsuit./p |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
